Sitting of 26 May 1976

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.

  EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Edinburgh Merchant Company; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 8th June and to be printed. [Bill 155.]
  EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to East Kilbride District Council; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 8th June and to be printed. [Bill 154.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Council Houses (Sale)
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Humberside since January 1976.
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses were sold in 1975.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I will, with permission, answer this Question and Question No. 3 together.
    In 1975, English authorities reported the sale of about 2,000 council dwellings not built specifically for sale. In Humberside five such dwellings have been sold since January 1976.
    Mr. Brotherton: As was the case with Lincolnshire some weeks ago, is that not a disgracefully low figure? Will the Minister assure the House that in view of the recent local government elections the Government will now actively encourage local authorities to sell council houses to sitting tenants?
    Mr. Freeson: The Government stand by the policy advice issued in Circular 70/74 soon after we came into office and which was discussed in a recent debate. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman turns his attention to the local authorities in question before asking me what their particular policies should be.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my hon. Frend stand firmly by the circular to which he has referred, which stated that it was generally wrong to sell council houses where there was a substantial need for them? There are very few places in the country where there is not a substantial need. Will he insist on all councils, including Conservative-controlled councils, observing that ban, just as the Conservative Government insisted on Labour councils raising rents and actually punishing councillors who did not do so?
    Mr. Freeson: I can only repeat what was made clear in the course of the recent debate and on other occasions: that the Government certainly, as my hon. Friend requests, stand by the advice issued in that circular.
    Mr. Speaker: Is the Minister answering Question No. 3 with this Question?
    Mr. Freeson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Montgomery: I do not know who has permitted the Minister to answer Questions Nos. 1 and 3 together, because they are totally different. Does he accept that the sale of council houses will not have much effect on council house waiting lists, because the people in those houses will stay on to rent them if they

    415
    are not allowed to buy them? Will he therefore withdraw Circular 70/74 and issue a new circular asking local authorities to get on with the job of selling council houses to sitting tenants?
    Mr. Freeson: There are two or three points in the hon. Gentleman's question. It would be wrong to generalise about the effect of sales on council house lists. One has to look, as we have advised and urged and will continue to urge, at particular local situations. I would only make the point—it is difficult to go into detail at Question Time—that the hon. Gentleman must take account of the fact that there are remits which vary from one area to another. However, they are an important factor to take into account alongside the building programme that a particular local authority is undertaking in relation to the demand on the waiting list—growing, static or whatever it might be—in a particular situation.
    Dr. Edmund Marshall: In respect of Humberside, does my hon. Friend have a figure available for the total length of waiting lists for council accommodation in all the districts of the county?
    Mr. Freeson: I am afraid, not without notice.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister accept that where there is surplus housing in the private sector it makes more sense to give council tenants grants to enable them to move from council housing into the private sector and so leave the council housing available to others who are on the waiting list?
    Mr. Freeson: If I understand the background to the question correctly, it would be a mistake, and it would be politically and policywise stupid, to sell off rented accommodation which is required to meet local waiting lists while empty accommodation is available in the owner-occupied market in the same area.

    Local Government Finance (Layfield Report)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the publication of the Layfield Committee's report on local government finance.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): I would refer
    416
    my hon. Friend to my statement to the House of 19th May.
    Mr. Canavan: In respect of local income tax, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the Government's devolution proposals? Would it not be better to give the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies some revenue-raising powers, such as local income tax, in order to make them more responsible for raising the money they will spend, instead of simply relying on a block grant from the Treasury?
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend will be aware that that proposal has not been made either by the Government in our own proposals or by the Layfield Committee in its report. But, of course, the Scottish local authorities, if in fact the scheme for a local income tax found favour, would be included in the proposal.
    Mr. McCrindle: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we accepted the Layfield recommendations as they are we would run the risk of getting the worst of both worlds? Would it not be far better either to retain the rating system or to go over to a system of local income tax without in the process needing to find an additional 12,000 civil servants?
    Mr. Shore: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the introduction of a local income tax and the retention of the rating system being, as he says, the worst of both worlds. However, this is a matter on which he would not expect me at present to announce a view. I am genuinely seeking to hear the views not only of hon. Members but also, of course, of the many bodies outside the House with a close interest in the matter.
    Mr. Corbett: In view of the sustained and continuing interest in the matter of local rates, will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a popular edition of Layfield, much attenuated and highly shortened, aiming to get it on the market for 10p or 15p, and inviting people who buy it to complete some kind of questionnaire, which would help them to face up to the hard realities of the choices involved in Layfield?
    Mr. Shore: I am a little dubious about the posibility of putting this very complex report to people in quite that

    417
    sense of inviting them to subscribe to particular propositions in the form of a questionnaire. However, whether or not a more popular version of Layfield could be put together and whether that would be useful in terms of consultation is something to which I shall give further thought.
    Mr. Crawford: Returning to his reply to the lion. Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan), would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the logical sequel to the establishment of a Scottish Assembly is the scrapping of the regions in Scotland?
    Mr. Shore: It is not for me to deliver an opinion on that at present, but no doubt all these matters will be rehearsed and fully debated in the forthcoming debates when the House turns its mind to the proposals for devolution to Scotland.
    Mr. Speed: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) mean that the Government's view on Layfield will not become clear until early next year, after the entire consultation period?
    Mr. Shore: I think that our full and considered response to Layfield should await the receipt and study of the many submissions which we have asked people to make to us. There may be certain matters within Layfield on which it might be possible to announce a decision at an earlier date.

    Parish Councillors
    Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to enable all members of a parish council to speak and vote at the parish meeting of the corresponding parish.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): We will certainly keep this point in mind for further consideration.
    Dr. Marshall: Is it not anomalous that a person living just outside the boundaries of a parish can be elected to the parish council but even when so elected is unable to participate in the annual parish meeting?
    Mr. Barnett: I accept that this is something of an anomaly, but a parish councillor can always attend and speak at a parish meeting by invitation.

    Southampton
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pay an official visit to Southampton.
    Mr. Shore: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Adley: If the right hon. Gentleman does go to Southampton, will he take the opportunity to meet the chairman of the housing committee and let him explain to him that the fact that the Conservative Party won 46 out of 51 seats in Southampton is directly related to the policy of the Conservative group of seeking to sell council houses to sitting tenants? As the Secretary of State is a democrat and said at the time of the referendum that he would always wish to accept the will of the electorate, will he assure the House that the Government will take no steps to frustrate the will of the electorate, expressed so clearly on this matter?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Member's question may be founded on a false premise—that is, that the success of the Conservative Party in the recent local elections in Southampton was uniquely due to its policy on the sale of council houses. If that is so, the Conservative Party has an awful lot of explaining to do about what happened in Manchester, where a similar programme was put forward in the most generous terms yet no change in control resulted. If the hon. Gentleman visits Southampton again, therefore, I hope that he will continue to draw the attention of his friends on the council to the terms of Circular 70/74.
    Mr. Heffer: If my right hon. Friend should eventually decide to go to Southampton, will he make a detour and go via Liverpool, where he will discover that the Conservative Party did not win 46 seats in the local elections and that there is a great deal of urban deprivation? Will he, therefore, consider for Liverpool a similar scheme to that which has just been announced by the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to Glasgow, where houses will be built and industry will be developed by the Scottish

    419
    Development Agency and the Scottish Housing Agency without any of the finance falling on the local rates?
    Mr. Shore: I hope in time to visit many of our more successful port cities during the next year or so. On the specific question about the problems of Liverpool, problems which it shares with other major cities in terms of urban deprivation, we are making intensive studies of these problems and I hope in due course to be able to report further.
    Mr. Raison: Will the right hon. Gentleman make no fewer than 89 other detours on his way to Southampton so as to visit the 89 other authorities which went Conservative at the district elections? He will then find overwhelming evidence of a desire for the widespread sale of council houses.
    Mr. Shore: I shall not limit my visits simply to Conservative-controlled strongholds. However, I shall of course be very willing, on appropriate occasions, to hear the views of leaders of councils of whatever political hue they happen to be.

    New Town Houses (Sale)
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now introduce a Bill to give families living in new town coporation houses a statutory right to buy their homes.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: No, Sir.
    Mr. Arnold: Would not the Minister agree that the Government's position as revealed in the debate last week nevertheless remains somewhat ambiguous? If discussions are to take place with new town chairmen, why should that fact of itself preclude a statutory right to buy when and where local conditions permit?
    Mr. Barnett: This matter must be discussed with the new town chairmen, because the Government's policy is to try to look at this matter new town by new town in the light of local considerations and the fact that we must give higher priority to those who rely on rented accommodation for a home.
    Mr. Moonman: Would not my hon. Friend agree that much of this argument by the Opposition is a diversion which conceals a great lack of interest—indeed,
    420
    antipathy—towards the whole concept of new towns?
    Hon. Members: Rubbish.
    Mr. Barnett: I do not know whether to agree with my hon. Friend about this. I always like to have a generous view of the views of the Opposition on this matter. I would only say that the difference between the Opposition and ourselves is that they take rather a doctrinaire approach to this matter.
    Mr. Carlisle: Since the Minister has agreed under great pressure to change his dogmatic approach on this matter, will he give me an assurance that the arangements which are made in the meetings with the chairmen of new town corporations will ensure that tenants in the new town of Runcorn who wish to do so will have the opportunity to buy their houses, an idea which is supported by the development corporation?
    Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend has never been dogmatic on this matter, nor has the Labour Party. The reason why a ban was placed on the sale of new town houses is as well known to the hon. and learned Member as it is to the House—that when we took over there were long waiting lists in many of the new towns as a consequence of indiscriminate sale during the Conservatives' period of office. We shall have to look at the situation in Runcorn in the light of local considerations, and I am sure that that is what will be done.
    Mr. Corbett: When my hon. Friend is involved in consultations with the chairmen of the new town authorities, will he bear in mind that many of them are responsible for repairing the neglect of previous Tory councils which are now within the boundaries of new towns because of local government reorganisation? Will he take into account the appallingly long waiting lists, such as that in my area, which were inherited from districts which are now within the new towns?
    Mr. Barnett: We will bear that in mind.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: How do the Government justify treating tenants in council houses owned by local housing authorities differently from tenants of the new town development corporations?
    Mr. Barnett: Tenants of council houses owned by local authorities are in one situation and the tenants of new town houses are in another situation determined by the responsibilities of new town corporations to national as well as local needs.

    National Water Council
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends meeting the Chairman of the National Water Council.
    Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friends and I are in frequent contact with the Chairman of the National Water Council. We met him and the chairmen of the water authorities recently to discuss the problems of the water shortage. Future meetings will be fixed whenever necessary.
    Mr. Morris: As the right hon. Gentleman has been meeting the chairmen and other senior representatives weekly for several weeks, has he any news for the nation about the situation in the drought areas? Is he proposing that the coordinating body should give any guidance to industry and domestic consumers about saving water?
    Mr. Shore: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a special interest in this matter. We are maintaining a close contact at official levels and receiving weekly reports from various water authorities. We are monitoring the situation closely. On the present state of play I think that I am still right to confirm that there is not a national problem. However, there is a problem in certain water authority areas, but even there it is localised. We are looking to the future and anticipating both a normal and a dry summer.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, although there may be local problems, there will be a growing shortage of water in future years? Will he look with urgency at experiments for providing cisterns that do not need major flushes on each occasion that they are used and thus save water? Such experiments have been conducted in other countries.
    Mr. Shore: I am glad to take whatever technical advice is offered on these matters, but I hesitate to offer any myself.
    422
    On the larger question of the increased use of water by industry and domestic consumers in the longer term, the Water Council was set up to keep the matter under review and the larger water authorities were established with that in mind. We are not yet satisfied with the arrangements and we have issued a consultative document to elicit further views on this important matter.

    Roads (Traffic Lanes)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered introducing fast traffic lanes for vehicles carrying three or more persons.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): Yes. Powers already exist for local authorities, or the Secretary of State in the case of trunk roads, to provide priority lanes for any specified types of traffic. In practice these are normally used as bus lanes.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is the Minister aware of the experiment in the United States along the lines of my Question? Does he know that as a result of that experiment the number of commuters travelling one to a car has been substantially reduced, thereby reducing the density of commuter-time traffic and speeding it up? Will the Minister consider introducing a similar experiment on trunk roads in this country?
    Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman has chosen an appropriate date for his American idea. The situation is different in the United States where the experiment applies to urban motorways, which have as many as 17 lanes in which to segregate the traffic. The scheme is not carried out in city streets.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that taxis are an intermediate form of public transport and should be regarded as part of the public transport system? Is his Department in close contact with the GLC about the proposed speedbus arrangements?
    Mr. Marks: We are having discussions about the speedbus. Taxis in London are easily recognisable but they are not always so in other towns. Oxford is carrying out an experiment with taxis which involves the word "Taxi" being

    423
    prominently displayed on the vehicles. My Department certainly has no objection to that experiment.

    Direct Labour (Review)
    Mr. Fitchasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider appointing a director of housing or a housing manager to the working party which was recently set up to review the operation and structure of direct labour organisations.
    Mr. Freeson: An assistant director in the Greater London Council's housing maintenance department attends as an observer and the working party will seek advice from other experts in this field.
    Mr. Fitch: Would it not be better for the Minister to appoint someone in a full-time capacity rather than as an observer? Does he not agree that someone with the expertise of a director of housing should be a member of the working party?
    Mr. Freeson: I am reluctant to increase the size of the working party. I assure my hon. Friend that the observer is a participating attender. The special representation from the local government side is nominated by the local authority associations. It includes finance officers, works directors, city engineers, county surveyors, and architects. However, I shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind should we decide to increase the size of the working party.
    Mr. Michael Latham: When is the working party likely to report?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not in a position to say.

    Council house Building
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses were started in the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 respectively; and how many are planned for 1976.
    Mr. Freeson: Totals of 99,549, 133,528 and 153,366 new council dwellings were started in Great Britain in 1973, 1974 and 1975 respectively. A total of 36,762 was started in the first quarter of this year. Taking the public sector as a whole, starts were up 22 per cent. on the same period last year.
    Mr. Janner: I congratulate my hon. Friend on those results. Is he aware that they are unlikely to continue because so many Tory councils which have been elected to power have been celebrating their victories by threatening to cut council house-building programmes? Does he not deplore any such cuts? Will he confirm that the Government's top priority in council house building is to provide homes for those who need them most?
    Mr. Freeson: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his opening remarks. I am fearful of what may take place in a number of areas as a result of policy changes. I shall be watching the position closely. I hope that the fears expressed in some quarters and, indeed, the desire expressed in some Tory quarters—that there should be a cut-back in house building by local authorities—will not be substantiated. I hope that we shall see the present levels sustained as they have been in the past two years. I look forward to hearing some specific and positive encouragement from Conservative spokesmen on this subject.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not the case that, seasonally adjusted, council house starts fell by 14 per cent. between February and April this year compared with the previous three months? Does the Minister agree with the view of spokesmen of the house-building industry that that fall is likely to continue for industrial reasons?
    Mr. Freeson: I have no evidence whatever from any spokesmen of the house-building industry to suggest that there will be a fall in local authority housing starts. The only suggestions in that direction have been from the Tory Party.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative-controlled authorities, which have never shown any enthusiam for council house building or their tenants, will be tempted to substitute a policy of selling council houses for one of building them? What steps are to be taken in that situation?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not in a position to say what steps we shall take. I have indicated that we shall be watching the situation very closely and that I hope that the fears will not be realised. I repeat that I should welcome an exhortation from

    425
    leading Conservative spokesmen nationally in favour of continued and increased building of local authority housing by local authorities throughout the country.
    Mr. Raison: Will the Minister now acknowledge—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"]—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) that there has been a fall of 14 per cent. in public housing starts over the past quarter compared with the previous quarter? Is he aware that in a recent publication Shelter estimated that the Public Expenditure White Paper indicated that council building would fall below 150,000?
    Mr. Freeson: I repeat my question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall repeat it no matter how much shouting there is from the Opposition Benches. I repeat my request that leading national spokesmen of the Tory Party should call upon their fellow members of the party in local government to sustain the house-building programme.
    Now I shall deal with the points that were put in order to dodge the question that I put to the leading spokesmen of the Tory Party.
    Mr. Michael Morris: We are not in Government.
    Mr. Freeson: Variations in quarterly figures have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) before, and he has proved to be inaccurate every time. The annual national figures have continued to rise. Subject to the concern about the future conduct of Tory-controlled councils, we hope and believe—and certainly the Government will make the resources available for this—that local authority house-building programmes will be sustained at their increased level of the past two years.
    The question of the figures in the White Paper has been raised by the hon. Gentleman before, and we have had detailed correspondence since. There are no figures in the White Paper to support any suggestion that there will be a reduction in local authority housing starts so far as the Government are concerned. The only source of anxiety on that score must be the action of members of the Tory Party nationally and in local government.
    Mr. Raison: Is it not completely nonsensical to talk about a fall of 14 per cent. which has already taken place and lay the blame on the results of the district elections held since then?
    Mr. Freeson: I am laying no blame. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to come clean. Does the Tory Party favour a sustaining of the house-building programme—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not heard such a noisy Question Time for ages.
    Mr. Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister, instead of answering questions at Question Time, to start asking questions?
    Mr. Speaker: It is remarkable how questions are answered from time to time. I have done it myself. I call the Minister—briefly, I hope.
    Mr. Freeson: The house-building programme by local government will be sustained at its present level so far as the resources projected in the White Paper on Public Expenditure are concerned. We shall provide resources that will sustain the present increase. It is no answer to that to suggest that because there is a drop—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—in one particular quarter compared with the previous quarter the annual figures will go down. There are always variations between quarterly figures throughout the year.
    I return to my question: does the Tory Party intend—[Interruption.]—to sustain the house-building programme? We must take the answer to be "No."
    Hon. Members: Resign.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that we shall reach the other Questions if we allow the hon. Gentleman to finish his sentence.
    Mr. Freeson: It is interesting to observe the Opposition's reaction. We shall have to watch the conduct of the Tory Party in this connection.

    British Railways
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received British Railways' annual report for 1975–76; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Shore: I laid the board's report and accounts for 1975 before Parliament on 12th May 1976.
    Mr. Durant: When does the right hon. Gentleman visualise the report showing a balance and going into profit? Secondly, where does the annual report show the cost of concessionary fares for railway staff? Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report shows that the number of executives has nearly doubled in the past year?
    Mr. Shore: The question of concessionary fares is a very specialised matter. I have a feeling that it may come up in a debate on a Bill before long. I cannot hazard a figure for that, but if the lion. Gentleman wishes to put down a specific Question I shall give him an answer.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can we look forward hopefully to a day in our lifetime when transport will be treated as a social service and not merely a money-making enterprise which is given a grant and must balance its books, or shall we be safely tucked up by the time that occurs?
    Mr. Shore: I think my hon. Friend will agree that we must approach transport services in the knowledge that they use resources and, therefore, must be paid for. Whether they are paid for directly by the user or indirectly by the taxpayer is a matter of judgment. But as regards the Government and the doctrine in the consultation document, the important thing is to sustain a sufficient public transport service. That is what we intend to do.
    Mr. Gow: What is the Government's judgment as to where the balance should lie between fares charged and subsidy paid by the taxpayer? What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the amount of subsidy payable to British Rail this year by the Government?
    Mr. Shore: The figures for the next three or four years, covering the public expenditure forecast period, have been published and are well known. They do not permit of an open-ended subsidy, but provision is still being made for substantial support for the railway system.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that British Rail has taken a courageous decision to freeze rail fares for several months and that it should
    428
    be congratulated on that because it is more likely to generate additional revenue and traffic? But does he also agree that we have the lowest freight usage of railways in the whole of Europe and that we are not achieving a significant shift from road to rail? What does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. Shore: I note what my hon. Friend says about the freeze on fares until the end of the year, which will be widely welcomed by the travelling public after the inevitable increases of the past 12 months. Freight usage is one of the central questions that the transport review discussed. I shall be most anxious to hear the views not only of the railways—management and unions—but of other transport providers on this whole question.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: flow many representations has the right hon. Gentleman received about British Rail's decision to withdraw facilities for racing pigeons and show birds, following legislation passed by the House? Is he prepared to introduce amending legislation which will enable this freight to continue? It affects my constituency very much and is a useful source of income to British Rail. It would enable British Rail to show something on the credit side.
    Mr. Shore: The subject of pigeons on British Rail—[An HON. MEMBER: "And rabbits."]—was, I think, first raised when I last appeared before the House at Question Time. I have since inquired into the matter, and I am assured that the transport users' consultative committees and the central consultative committee are considering it. I shall decide what, if anything, I should do about it when I have received their reports.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the Minister say what effect the last fare increases had on the number of passengers who travel by rail? Will he confirm that it remains the Government's plan to eliminate the deficit on freight, which is currently running at £70 million? If that is the Government's plan, by what date do the Government intend to bring about that situation?
    Mr. Shore: The evidence we have about the effect of increased fares on passenger movements, based on last year which shows an increase of some 50 per cent. in passenger fares, was accompanied

    429
    by a surprisingly small fall of 2 per cent. in passenger journeys. I do not draw any conclusions from that fact for the future, but those are the facts as we have them.
    On the question of the deficit of £70 million, the hon. Gentleman knows that on our PESC forecasts we hope to eliminate the freight deficit by 1978. That is one matter, among others, which I shall be discussing with British Rail.

    Housing Stock
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to issue a circular on better use of the existing housing stock.
    Mr. Freeson: I hope to do so before long.
    Mr. Winterton: Is the Minister aware that the existing stock well exceeds the number of households? Does he not agree that the best service which he can provide for hard-pressed taxpayers—and certainly to assist many young families and young people who require accommodation—is to increase improvement grants and also to increase the allowances to local authorities to enable them to grant more local authority mortgages?
    Mr. Freeson: I accept that the question of maintaining and improving the existing housing stock is of vital and central importance, alongside additions to stock as a matter of public policy and practice. We shall issue policy guidelines as soon as we are able to do so. This does not mean that we are not taking administrative action on a day-to-day basis with local authorities in increasing the variety of steps which they can take in this area. We are concerned about the drop in the number of improvement grants. We are discussing these matters in various quarters and are examining ways in which to improve the situation. Indeed, we have taken some steps recently.
    On the subject of loans to local authorities, apart from the mortgage famine period of 1973–75, we are now running at a level that is somewhat above normal, although it is still too low. However, to increase the figure would mean that we should have to increase public expenditure, and we cannot do so at present.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that his recent decision to enable local authorities to purchase houses that are unoccupied without good reason for two months is much appreciated, because it will prevent the destruction of many good homes by vandals? Will he now consider stepping up the compulsory purchase order procedure so that these matters can be completed within six weeks, as he has done in certain other cases?
    Mr. Freeson: We are prepared to examine more efficient processing of CPOs in the Department. I shall examine that matter further. However, we must bear in mind that the vast bulk of houses purchased by local authorities under municipalisation and rehabilitation programmes are handled through negotiation. A small number indeed are the subject of CPOs—a matter of a few hundred compared with something like 17,000 to 20,000 purchased by negotiation. This matter is not as important in terms of policy as it may sometimes appear to be.
    Mr. Michael Morris: When the Minister issues the circular, will he include provisions to remove the restriction on the sale of housing association accommodation units?
    Mr. Freeson: The sale of housing association houses is subject to the legislative framework rather than to policy guidelines issued in circulars. The future rôle of housing associations could possibly include the building of houses for low-income families, including shared equity schemes. We are examining these matters.
    Mr. Rossi: In preparing his circular, will the Minister include two other matters? First, will he give guidance to local authorities to adopt the North Wiltshire scheme, which would bring more privately-rented accommodation into use, and also have regard to the model form of lease, which is at present a problem? Secondly, will he encourage local authorities to prepare more accurate and comprehensive lists of empty properties in their ownership, having regard to short-life properties which are not included in annual returns?
    Mr. Freeson: In the first place short-life properties are included, unless they are classified as slums for demolition.

    431
    The relet survey covers the purchase as well as the erection of purpose-built properties, with the one qualification I have mentioned. Over 40 authorities, with our encouragement and backing, are undertaking various kinds of listing arrangements. They are not all modelled on the North Wiltshire scheme. Some authorities are giving five- and seven-year leases rather than monthly or short-term arrangements. A special study is being conducted into the leasing arrangements generally, and I hope that it will produce good results.

    Fleet Line
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the extension of the Fleet Line to South-East London.
    Mr. Marks: The case for the Fleet/ River Line is being examined in the context of the total strategy for docklands redevelopment, on which my right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement before the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that wherever the Fleet Line eventually ends up, and however it gets there, an announcement is urgently needed on this matter if a great deal of human expertise and equipment is not to be wasted? Is he also aware that the building of this line as far as Fenchurch Street and beyound should not only benefit the redevelopment of the docklands but should help South-East London and the Lewisham area in particular, which traditionally has been the poor relation to London's public transport system?
    Mr. Marks: Greater London is now awaiting comments on a document which has been issued for discussion between the Department and the Greater London authorities. The question as to which part of the Fleet Line should have priority is a matter for the Greater London Council, but it is part of local government responsibility to ensure that public money is well spent.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will the Minister bear in mind that the harassed commuters of South London, including those in Orpington, have no other form of public transport on which to rely than that provided
    432
    by the Southern Region of British Rail, which unfortunately is often insufficient and unreliable?
    Mr. Marks: In the discussions on transportation matters between the Greater London Council and other authorities and the Department, full cognisance will be taken of that mater.

    Vehicle Testing Examiners
    Mr. David Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend to all authorised examiners running vehicle testing stations who have already had their authorisation withdrawn on a first offence without warning the new modified withdrawal scheme, under which all present and future first offenders are given a written warning first.
    Mr. Marks: I regret that this would not be practicable. There are many cases involved, extending over several years, and there would be great difficulty in ensuring equitable treatment for them all.
    Mr. Mitchell: Since the Minister has already accepted the principle that it would be appropriate to give warnings, is he not now prepared to accept for reconsideration applications from firms which have had licences withdrawn on a first-come, first-served basis?
    Mr. Marks: There would be great difficulty in making this matter retrospective, and there would also be difficulties in regard to manpower and time spent on these matters in the Department. Most of the firms which have had their authorisations withdrawn have been suspended for a period of five years. That figure relates to the period 1968 to 1971. The bulk of these cases are now returning to the Department and will require a great deal of consideration.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend say when it will be possible for firms which lost their authorisations under the old scheme, with some hardship as a result of isolated lapses, to reapply for licences? Does he not agree that many of these firms deserve to be relicensed?
    Mr. Marks: A documentation offence involves a suspension of two years, but other, more serious matters involve suspensions of up to five years.

    Lorry Routes
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations have been held with the Countryside Commission about the proposed network of heavy lorry routes.
    Mr. Marks: The Countryside Commission commented on the original proposals in December 1974 and discussed the revised proposals of January 1976 with the Department's officials on 26th March.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has provided welcome information? Does he appreciate that the information available to me earlier was that there had been no discussion with the Countryside Commission prior to drawing up this new map? Is he also aware that the Peak District National Park is extremely disturbed by the proposal that a substantial number of heavy lorry routes will run through the park under the new map proposals?
    Mr. Marks: It is true that a great many lorries already run through the park. We are still considering the whole question of lorry routes and primary routes, bearing in mind that the national parks often have trunk roads running through them. We shall have to consider the need for other roads to deal with this.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister aware that some local authorities, and I refer particularly to Cheshire County Council, might well be abusing the 1973 Act in that they are proposing that predominantly rural areas—I refer to North Rode and Gawsworth in my constituency—should have their narrow lanes opened up for use by heavy vehicles, which is surely detrimental to the rural environment and the objectives of the Act?
    Mr. Marks: I would presume that there is no restriction at present on those lanes. It is a matter for local authorities to limit the size of vehicles on roads where such size is considered dangerous for either other vehicles or pedestrians.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my hon. Friend confirm the clear statement by his Department that it is its object to exclude
    434
    heavy lorries and major trunk routes from national parks wherever possible?
    Mr. Marks: Certainly. We shall do this as far as possible. In some national parks, the Peak District National Park in particular, there is heavy industry. Some of us may regret that it is there, but the vehicles need to reach that industry.
    Sir Anthony Royle: Will the Minister open consultations with the Greater London Council in connection with the damage that heavy lorries are causing in large parts of South London? Is he aware that in Richmond areas are being ruined by the number of heavy lorries passing through? Does he appreciate that permission was given for these lorries by the GLC? Will he discuss this matter with the GLC?
    Mr. Marks: Yes. This is a matter for the Greater London Council. The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue in two Adjournment debates. The Greater London Council should take note of what was said on those occasions.

    National Carriers Ltd and Freightliners
    Mr. Ronald Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider transferring National Carriers Limited and Freightliners back to British Railways, in the interests of an integrated transport policy.
    Mr. Shore: The consultation document on transport policy invites comments on this proposal.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his hon. Friends correctly warned the Government in 1968 that the present organisation of NCL and Freightliners would result in the transfer of freight from rail to road, contrary to the objective of the 1968 Act? Bearing this in mind, will my right hon. Friend consider taking action to reverse this trend, if necessary implementing the quantity licensing provisions or declaring a withdrawal of the freight subsidy until heavy lorries are taxed according to their true costs?
    Mr. Shore: I note what my hon. Friend has said about the 1968 Act. He will also recall that under that Act the National Freight Corporation has a duty to use

    435
    rail where to do so is efficient and economic. That duty is clearly upon it, although it is not a mandatory use of rail, for that would be contrary to the purpose of the NFC. Quantity licensing and the other issues which my hon. Friend has mentioned are issues that will be discussed in the course of the consultations on the transport review.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the NFC is this week announcing a record loss of £30 million, half of which comes from National Carriers? Does he recognise that, far above the integration of transport, the public expect action to eliminate those losses?
    Mr. Shore: Many firms and organisations have suffered losses during 1975. There has been the general problem of recession throughout our economy. A consultants' review is taking place into the financial and economic strategy of the NFC.

    Council Houses (Sale)
    Mr. Newtonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will review his policy on the sale of council houses.
    Mr. Shore: As the House knows, our policy was set out in Circular 70/74. I am keeping the matter under consideration in parallel with the housing finance review.
    Mr. Newton: Rather than go back over all the ground covered earlier, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accept that there is now widespread evidence of a substantial desire by tenants all ever the country to buy the homes in which they live? If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that, would he not agree that, if we mean business about being a democracy, it is time that all parties in the House responded to that desire?
    Mr. Shore: There is indeed evidence not only of a substantial desire on the part of people all over the country to become owner-occupiers but, I am glad to say, evidence that more people are able to satisfy that desire. The fact that we have now reached the point where 53 per cent. of our fellow countrymen are owner-occupiers is a matter of great satisfaction.
    436
    I hope that the number will increase.
    We have to bear in mind that there is a great shortage of rented houses, particularly in the major urban centres. It is right for us to say that local authorities should take due account of that and make their own judgments in the light of advice given in circulars.
    Mrs. Millie Miller: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that, when it is decided that the public's assets should be sold, it is right that they should be sold at full market price and not at a cut price?
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend knows that the conditions obtaining for the sale of council houses are a subject on which we have given advice. This is an area where there will inevitably be continuing debate.
    Mr. Cormack: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a need for rented accommodation, why does he not take steps to increase the flow of private rented accommodation?
    Mr. Shore: I might reply to that by asking why the advocates of owner-occupation and the sale of existing local authority rented houses do not advocate the sale of existing private rented accommodation. It is slightly ridiculous. The one thing on which the House as a whole might agree is that the major providers of homes in this country in the 1970s as in the 1960s will be either owner-occupiers or local authorities.
    Mr. Ovenden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are relieved to hear that he is still committed to the terms of Circular 70/74? Is he further aware that many Conservative-controlled local authorities are determined to ignore the advice of that circular and to sell council houses, showing a total disregard of their obligations to provide a proper pool of rented housing? Does he intend to sit back and let them get away with this blatant asset-stripping? What does my right hon. Friend intend to do to stop this?
    Mr. Shore: There is always the danger in any system of local democracy that there will be an irresponsible use of democratic power. My hon. Friend would be well advised—I should be well advised—not to come out with any

    437
    emphatic statement at present. We shall have to watch the situation and see how it develops.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Reverting to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take account of the fact that, when private rented accommodation is sold, the sitting tenant usually buys at a lower price than a person buying a house with vacant possession? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a person who has occupied a council house for a considerable time should have a similar benefit?
    Mr. Shore: That is a factor that has been argued in the past to justify some discount on the sale of local authority houses. I said "some" discount because it is important that there should not be the give-away which some people have been advocating.
    Mr. Raison: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in an Adjournment debate last week his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary reaffirmed the propriety of a discount on the sale of council houses?
    Mr. Shore: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had heard what I said. I said that the terms of the discount were important in this context and that there was a case, as has been acknowledged, for some discount, but not a case for massive discount such as some people have been offered.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (MEETINGS OF COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community during June. The monthly forecast for June was deposited yesterday.
At present, five meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for June. The Foreign Ministers' meeting, which begins on 31st May, will continue on 1st June. [Interruption.] Foreign Ministers will meet again on the 28th and 29th; Energy Ministers on the 10th: Agriculture Ministers on the 21st and
438
22nd; and Social Affairs Ministers on 29th and 30th June. [Interruption.] There will also be a tripartite conference on 24th June of Finance and Employment Ministers, the Commission and European employer and trades union organisation. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hattersley: As part of the follow-up to the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers on 14th and 15th May, Ministers at the Foreign Affairs Council on 1st June are likely to resume consideration of the Tindemans Report and direct elections to the European Assembly. They are also likely to discuss passport union. On 31st May, Ministers will sign the Commercial Cooperation Agreement concluded in March 1976 between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the EEC. [Interruption.] There will also probably be consideration of Commission proposals for an agreement with Iran; the Community's external financial commitments; financial aid internal regulations in relation to the Maghreb and Malta; and discussion on Spain and Cyprus sherry. Ministers will also consider the siting of JET and preparations for Association Councils with Greece and Turkey.
At the Council on 28th and 29th June, Ministers will resume discussion of the overall Mediterranean approach and relations with the member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. Ministers at both Council meetings will consider the problems posed by the prospect of 200-mile fishery limits and the current state of work in the four Commissions set up following the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hattersley: Ministers at the Energy Council will resume consideration of the energy policy guidelines adopted by the European Council on 1st and 2nd December 1975 and measures to be taken in the event of oil supply difficulties.
In June, Agriculture Ministers will resume their discussions of imports of New Zealand butter in the period 1978–80 and will also probably consider amended arrangements for beef imports.
At the Social Affairs Council, Ministers are expected to have before them draft

439
directives on the safeguarding of employees' rights in the case of mergers and on the education of migrant workers' children. They will also consider uniform payment of family benefits and may consider the outcome of the tripartite economic and social conference to be held on 24th June.
The tripartite conference on 24th June is expected to focus on the employment situation in the Community. [Interruption.] The outcome of the conference is likely to be considered at the Social Affairs Council.
Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a great swell of background noise and it is impossible to hear the Minister speaking.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a little late. I called for order twice. The House seems to be excited.
Mr. Hurd: The Minister has outlined a formidable programme of work, but perhaps this it not the best moment to cross-examine him on it. However, will he reaffirm the undertaking which has often been sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) that the Minister concerned will make a statement to the House on any of these meetings at which significant decisions are taken?
Mr. Hattersley: I reaffirm that assurance absolutely, but I do not necessarily think that my interpretation of "significant" will agree with that of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).
Mr. Arthur Lewis: During that long, rambling statement, which none of us heard, I believe that I may have heard some reference to the Ministers of Agriculture meeting to discuss something to do with butter and beef. If that is the case, may we have an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will discuss the question of the allowance of the import of beef from Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries without let or hindrance and will not play ball with the other Common Market countries in storing beef to keep the price up and thus prevent the British housewife from getting beef at a reasonable price? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no agreement
440
will be reached unless we discuss it in this House?
Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry if my hon. Friend did not hear all my statement but, knowing his assiduity in this matter, I am sure that, if he has read the written statement yesterday and has checked all the details in it, he will understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be preserving the interests of the British consumer. At the same time, he will want to balance the interests of the agriculture industry in this country. A balance has to be struck between the two.
Mr. Powell: What preliminary proceedings will there be in this House before the meeting at which direct elections are to be further considered?
Mr. Hattersley: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that the Government accept without qualification that these are matters on which the House has to express its opinion, and the Select Committee was set up exactly for that purpose. I hope that it will move at such a speed that the House can consider and vote upon its report before any definite decisions have to be taken in the Council of Ministers. If, however, the House is sceptical about that, it might, as I have said, be reassured by one thing—that there cannot be direct elections until a Bill is carried in the House making it possible, and therefore the House's veto, if one wants to talk in such florid terms, is absolute.
Mr. Jay: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports in reputable English newspapers that the Commission is proposing that the Community should repudiate the agreement reached in Dublin in 1975 for the import of New Zealand butter into this country after 1980? Can he assure us that the British Government will not accept any repudiation of that agreement?
Mr. Hattersley: I assure my right hon. Friend that repudiation will be intolerable and, therefore, impossible. We undertook commitments to New Zealand. Those commitments we have to fulfil, and we will fulfil them.
Mr. Grimond: Does the Ministers statement mean that the 200-mile limit is now

441
official Community policy? Is it intended to discuss either the Icelandic situation or further representations at the Law of the Sea Conference? Is it intended to discuss the position of individual countries and their limits within the Community, and the protection of fishery stocks?
Mr. Hattersley: The Community is not yet corporately committed to the 200-mile limit. We have accepted that a 200-mile limit is the most likely outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference, but other member countries of the Community do not believe that it will be and hope that it will not be. Our policy will be to encourage other member nations to accept the reality and act on that principle.
The right hon. Gentleman's question involves the vexed issue of Community competence. We will insist that the Community's right to negotiate these matters with third countries, including Iceland, is in part dependent on its willingness to produce a common fisheries policy which meets the needs of the British fishing industry. One of our primary obligations and enthusiasms in the Community in the next six months will be to obtain a revision in that policy, and all other fishing issues will have to be subservient to that.
Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend's statement indicated that the Tindemans Report on European union will be discussed yet again. Can he give an assurance that there will be a debate in this House before that report is discussed for the second time? If it cannot be debated before 31st May, can we have a debate before 28th June, thus fulfilling the obligation to the House which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced shortly after taking office in that post?
Mr. Hattersley: The report has been discussed formally and informally more than twice among European Foreign Ministers and will be discussed several more times before the Community feels in a position to implement it or reject it. Whether a debate should be held between the first and second or the second and third meetings is a question for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will no doubt have taken note of what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. John Davies: Among the many meetings which the right hon. Gentleman's rather muffled statement has given us to believe will take place, the one of the Energy Council is not unimportant. The issues concerned with the framework of energy policy centre largely around the floor price. The House will be interested to know where we are going on the Joint European Torus and also on Euratom finance. Will these matters also be dealt with at the Energy Council meeting?
Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry that the statement was muffled. That was not my responsibility but that of the House, which is expecting another statement of some sort in a few moments. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Joint European Torus will be discussed. We shall adopt the same position as a month ago, which is that Culham is the appropriate site. The financing to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention will also be on the agenda for one meeting or another.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: I think I heard the Minister say, above the hubbub in the House, that the Minister of Agriculture would take steps to preserve the interests of the British consumer with regard to beef and butter. What are the steps that he will take?
Mr. Hattersley: What my hon. Friend heard me say was that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture would next month—as he has done during the last 28 months—balance the importance of preserving the interests of the consumer with the equally important task of preserving the domestic industry, because indeed the British consumer is in no small measure dependent on our making sure that the domestic industry is viable. Balancing those two things, which may on occasions appear irreconcilable in the short term but which are wholly the same in the long term, will be the continued intention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Marten: On the question of direct elections, which the Ministers will discuss, may we have an assurance from the Government that they will not unreasonably force the pace of the work of the Select Committee? If the Select Committee comes up with a report based on insufficient evidence and investigation, it will not be taken very seriously.
Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that the Select Committee feels that the problem exists as the hon. Gentleman has described it. The Select Committee knows the reality of the situation. There is a timetable of work within the Community. Quite uniquely, the Government have invited the House of Commons to set up a Select Committee which is monitoring the Government's attitudes and commenting on the Government's decisions. If the Select Committee, of which I am honoured to be a member, wants to influence Government decisions before they are taken rather than comment on them after they are taken, the Select Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I shall allow the hon. Gentlemen to indulge in their scathing indignation in a moment—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Who is my right hon. Friend to decide?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions from sedentary positions are unacceptable here.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think I am in order in pointing out that only you can decide who shall or shall not make any statement in the House. My right hon. Friend was saying that he would give permission to an hon. Member to make a statement, but it is you, Mr. Speaker, who give permission.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Since I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), on that harmonious note perhaps the Minister will continue.
Mr. Hattersley: The Government—as was understood and accepted by the House when we debated these matters—must, if it is to influence Europe, operate in relation to a timetable which is not altogether according to our decisions. What we hope, and what I believe the majority of the House hopes, is that the Select Committee will operate at a speed which enables the House to influence the Government before the decision is taken. That is certainly our wish, and I believe it to be the wish of the House as well.
Mr. Watt: Will the Minister give the House the assurance that when he goes to the Commission he will let it know that all sections of the British fishing industry
444
are absolutely adamant that nothing less than 100 miles is acceptable? Will he also tell the Commission that in the forthcoming negotiations which will be necessary with a country on the other side of the North Sea—namely, Norway—only a representative of the British Government will carry out these negotiations and not somebody in the EEC who knows nothing whatsoever about the problem?
Mr. Hattersley: I would find it very difficult to say that in good conscience, because when I last attended the Council of Ministers and talked about our needs, being invariably within 50 miles of the British shore and most often within 35 miles of it, I received a telegram of support and congratulations from the leader of the Scottish fishing industry.
Mr. Skinner: May I take it that the appropriate Ministers will be discussing the harmonisation of import control throughout the EEC, now that Italy has introduced import control?
Mr. Hattersley: What I hope the Foreign Ministers will consider is the traditional policy of the Community to help those members who have special economic difficulties. When the Government of Italy, suffering from problems from which we have never suffered—I hope my hon. Friend will not suggest otherwise—came to the Community for special aid, the Community was ready to provide it. I have no doubt that that is absolutely consistent with the general attitude of the Nine.
Mr. Gow: Whatever view we may take about direct elections, does not the Minister agree that it is an insult to the House and to the Select Committee to hint that a decision may be taken about this before the report of the Select Committee is received?
Mr. Hattersley: No, I do not agree, because the decision is by no means in our hands. I do not agree also for a second reason. If the House disapproves of the position that the Government take up, the House has absolute power in its own hands not to vote for a Bill to implement direct elections. Those of us who have been involved in the question of direct elections have said for almost two years that whatever else is a Community competence, as opposed to the competence of the House of Commons, this cannot be in that category. If the House of

445
Commons does not approve of the corporate decision on direct elections within the Nine, the House of Commons can refuse to pass the Bill that makes that possible. What the Government are asking is for the Commons to help them in making their initial decision as to what compromise solution they come to. If, however, the timetable makes it impossible for the House of Commons Select Committee to advise the Government sufficiently early, I say again that the eventual power is in the hands of the House of Commons, which may, if it so chooses, defeat a Bill proposed to it by the Government for implementing direct elections.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday afternoon I gave a ruling in relation to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, in reply to a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). This ruling was directed to the matters raised by the hon. Member in a written statement which he had been kind enough to give me earlier yesterday. However, in his oral point of order the hon. Member put forward new matter of which I had not hitherto been made aware.
I promised to make further inquiries and to make a statement when the Bill was reached. I have carried out my undertaking and have received representations from both sides of the House.
After long and anxious thought, I now rule that the Bill under discussion is prima facie hybrid.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot) rose—
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop rose—
Mr. Foot: May I first thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the way in which you received the representations that several of us made to you on this subject.
In view of your statement, it is clearly impossible for the House of Commons to proceed with the Bill today. But may I make it also equally clear—and I hope the House will agree with this—that the House should have the earliest possible
446
opportunity of deciding how we proceed with the Bill.
The jobs and the livelihood of many people are involved—[Interruption.] We at least, Mr. Speaker, are not prepared to put those jobs and the livelihood of people at risk. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Government propose to table, as first business tomorrow, a motion which the House can decide to accept or to reject, whichever it wishes. It is for the House to decide. But the motion will have the full backing of the Government. Our motion reads as follows:
"That, in view of the grave consequences for the industries concerned and for those employed in them of further delay and uncertainty in further proceedings on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the consideration of the application thereto of the provisions of any Standing Order relating to Private Business be dispensed with."
Several Hon. Members rose—
Hon. Members: Cheat!
Mr. Foot rose—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Nothing is gained without hearing what is being said.
Mr. Foot rose—
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the Lord President addressing you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order or is he making a Business Statement to the House? It is not clear to me which is happening.
Mr. Speaker: I think that it is a little of both. But the Lord President was making a statement arising out of my ruling, and I think that he should be allowed to finish.
Mr. Foot: If the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would prefer it, I can say that it is a statement about the business of the House. It is a statement which I began by saying that I did not believe that we could proceed now with the business on the Order Paper, and I was seeking—
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had risen on a point of order, but I was under the impression that the Lord President had preceded me on a point of order. I think, therefore, that this is the correct moment to thank you for the consideration which you were—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Tiverton next. I think that we should allow the Lord President to finish what he was saying.
Mr. Foot: If I might continue with my statement, I was not making it on a point of order because I believed that it would have been a bogus point of order. I was rising to comment, Mr. Speaker, on your statement—
Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement of the Lord President—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has not finished yet."] In view of that statement, is not the right hon. Gentleman admitting that the Bill has to go to a Select Committee? That being so, is there any point in his continuing to talk about what he would like to happen, as opposed to what has to happen under the rules of the House?
Mr. Speaker: The answer to that question is that it is customary, when a ruling is made which affects the House and Government business, that an opportunity for a statement follows. I suggest that we hear what the Lord President has to say, and then we can hear another point of view.
Mr. Foot: I was seeking to give the House the very first opportunity to hear the Government's view about how we should proceed, in view of your statement, Mr. Speaker. I was indicating to the House how the House of Commons itself could deal with this problem tomorrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, it will be open to the House to decide—[Interruption.] It will be open to the House to decide this matter not by shouting but by votes. In the course of the debate tomorrow, in order to remove any element of doubt on the subject of hybridity—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is no doubt."]—the Government would at Report stage—
Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the Lord President again, but I understood that you, Mr. Speaker, had given a ruling about the hybridity of the Bill. Therefore, it is not in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to challenge it now.
Mr. Foot rose—
Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member
448
for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) has put it to you in terms that what the Lord President is saying is a challenge to your ruling. There can be no question about whether the rules apply. Will you rule accordingly?
Mr. Speaker: I have already given a ruling to the House, and that ruling stands. But I think that it is only an act of courtesy to listen to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Foot: In a moment I shall finish the sentence on which I was interrupted—
Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you rule whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and several others—
Hon. Members: Hear, Hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me hear the point of order.
Mr. Sedgemore: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. I shall try to get it right this time. Will you rule, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and several other Opposition Members to use terms such as those which have been used in the past five minutes, including "Leader of the Reichstag" and "Fascist"—[Interruption.]—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is not behaving with any credit to itself. I was about to say that I wanted to hear the point of order to its end, but I think that the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) has made his point. The House knows that I deprecate the hurling of abuse across the Chamber. I hope that the Lord President will be allowed to conclude his statement.
Mr. Foot: May I say that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign!"]—as I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, would be eager to confirm, I have said nothing which is in any sense a challenge to your ruling—
Mr. Goodhew rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall defend myself if necessary. But it is not necessary yet.
Mr. Foot: As I am sure you would be the first to confirm, Mr. Speaker, I have said nothing which is a challenge

449
to your ruling. I am simply proposing to the House that we should have a motion tomorrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheat!"] I am proposing that we should have a motion tomorrow which can deal—
Hon. Members: Cheat.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It really is disgraceful for hon. Members to shout "Cheat".
Mr. Foot: May I ask—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Lord President is trying to conclude his speech.
Mr. Foot: What I am proposing is that the House of Commons tomorrow should have the opportunity to deal with the consequences of your ruling, Mr. Speaker—the consequences for people in the shipyards and in the aircraft industry in this country. Our recommendation tomorrow, on which the House of Commons itself will be able to pronounce judgment, is that we should be able to proceed with this Bill with utmost speed. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are cheating."] As I was saying when I was interrupted by two bogus points of order—
Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is bad enough surely that the right hon. Gentleman should challenge your view that there is a hybrid Bill before the House. Even worse is the fact that he is suggesting that those who believe that we should follow the procedure for hybrid Bills should be ridden over by the Government.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will listen to the remainder of the Lord President's speech.
Mr. Foot: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, to remove any element of doubt from the subject—
Hon. Members: No! Resign!
Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman has just said confirms that he is challenging your ruling. I do not believe there can be anyone in this House who detected an element of doubt in what you ruled.
Mr. Speaker: I have heard no challenge to my ruling. The House has heard my ruling but now the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to put his point of view.
Mr. Foot: As I was saying—
Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: I will take this point of order but I must point out that points of order which are not really points of order hold up the business of the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has a genuine point of order.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that no progress is being made on this matter and that tempers are heated, would you suspend the sitting and reconvene the House when everyone has cooled down?
Mr. Speaker: This is a matter for my judgment. The House surely can do now what it could do in 10 or 20 minutes' time.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House is dealing now with what he thinks or expects will happen tomorrow. In 10 minutes' time there is a meeting of the Committee of Selection. You have said that this Bill is hybrid, and in 10 minutes' time we should be discussing whether we should set up another Committee—this time a Select Committee—to look at this Bill as a result of the ruling you have given.
Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that it is prima facie a hybrid Bill. Now I want the Lord President to complete his statement.
Mr. Foot: I was trying to tell the House when I was interrupted how the Government believe we should proceed with this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Our, out."] What I suggested, which is apparently so objectionable to some hon. Members, was that we should have a full debate on the matter tomorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. You are cheating."] That seems a perfectly reasonable proposition to me. That debate would arise on a motion which I have already read to the House.

451
What I was indicating to the House when I was interrupted was that there is no challenge to your ruling, Mr. Speaker—and you have confirmed that. To remove any element of doubt about the state of hybridity—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is no doubt."]—we would at the Report stage be willing to introduce the necessary amendment to make the technical change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite had listened a bit earlier they might have learned something. I am suggesting that we debate it tomorrow. If we do, I believe that we shall be able to overcome these technical difficulties and at the same time proceed speedily and get this Bill on to the statute book.
I now come to the business for today. As I said earlier, clearly we cannot make progress with the Bill today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] We have to await the House of Commons decision tomorrow. It would not be convenient to proceed with the Industry (Amendment) Bill, which is also on the Order Paper for today, so I will ask the House to consider today the Second Reading of the Bail Bill [Lords], followed by the Public Lending Right Bill [Lords].
This is the first time in my experience that there has been such an objection to inviting the House of Commons to settle a matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sieg heil!"] That is what we are proposing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign!"] That is what we are proposing—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing at all to be gained by this demonstration.
Mr. Foot: That is what we are proposing. Only those who are afraid of the merits of that debate will fear the debate.
Hon. Members: Sieg heil!
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that the events this afternoon have shown that it may have been wiser if my point of order had followed your statement immediately, Mr. Speaker, before the Leader of the House presumed to make his hybrid speech. I am extremely grateful to you for the hours you and your advisers spent honouring the undertaking you gave the House yesterday afternoon. I thank you for the care with which you looked at the objective and ascertainable facts presented to you, and the care with
452
which you looked at the rulings of your predecessors. What you have confirmed with your ruling is that this is not a matter of a mere technicality as the Leader of the House has suggested.
The hybrid Bill procedure exists to protect the rights of minorities and to secure that equality before the law which you, Mr. Speaker, rightly recommended to Members both of this House and of our sister Assembly in the United States of America when you spoke on behalf of all of us in Westminster Hall this morning.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in what he said. With regard to the second point, I understand the position to be that when I have made the ruling, my part finishes, and the House itself then takes over.
Mr. Grimond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to you for your ruling. However, I presume that it is in order to put one or two questions on the' Business Statement made by the Leader of the House.
Is the Leader of the House aware that if there is uncertainty in the shipbuilding industry, that is because of the introduction of this Bill? If there has been bungling over the Bill, the bungling is that of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing—as someone who has been posturing round this place for years and years as a lover of the House of Commons—to introduce a motion to get round a Speaker's ruling and to defeat the whole purpose of this House. His right course is either to withdraw the Bill or to treat it as a hybrid Bill, which it has been ruled to be.
Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that the difficulties in the shipbuilding industry have been caused by this Bill, he can know precious little about shipbuilding. What I have proposed for the House tomorrow is a debate in which we can discuss the matter. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should keep an open mind until he has heard the case.
Hon. Members: Cheating.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Foot: What would really be cheating would be to deny the ship

453
workers of this country what they have been fighting for over all these years.
Sir Raymond Gower: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a different point of order, which I believe to be genuine. The Government have announced that they intend to introduce a motion which is designed to alter the procedure of the House during the passage of a Bill. That is wholly inconsistent with the practice and constitution of this country. Will you please, Mr. Speaker, at your leisure, consider this matter and make a ruling before the debate tomorrow whether it is proper and in keeping with our constitution for a procedure of this importance, as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), designed to protect the interests of minorities, to be thus altered during the passage of a Bill? This is the vital point. If the procedure is altered at all, it should be altered at another time, when there is no Bill that is being affected by the change of procedure.
I respectfully submit this matter to you, Mr. Speaker, as I believe that it is an important and valid point requiring your adjudication.
Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course we would certainly be prepared to accept any ruling from you whether the motion which I have proposed is out of order. But as far as I am aware, it is fully in order, and the House of Commons itself can decide the matter. I should like to have your ruling on the subject.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been asked to give a ruling. I can only say that if the motion is in order, as it appears to be, it is not for me to interfere with either side of the House putting a motion on the Order Paper. The House itself will decide.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Thatcher.
Mrs. Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, we have—
Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to get this straight. Are we on points of order, as we appear to have been for some time, or is this now a
454
debate on what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been saying? If it is a debate, some of us want to get in, too. If we are on points of order, let the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition start by saying that, so that we know where we stand.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know that after a ruling such as I have given, a short Business Statement was necessary for the House.
Mr. Mellish: Is that what we are on?
Mr. Speaker: The Lord President fought his way through and made a business statement concerning tomorrow, and I have now called the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs. Thatcher: We have rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, so that we do not have arbitrary government. If the Leader of the House is proposing to set those aside at 24 hours' notice, he is signalling the end of parliamentary democracy and the beginning of arbitrary government. May I ask the Leader of the House to consider this not only as a matter affecting the aircraft and shipbuilding industries but as a matter affecting the whole future of parliamentary democracy, and to think very carefully before he puts down on the Order Paper the motion that he has read out?
Mr. Foot: As you have confirmed, Mr. Speaker, the motion that I have read out is fully in order. The House of Commons itself can make its decision tomorrow. For the right hon. Lady to describe that as an attack on parliamentary democracy is parliamentary absurdity.
Mrs. Thatcher: What the Leader of the House is proposing to do is to make the House the instrument of Government instead of their watchdog.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Mellish.
Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware that much of the indignation that is based on the fact that the Bill is now shown to be a hybrid Bill could be overcome by putting down a small amendment which defines a ship as a ship and a rig as a rig, and that that is what all this stuff and nonsense is about.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tebbit.
Mr. Tebbit rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the House that we shall soon be moving on to the next business.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I have called the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
Mr. Tebbit: Can either the Lord President or you, Mr. Speaker, say what is now to be the fate of the petition which has been presented by a petitioner to this House, in line with the rights of individuals for the past 500 years, and of those rights which will be overridden if the right hon. Gentleman's motion tomorrow should be passed by the House on its first stage towards an assembly subservient to the Executive?
Mr. Foot: All these matters are open for debate tomorrow. The Government have given the House the earliest possible opportunity to discuss this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheating."] To describe that as an interference with the rights of the House is an absurdity.
Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that, right or wrong and whether the House should have done something about it or not, it is common—it happens perhaps once a fortnight—for a motion to stand on the Order Paper and to be passed which begins with some such words as
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the procedures and practices of the House…"?
Whether it ought to be or not, the House is accustomed to using exactly this device to suspend its Standing Orders, and that is what is being proposed in this case.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I not right in thinking that the procedural motions which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has just described are normally used only to deal with procedures of this House? The difference in this case is that the procedural motion which we are discussing will be used to damage
456
the interests of private persons outside this House.
Can the Leader of the House tell us whether his motion will include in the nationalisation plans that part of the company which the Government have undertaken to an American firm will not be nationalised or will exclude it, thereby doing grave injustice to other private concerns?
Mr. Foot: If the motion which we propose is carried, discussion of the Bill will proceed in the House. It will include what I have already stated and the kind of amendment to which I have referred. I believe that all this heat will very quickly evaporate. [Hon. Members: "No."] Far from interfering with people's individual rights we are doing this in order to give rights to people.
Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was one of the Ministers responsible when this Bill was first being discussed and that I know that discussions took place on the question of hybridity? The Ministers who were responsible went out of their way to ask advice from ministerial lawyers because we wanted it made clear that we should, in all circumstances, avoid any hybridity.
Is it not clear that there has been an unfortunate error for which my right hon. Friend holds no responsibility? Is it not also clear that workers in the shipyards—I worked in a shipyard for many years myself—are quite aware what a ship is and what an oil rig is? They know that an oil rig is an oil rig and a ship is a ship.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the average worker in the shipyards will not understand the niceties and technicalities of a hybrid Bill? Jobs and the future of the industry could be put in jeopardy. If there is a disaster in this industry, the workers will put the full responsibility on the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and his colleagues.
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is correct in everything he has said. Perhaps I could refer particularly to what he said about the original Bill and the attempts to discover whether there was any element of hybridity in it. I gather that these matters are not put in writing, but when representations were made at the time, the previous Speaker indicated to the

457
Ministers responsible that he did not believe that there was any element of hybridity in the Bill. That was the indication, and that has been our belief right up to the incidents of the last day or two. In view of the statement you made today, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "A ruling."]—we had to see what was the right way to proceed. We propose a method of dealing with it which we think is the right one. When the Bill was introduced, it was done so following the indications about hybridity that my hon. Friend has stated.
Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for continuing On this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "So you should."] I have done so. I speak as one of the members of Mr. Speaker's Panel who have to take an impartial view.
Is it not a fact that this debate, if it can be called that, started with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill was a hybrid Bill? That was settled. Is it not also a fact that the Leader of the House said that in order to eliminate any doubt we should have a debate tomorrow? It is not in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to decide whether there is any doubt in a ruling from the Chair. I am defending the Chair when I say this. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to demand a debate tomorrow to remove doubt when you, Mr. Speaker, have given a ruling.
Mr. Peyton: Is the Leader of the House aware that he is to be congratulated today much more upon the skill of his apologists than upon his own deplorable cynicism? Would he be good enough, before the debate he proposes for tomorrow, to let us have a draft of the kind of speech we could have expected from him had he been on this side of the House and the kind of cheat he is proposing to perpetrate had instead been inflicted upon him?
Mr. Foot: I do not think there would be any advantage in descending to the right hon. Gentleman's level, [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I cannot recall, in all the time I have been a Member of this House, that I was ever afraid of a debate. We shall have a debate tomorrow. Why should anybody be afraid of it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The word "cheat" as addressed to a hon. Member or right hon. Member is highly offensive.
I have received notice from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that he wishes to make an application under Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. Peyton: In view of what you have said about the use of the word "cheat", Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it without qualification. I am very pleased to do so. At least we on this side of the House wish to comply with its rules.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am calling the hon. Member for Eastbourne to ascertain whether he wishes to make his application.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Member for Eastbourne seeks to pursue his application.
Mr. Gow: I do, Mr. Speaker.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
Mr. Onslow: By way of clarification, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) chose at this moment to seek to catch your eye, would that prevent any other Member of the House from commenting on the curious situation in which we find ourselves?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the points of order in a moment, but I indicate to the House that in any case I shall bring these proceedings to a close within a short while. I shall hear the point of order of the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), as he has sought to catch my eye.
Mr. Fernyhough: You have been here a very long time, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you whether in all the many years you have been a Member of the House you have ever known a Bill to have a Second Reading and 58 sittings in Committee before the Opposition realise that it is a hybrid Bill. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as I know you cherish the good name of the House, to consider the impression

459
upon people outside, especially those in the shipbuilding industry who have been meeting me today. What will be their impression when they know that an Opposition who are calling constantly for reductions in public expenditure have allowed the House of Commons to waste time and money on a Second Reading and 58 sittings in Committee and have now tried to stop the will of Parliament?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg).
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that while he was a Minister in the Department of Industry, discussions took place—this is important—with the Ministry lawyers, who gave the advice that there was no element of hybridity in the Bill. The Leader of the House then said that your predecessor, Mr.Speaker, had given certain advice. If the hon. Member for Walton is right, does it not lie upon the then Secretary of State, or the present one, to accept responsibility for errors in the Department and to resign? If the Leader of the House has made a wrong accusation against your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, it should be justified. They cannot both be right.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It was only yesterday that I gave a different ruling. New information was brought to my notice yesterday. The House will recall—it is in Hansard today—that I gave a different ruling yesterday, a ruling which I have had to reverse today in view of the information that has been supplied to me within the past 24 hours. I call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Skinner: Is it worth recording, Mr. Speaker, that this whole episode of parliamentary mumbo-jumbo during the past hour is set against a background of more than a million and a quarter people on the dole and 20,000 who have come to Parliament today to lobby their Members of Parliament? As the Bill is an attempt to give a great deal more security to some of those who have come to Parliament,
460
would it not be a good idea for you, Mr. Speaker, to tell those assembled on the Opposition Benches who have been doing all the shouting to go to the Grand Committee Room and tell the assembled unemployed workers what they have been doing today against their interests? That is what should happen in this place today.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), but questions on the Business Statement have finished.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, two points of order. First, on behalf of the whole House, will you repudiate the suggestion that questions about the proper order of our proceedings are to be described as mumbo-jumbo or as niceties? In these very matters are we not safeguarding the liberties of Parliament and of free speech, matters that are precisely maintained by the rules of order, which no Labour Member should describe as mumbo-jumbo?
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, will you be so kind as to revert to the point on which, with respect, I believe you did not rule, when my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) asked you whether it was right to change the rules in the middle of the passage of a Bill so that those who are affected by it will have been dealt with in one way in Committee and will be dealt with in another way on Report and Third Reading? I believe you did not rule on that point, Mr. Speaker, and I should be grateful for your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I did not rule on that point because I was concerned with the question of order. As regards whether certain matters are in order, on any item such as that raised by the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) I always like time to give them consideration. If necessary, I shall make a statement tomorrow.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell).
Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, your

461
ruling is retrospective in its effect. You have ruled that the Bill has been a hybrid from the beginning. It is not the lodging of a petition which has made it so. In those circumstances will you give guidance as to the effect of the motion of the Leader of the House if it were carried, as it refers to the subsequent proceedings on the Bill? What about the proceedings in Committee which have already been completed, to which the motion does not refer and which may have been inappropriate proceedings?
Mr. Speaker: The House is its own master in these matters, and the House will decide. All I have to rule, as I have done this afternoon, is that it is prima facie a Hybrid Bill. It is then up to the House, not to me. I merely give the ruling to the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield was addressing me.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Before we deal with the motion tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will you rule on whether the motion, if passed, will have the effect, without referring to them, of validating the previous proceedings?
Mr. Speaker: I shall consider whether there is any cause for me to make a statement, but as I am at present advised, there is not and the motion is in order.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
Mr. Ridley: Further to my hon. Friend's point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that you have given your ruling, surely it is the situation that the Bill is and always has been a hybrid. That means that the proceedings in Committee were inappropriate and that the Bill should have gone to a Select Committee. As in a case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, when you rule and the Government automatically move that the matter be referred to the Select Committee on Privileges, the Government should automatically move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee to have an alternative Committee stage in place of the wrongful
462
Committee stage that we have already had. If the House were to accept such a motion, the Bill could proceed normally to a Select Committee and then into Committee. if the House were to reject such a motion, the Bill would be presumed lost.
Therefore, is it not right that I should submit a manuscript motion to the effect that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee? Any procedures which may take place tomorrow are, of course, null and void compared with the need to deal with this Bill—which is now a hybrid, not a public, Bill—in the proper fashion in which hybrid or private Bills should be dealt with. It seems that the only conceivably correct procedure to adopt would be to move "That the Bill be now referred to a Select Committee".
I should like your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether you will accept such a motion so that the House may proceed to commit the Bill forthwith.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept such a motion now. It must appear on the Order Paper if the hon. Gentleman seeks to move such a motion.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Tuck, on a point of order.
Mr. Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even if the Bill were hybrid from its inception, is it not right that the House of Commons has many times retrospectively validated something that was previously invalid—for example, the Wireless Telegraphy (Validation of Charges) Act 1954?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for argument for tomorrow.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Abse, on a point of order.
Mr. Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the Leader of the House made it clear that, whatever may have happened within the particular Department, the Bill was submitted in accordance with the customary and required procedure to Mr. Speaker who, as I understand the position, would certify that it either was or was not a hybrid Bill, having been properly advised.

463
It would be of considerable assistance in deciding on our attitude to the motion tomorrow to know whether an error made by the former Speaker and his advisers or by the Government had placed the House in considerable difficulty. If it is an error which has emanated not from the Government but from the former Speaker and his advisers, then it is perfectly proper that the House should be able to remedy an error made by its own officers. It would be another matter—I take the point made by the Leader of the Opposition—if the Government were attempting to usurp their position in the way that has apparently erroneously been suggested. Will you tell the House, so that we may know the position, whether this problem has arisen, as it appears to have arisen according to the Leader of the House, through an unfortunate error on the part not of the Government but of the former Speaker and his advisers?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I want to make it clear that my predecessor acted as I would have acted. The Public Bill Office was satisfied in the early stages that this was not a hybrid Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Order. So was I as late as yesterday afternoon when I made my statement to the House. I have come back today, in the light of other evidence which has come forward within the last few hours, and made another statement.
Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you gave your ruling, you quite definitely told the House that it was a hybrid Bill. On two occasions since you have used the phrase "a prima facie hybrid Bill". May I ask that the phrase "prima facie" be removed and that we get back to your first ruling that it is indeed a hybrid Bill?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It was in my original statement which I read to the House.
Mr. Heseltine: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for
464
Pontypool (Mr. Abse), may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether your officers, when deciding whether a Bill is a public or a private Bill, rest on advice from the sponsoring Department? Regarding your ruling yesterday and the earlier preparation of the Bill, did you and your officers rest on the advice of the sponsoring Department?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know how far it is right for me to go into the details. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is the custom for the Department concerned to advise the Public Bill Office. [Interruption.] Order. I hope that there will be no further points of order to get me further involved in this matter.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to your reply to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the accurate position that neither Mr. Speaker nor the officers of the House are in any way responsible for the drafting of a Government Bill? In this case, the identities of those responsible are actually endorsed on the Bill: Mr. Secretary Varley, the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Foot, Mr. Secretary Shore, Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Secretary Rees, Mr. Reginald Prentice, Mr. Edmund Dell, Mr. Gregor Mackenzie and Mr. Gerald Kaufman. Is the answer that it is not for Mr. Speaker or for those who advise him to advise Ministers of the Crown how they should draft a Bill competently? That is the function of the Ministers of the Crown. That is the function of the Government. It is not the function of officers or servants of the House of Commons. Therefore, is it not only wrong but unjust to endeavour to attribute incompetence within a Government Department to lack of diligence in either your predecessor or those who serve us as officers of this House?
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. There is no reflection at all upon my predecessor. I am sure that both sides of the House realise that. The normal process was followed. [HON. MEMBERS: "He made a mistake."] Order. The House might as well say that I made a mistake yesterday afternoon when I gave a ruling. I do not think that anything further is gained by this scrag end to our proceedings. I hope that we can now move on to the next business.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mike Thomas, on a point of order.
Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not this latter point which has been raised a blue herring? Is not the situation that it is the duty of Ministers and those working with them to prepare Bills and submit them to Parliament and that their civil servants are their servants, but that the people who work in the Public Bill Office are the servants of the House and of yourself? The distinctions between drafting a Bill and certifying whether it be hybrid or not are quite different and separate. We should not seek to blame my right hon. and hon. Friends or their civil servants in this matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not seeking to blame anyone at all. All I want to do is to get to the next business. I call Mr. Ennals for the next business.
Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a genuine point of order.
Mr. Lawson: It is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. This House lives by precedent. Can you tell us what precedent there is for a proposal such as that made by the Leader of the House following a ruling such as you made this afternoon?
Mr. Speaker: I have looked into the question of precedent. There is no precedent for a Speaker giving a ruling such as I have given at this stage of a Bill. That is the advice that I have been given. Therefore, we are in an unprecedented area in that regard.
Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether we could tidy up what you described as "this scrag end to our proceedings" by clearing up matters which still remain in doubt. I hope that you will continue to accept points of order as long as you are satisfied that they are genuine.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) were to put down a motion to
466
the effect that this Bill be treated as a hybrid Bill is normally treated—if he did, many of us might feel inclined to support him, if the Government would not—would such a motion take precedence over any motion that the Leader of the House might put down to alter the rules in his favour?
Mr. Speaker: The answer is "No". It does not take precedence over the Government's business for the day.
Mr. Carlisle: On a totally different point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, you cut fairly short questions to the Leader of the House on his Business Statement. May I therefore ask you, as the custodian of the rights and interests of Back Benchers, whether it is seriously being suggested that we proceed today with the debate on two Government Bills on notice given at 3.30 p.m. in the House by the Leader of the House? Notification was given on the Order Paper, but the Leader of the House chose to make a Business Statement at 3.30 p.m. saying what the business would be. Would it not be right in the circumstances, as the Leader of the House finds himself in difficulty, that the right hon. Gentleman should move instead that the House should adjourn today and that this matter should be taken at an appropriate time after appropriate consideration?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member knows that that is not a point for me.
Mr. Channon: I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should get right what you have ruled. I understand that the Government are to move a motion tomorrow. You have ruled that the Bill is hybrid.
Mr. Heffer: Prima facie.
Mr. Channon: Is not the situation in relation to all prima facie hybrid Bills that it is open to any hon. Member to put down a motion of the kind suggested by the Leader of the House, or is the option reserved to the Government? Do such motions take precedence over Orders of the Day, or is it a fact that in all other cases all hybrid Bills will proceed normally along their normal path? Can anyone put down a motion such as the right hon. Gentleman is to table? If so, what are the precedents?
Mr. Speaker: It is open to any hon. Member to put a motion on the Order Paper. The chances of its getting called vary.
Mr. Peyton: May I ask the Leader of the House to consider the point that has been made? In circumstances which I can understand the Government must very much regret, is it right to ask the House, even though, it is admitted, the business has been notified on the Order Paper, suddenly and unexpectedly to consider these important measures? Would it not be right, in the circumstances, for the Leader of the House to move the Adjournment of the House?
Mr. Foot: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that you had brought questions to me to an end, but if I am in order in doing so, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I fully understand that it would have been advantageous if we could have given longer notice of the Bills to be taken on Second Reading today. However, there has been considerable discussion on both these Bills in another place. Notice was given on the Order Paper this morning of the intention to take them today. The business was not announced merely at the time that I made my statement. It is necessary for us to proceed with the business of the Government and the legislation that we wish to get through. There is wide support for the two Bills that we are to discuss today. They have passed through another place, and it is legitimate to ask the House of Commons to use the time that has become available because of the different circumstances to debate these measures today.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
  BILL PRESENTED

    SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Secretary Ennals, supported by Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Stanley Orme, and Mr. Eric Deakins, presented a Bill to amend paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 to the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966 as respects the earnings of the parent in a one-parent family, and paragraph 24 of that Schedule as respects certain social security and other allowances for children: And the same was read the
    468
    First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave notice to your Secretary that I wished to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. Speaker: I thought I gave the hon. Member an opportunity to do that a long time ago. I shall not stop him now, but I thought that I had invited him to put his case earlier.
Mr. Gow: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the Government to follow the rules of the House and the ruling of Mr. Speaker that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is prima facie a hybrid Bill."
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not having given you notice before that I intended to move the Adjournment of the House, but it was not possible to anticipate that the Lord President of the Council, of all people, would cheat the rules of the House in this way.
I have to satisfy three criteria. The first is that this is a specific matter, and that it most certainly is, because it is within the hearing of us all that the Lord President has made this statement. Secondly, I have to satisfy you that it is an important matter. What could be more important than overriding the rights of Back Benchers of this House, and not least when it comes from the Lord President of the Council himself?
But there is one issue that is even more important than the overriding of the interests of Back Benchers, and that is the overriding of the interests of the citizens of this country, one of whom has deposited a petition in the bag behind the Chair. For the Government to seek in this way and at this time to override the interests and rights of the British people, safeguarded and enshrined in Acts of Parliament, is a matter of the greatest importance.

469
The last test that I have to satisfy is one of urgency. The Lord President of the Council has told the House that we are to discuss and debate this matter tomorrow, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) asked the Leader of the House what he would have said if he had been on this side of the House and if my right hon. Friend had made this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman would have demanded, as we on this side of the House now demand, that it is too late to discuss a matter of this importance tomorrow, and we require and ask that it be debated today.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the Government to follow the rules of the House and the ruling of Mr. Speaker that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is prima facie a hybrid Bill."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Member has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Medicines (Specified Articles and Substances) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

TUBERCULOSIS VISITORS (HEALTH AND CHEST CLINICS)
4.59 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Wavertree): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for improving the status of tuberculosis visitors working within health and chest clinics; and for connected purposes.
Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to wait until the Chamber clears a little before I present my Bill?
Mr. Speaker: I ask right hon. and hon. Members, if they are leaving the Chamber, to do so quietly because the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree seeks to address the House.
Mr. Steen: One of the important tasks of the House, as you have heard this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is to champion the rights of the individual and to protect minority groups from being trampled on by the big battalions. I take it that no hon. Member will disagree with that. If that is the case, how does one reconcile that basic principle with the discrimination that is currently practised against the tuberculosis visitor if she does not possess a health visitor's certificate?
There are 140 tuberculosis visitors. Most are experienced State registered nurses usually with other qualifications as well, such as State certified midwives, certificates in tropical diseases and qualifications of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene. However, fewer than six of those tuberculosis visitors hold a health visitor certificate.
The tuberculosis visitor's job is to detect and monitor and help those who have tuberculosis. The visitors work from chest clinics and are part of the National Health Service. Chest physicians tell me that they are invaluable and indispensable and play an important part in the life and health of the country.
The House may be surprised to learn that the number of tuberculosis cases in Great Britain is starting to rise again. In 1975 there were 12,323 outbreaks. That is why it is so repugnant that the Government have passively accepted Halsbury's odious distinction between the tuberculosis visitor with the health visitor certificate and the tuberculosis visitor without it. If a nurse has the health visitor certificate, her status is enhanced

471
and she is raised in pay and pension rights to the equivalent of Ward Sister 1. If she does not have the health visitor certificate, she is demoted to the bottom rung of the nursing ladder, to staff nurse. Whereas in 1970 the tuberculosis visitor without the health visitor certificate was on an intermediate scale between staff nurse and sister earning £180 less than the tuberculosis visitor with the certificate, in 1975 Halsbury shot up the differential to £1,248 while downgrading those without the certificate. If the tuberculosis visitor has the health visitor certificate, not only is she paid more, and gets a higher pension, but she is three grades higher than her colleague doing identical work in the same office, in the same area, who takes on the same responsibilities. If the tuberculosis visitor has no health visitor certificate she is on the same rung as the nurse who has just qualified. In fact, she is back to where she started 20 or 30 years ago.
Everyone is agreed that Lord Halsbury got it badly wrong and that the tuberculosis visitor without the health visitor certificate should be upgraded, although not necessarily to the same level as those with the certificate, because everyone recognises that the health visitor certificate—an eight-month course—is a valuable and additional training; but she should at least be placed on the same band as other community nurses such as the district nurse and the district midwife. In this way the distinction between those tuberculosis visitors with the health visitor certificate and those without it would be narrowed, their status restored and the financial differential reduced to £300.
I am glad to say that the Edmonton chest clinic has found a way around this anomalous situation. Since January 1976 it has got rid of its tuberculosis visitors. Instead, the two tuberculosis visitors without the certificate it employs have been upgraded to district nurses. But they are actually carrying out identical work although with a few extra jobs thrown in for good measure. Their salary scale now goes up to £3,552, but a few miles away, at the health centre at Hackney, there are still tuberculosis visitors doing identical work whose salary scale goes up only to £2,646. I believe that that is totally wrong.
472
What is so mean and hurtful is that the Department of Health obviously thinks that it can get away with this, because it takes the view that nurses will not take industrial action as they are not part of one of the strong unions. Although NALGO has expressed support and concern, it is odd that the other heavyweight unions do not appear to have the interest or gallantry to take up this cause and to resist the fundamentally wrong and unacceptable principle of actually downgrading a group of workers and reducing both their status and their salary and pension rights.
Since I introduced a previous Bill on 27th April, dealing with the one other anomalous group who have been downgraded—the school nurses without the health visitors certificate—hon. Members will be surprised to learn that I have received but one letter from the Department of Health on the subject and that was yesterday from the Minister of State regretting that he was unable to attend the House this afternoon to listen to my Bill. I thank him for that courtesy. It was good of him to let me know this, and I will excuse his absence if he will tell me what he is doing to put this matter right.
I take it that the Minister is not contending that the tuberculosis visitors without the certificate are not doing their job properly. I presume that he is satisfied that the 100,000 people who have contracted tuberculosis in the last 10 years received proper treatment. I also presume that he is not disregarding 30 or 40 years' experience in nursing and saying that it is less relevant than an eight-month training certificate. If that is the case, why is he remaining silent? Is he just plainly indifferent to the plight of these ladies? Does he realise that a good number of them, in the course of their work, have caught tuberculosis themselves and have suffered considerably?
I presume that his officials have exploded the myth that the health visitor certificate does not mean that a tuberculosis visitor does any different work when she is acting as a tuberculosis visitor. All it means is that a nurse with it is eligible to take on other work. It is also fair to say that those tuberculosis visitors, who have had a lifetime of experience tend to act as mentors to those young

473
girls, often with the health visitor certificate, who have recently joined the service.
Last July, at Question Time, the Minister acknowledged there was an anomalous situation and that it was causing a great deal of unrest. He said that he would review the matter. It has also been discussed by the Whitley Council which is responsible for assessing the salary and status of nurses. The Staff Side asked for the matter to go to arbitration. The Management Side has repeatedly turned down that request. Who are the Management Side of the Whitley Council? They are the Government in sheep's clothing.
How can this Government, so full of high principles and lofty words, reject the pleas of 140 devoted nurses who have given a lifetime of service to this country? How can a Government committed to the spirit and principles of equal opportunity, and the rights of each individual, turn a blind eye to the plight of the tuberculosis visitors?
My Bill will put right this deep injustice. So long as it continues it should deeply embarrass each one of us on all sides of the House. We are all collectively responsible and we must all be deeply ashamed.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Peter Hordern, Mr. Charles Morrison, Mr. Fred Silvester, Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. Frederick Willey, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Reginald Eyre, Mr. Peter Bottomley and Mr. William Molloy.

TUBERCULOSIS VISITORS (HEALTH AND CHEST CLINICS)
Mr. Anthony Steen accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for improving the status of tuberculosis visitors working within health and chest clinics; and for connected purposes; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th June and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
  Order for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee), read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

  INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Committee read.
  Committee tomorrow.

BAIL BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
5.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has come to us having been considered in another place. Although this will be an important debate I have some suspicion that whatever we say or do in this debate will not form the headlines about parliamentary proceedings tomorrow. However, this is an important measure, giving effect to a number of the recommendations of the Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts, set up in 1971, whose report was published in 1974.
Before dealing with the detailed provisions, perhaps I might sketch a little of the background, because this provides a useful setting in which to place the measure that we propose. The purpose of the Bill is to improve the quality of bail decisions by setting out more clearly than hitherto the questions to which the courts should address their minds when taking these important decisions, and by improving the procedure, particularly by the creation of a presumption in favour of the grant of bail, to ensure that these matters are considered at the right time.
There has been some misunderstanding of the Bill's objectives. For example, it has been represented as being merely an attempt to relieve the burden on prisons. There certainly is a burden on the prisons. About 50,000 people a year are remanded in custody before trial—
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. I wish to raise through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the question whether we can properly now proceed with this Bill. It is, of course, correct that the Bill was named on the Order Paper this morning, but it will be well understood by you, after your many years in the House, that many of the interests involved in the Bill, not least the police service, in which, as you know, I declare an interest, the legal profession and many others, had expected to be able to be here when the Bail Bill
476
came before the House in order to advise us on our speeches.
I have made it my business to try to make contact with those members of the police service who wish to give advice through me to the House in respect of the Bill. Partly because it is engaged in trying to protect this House from the violence which threatens it from without but mainly because it has been denied any notice and any opportunity due to the preceding procedural difficulties, the police service, among others, is denied the opportunity today of approaching hon. Members in order to put its views on this important matter affecting crime, the law and the police service of Britain.
I appeal to you, Sir, to protect the rights of the police service, the men and women in it and all that they mean, by not allowing the Bill to be taken for its Second Reading till those important minorities have been given their right as free citizens to come to Members of Parliament and ensure that their point of view is put.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Further to that point of order—
Mr. David Weitzman: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. May I deal with one point of order at a time? The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is well aware that the Chair has no control over what is put on the Order Paper or not put on the Order Paper—and this is on the Order Paper.
Mr. Weitzman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whether there be merit in what the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has said, the matter was already raised with Mr. Speaker and dealt with by him earlier today.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, I return to my point of order because it would be wrong of me to take up a point of argument here. Mr. Speaker did not in fact rule on this matter. There was discussion as to whether the Bail Bill should proceed or not and the Leader of the House maintained that it should. The point that I am putting to you, Sir, is simply one of order—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member may well have a point which he can raise during the debate, but it is not a point of order for me.
Mr. John rose—
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry. I do not wish to challenge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for one moment—
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: What is the hon. Member doing then?
Mr. Griffiths: I accept your ruling—
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Come on. It is not dramatic enough.
Mr. Griffiths: I simply wish to record this, that in the circumstances in which I find myself it is wholly impossible for the police service to be heard—
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: He has not got his brief.
Mr. Griffiths: This situation—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member should be fortunate enough to catch my eye, he can make such observations as he may feel fit.
Mr. John: Before I was interrupted, I was seeking to explain the purpose of the Bill. Let me just retail some of the history, since it is germane to this matter.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
Mr. John: If the hon. Member could contain himself within the Chamber for just a little longer, he would hear—
Mr. Griffiths: Reichstag.
Mr. John: If the hon. Member would only listen to some of the debate, instead of coming in, immediately making his points of order and precipitately leaving again—[Interruption.]
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who has just stormed from the Chamber, to refer from behind the Bar to this Chamber as a "Reichstag" and to the Minister of State as "Mussolini"?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If there were any contribution from behind the Bar I would, of course, not be able to hear it.
Mr. John: Then the advantage was entirely yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was explaining that the working party reported as long ago as 1974. After the report was published observations were invited from all interested parties. Despite the intemperate outburst of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) this is not a party matter at all. This Bill has been the wish of both parties. It was under the Conservative Government that the working party was set up. It was the wish of all parties that all interested parties' observations should be invited, and that has been done. Indeed, the Bill has already gone through another place, at which time all interested parties again had ample opportunity to make their submissions, to make their points of view known and to speak to them. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds does not know the main outline of the Bill by now or the gravamen of the complaints by any interested parties, that is not a matter for the Government but a matter for the hon. Member himself, to decide whether he is diligent enough in equipping himself to make and answer points.
I was saying that there certainly is a burden on the prisons. About 50,000 people a year are remanded in custody before trial. Despite the steps which both the previous Administration and ours have taken to provide more court facilities, some of those remanded in custody have to wait weeks or months before they come to trial. It could be said that on economic grounds alone the reduction in the remand population is highly desirable, but although that is important, and although we hope that the Bill will improve the position, that is not our primary object.
Our primary object is to improve the quality of decisions on bail so that we can, to use the words of the report of the working party,
"enable courts to release more prisoners on bail without significantly adding to the burden of the police or diminishing the protection afforded to the public by a remand in custody".
It is not the Government's intention that the prisons should be relieved at all costs. There are often compelling reasons for a remand in custody for someone charged with an offence, and the Bill sets out those reasons in Schedule 1.

479
We also recognise that, because we are forecasting future conduct, it is impossible in this field to achieve absolute certainty. Inevitably, some of the people who are remanded in custody will be acquitted, although this is only a small proportion of the total—about 3,000 out of 50,000. Inevitably also some of those remanded in custody for trial or remanded after conviction in custody for reports will not receive custodial sentences.
That does not necessarily demonstrate that a prior—
Mr. Kilroy-Silk rose—
Mr. John: If I might finish this point, I will give way, but the continuity of my speech has already been disrupted by points of order.
What I have said does not necessarily demonstrate that the refusal to give bail on a previous occasion was wrong, since during the trial material facts might have arisen which were not available when the remand was made.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend said that 2,000 people in 1974 who were remanded in custody were subsequently found not guilty. He did not go on to say that 29,000, well over 50 per cent., of those remanded in custody were subsequently given a non-custodial sentence, which suggests that they should not have been in prison in the first place.
Mr. John: I thought that I said that some of the people had received non-custodial sentences. The figures are much as my hon. Friend described.
The point I make is that the subsequent fact that they receive non-custodial sentences does not of itself make wrong the initial decision to remand in custody. There is much rationalisation after the event when looking at figures of that kind.
This country's record for granting bail compares favourably with that of most other Western European countries. Although we have no reason to be ashamed of our record there is still room for improvement. I must stress that a Bill can only go part of the way, because the practice of the courts and others concerned with the judicial process, including the police, are important.
480
The Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts made a number of recommendations for administrative changes which did not involve legislation and which the Home Office recommended to the courts in a circular issued in October 1975. The Bill restates the practices of many of the courts. For example, many courts have presumed that bail should be granted and they have taken decisions accordingly. We feel that it is right and valuable to state these general principles in statutory form.
In introducing a measure of this kind I am conscious that the Government are in a dilemma. Those who are devoted to penal reform say that we are not moving fast enough or going far enough and that we should strengthen the provisions so as almost to force courts to grant bail. There are others who feel that legislation of this kind deprives courts of their discretion, and that by fettering them by such legislation we do more harm than good. We must steer a middle course between those extreme views.
The Bill is not a hasty measure. It has not been embarked upon without full consideration. The working party was set up following recommendations made by the Magistrates' Association to the Home Office in June 1971. The working party included a stipendiary magistrate, a circuit judge with experience as a stipendiary magistrate, a distinguished academic who had been a lay magistrate, three justices' clerks and representatives of the police. Its report was published in the spring of 1974 and it has subsequently received widespread support. The comments on the report have been carefully considered, and on virtually every point we have accepted everything that the working party said. Despite the fact that some hon. Members have complained that the Bill has been brought to the House somewhat precipitately, consideration of the whole of the Bill has been careful, and decisions have been taken on the best possible advice.
I shall now briefly outline the main provisions of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 deal with definitions. I draw the atttention of the House in particular to the definition of the phrase "bail in criminal proceedings" in Clause 1. This means bail grantable in or in connection with

481
proceedings for an offence to a person who is accused or convicted of the offence, or bail grantable in connection with an offence to a person who is under arrest for the offence or for whose arrest for the offence a warrant endorsed for bail is being issued.
The Bill is not concerned with bail granted in connection with, for example, matrimonial proceedings, where a person is granted bail after being arrested for non-payment of maintenance money, The importance of this is that the offence created later in the Bill, of failing to appear at the time and place appointed, applies only to criminal proceedings and will not extend to the other proceedings of the kind to which I have referred.
Clause 3 changes fundamentally the nature of bail and establishes a new framework for the granting of bail in criminal proceedings. At present, a person who is granted bail is required to enter into an undertaking, or recognisance, to pay a sum of money if he fails to appear at the time and place required. Clause 3 abolishes, in relation to criminal proceedings, the concept of personal recognisances of defendants and provides in its place that a person who is granted bail in criminal proceedings is under a duty to surrender himself at the time and place appointed for his trial. That duty is to be enforceable in accordance with Clause 6, which creates a new offence of failing without reasonable causes to surrender to custody. Clause 3(5) confers a power, hitherto available only to the High Court and the Crown court, to require a person who is considered unlikely to remain in Great Britain till the time appointed for him to surrender, to give security for his later appearance. With the various international bodies to which we now accede and the freer movement of people, the importance of that measure can be understood.
I now come to the focal point of the whole Bill—Clause 4, which creates a presumption in favour of the granting of bail to accused persons. Subsection (1) states specifically that a person accused of an offence shall be granted bail unless he falls within one or other of the exceptions set out in Schedule 1. The schedule sets out the circumstances in which the accused need not be granted
482
bail—for example, if the court is satisfied, on present wording, that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released on bail, would fail to surrender at the time and place appointed, commit an offence whilst on bail interfere with witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. In addition, the court need not grant him bail if it is satisfied that he should remain in custody for his own protection, or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare.
There are two other obvious but necessary exceptions—where the court is satisfied that it has not been practicable in the time available since the proceedings were instituted to obtain sufficient information on which to base a decision or where the accused is already in custody serving a sentence.
The wording as it stands points to an "unacceptable risk". That was the amendment which was introduced by the other place. The Government's view is that the original wording "it is probable that" is preferable to the wording inserted by the Lords. It will, therefore, be our intention to introduce in Committee a reversion to the words "it is probable that" but with the significant addition that, in paragraph 7 of the schedule, the other part of the amendment introduced by a noble Lord, setting out in more detail certain criteria, will be suitably adapted by the Government to meet the new circumstances and the new wording.
Mr. Edward Gardner: Is it the Government's intention to introduce into Schedule 1(1) words that will have the effect that the court will have to be satisfied that it is probable that a person will fail to surrender to custody and all the other conditions?
Mr. John: That is the intention. I shall listen closely to the debate but at the moment, having read the proceedings in another place, I have not been persuaded that the substitution of the words "unacceptable risk" meets the particular point.
The working party considered that a corollary to creating a presumption in favour of bail was that a court should be required to give reasons when overriding the presumption. Accordingly, Clause 5 provides that where a court

483
withholds bail or grants bail subject to conditions it shall give its reasons for doing so.
This provision should be valuable in two ways. It should help to ensure that magistrates and judges address themselves to the right issues, and it will enable a defendant who is refused bail or granted bail with onerous conditions, and who wishes to make an application for bail to another court, to know what objections have to be met. It should also enable the court considering the further application to know what was in the minds of those who refused bail and should lead to greater consistency in decisions. Clause 5 also requires a record to be kept of the terms on which bail is granted and the defendant to be given a copy if he asks for one.
Clause 6 makes it an offence for a person who has been released on bail to fail without reasonable cause to surrender himself at the time and place required. This new offence replaces the existing personal recognisance system as the sanction against a person who absconds. The working party, in recommending the creation of this offence, considered that not only would it provide a greater deterrent against absconding than the largely ineffectual personal recognisance system but it would also encourage courts to grant bail more often in marginal cases. The Government do not accept the view expressed in another place that there should be no sanctions at all against absconding, because we believe that this would be likely to have the entirely contary effect of increasing custodial remands. The provisions about the offence are so designed that the offence of absconding can be dealt with at the same time as the main offence. There was clearly some anxiety in the other place about how and when it would be dealt with.
Clause 7 recites the liability to arrest for absconding or for breach of bail conditions and is largely procedural.
Clause 8 is an important clause, because it contains for the first time in a statute the factors which should be taken into account in considering the suitability of a potential surety. In the past this has been a matter of some doubt and has led to persons being wrongly rejected as sureties. The clause also makes it clear that the final decision on the suitability of
484
a surety is a matter for the court and not the police. Provision is also made for the first time for sureties who are resident in Scotland to be able to enter into their recognisance before the Scottish police rather than as at present having to travel into England for the purpose. The other point that the working party made was that sureties should not be required as a matter of course.
Clause 9, which creates a specific offence of agreeing to indemnify sureties in criminal proceedings, is one step on the way to reforming the law of conspiracy. It is already an offence under the common law of conspiracy to indemnify a surety, and this clause is included to replace the common law on this point. We agree with the working party that it is essential to retain this offence, since otherwise we would be in some danger of developing the "bail bond" system current in the United States of America. I think that not only we in this country but many people in the United States itself would consider such a development highly undesirable.
Clause 10 extends existing law by allowing coroners to grant bail to a person charged by a coroner's inquisition with murder, as well as to a person charged with manslaughter or infanticide. The Government have already indicated their intention of altering the existing law requiring coroners to commit for trial persons who have been named by a jury as responsible for a death, where the verdict is one of homicide. Such legislation will be introduced in due course. However, until then it is necessary to keep the law on the granting of bail by coroners in line with the general law, and in particular to ensure that a person charged is at no disadvantage through being committed by a coroner's inquisition.
The purpose of Clause 11 is to ensure that an unrepresented defendant who is in danger of being remanded in custody shall be granted legal aid for bail purposes on his second appearance, if he is not legally represented but wishes to be. The clause has to be read together with the Legal Aid Act 1974, which it amends in this respect. It is designed as a safety net rather than as an operative provision. The defendant would often have been represented on his first appearance by a solicitor engaged privately, a solicitor

485
he had obtained on legal aid whilst in custody after arrest, or a duty solicitor at the 45 courts—including now most of the larger ones—where duty solicitors are available. If not, he would ordinarily have applied for and obtained legal aid whilst in custody between his first and second appearance. If, however, he has still failed to obtain representation, but desires to have it, and does not have sufficient means to pay for it himself, the provision requires the court to grant legal aid on his second appearance.
Clauses 12 and 13 are procedural. I referred to Schedule 1 when speaking about Clause 4. Schedule 2—consequential and other amendments—is substantial merely because of the antiquity of bail procedures.
The details of the Bill will be considered in Committee. I hope that this introduction has been helpful. The two main changes made by the Bill are in Clauses 4 and 5, which are both significant. They are likely to be effective and to bring the bail procedures into accord with modem thinking on the matter.
I have already dealt with the question of unacceptable risk. The other proposal which was put forward in another place, and which the Government accepted in principle, was that special provision should be made for cases where the accused is charged with an offence not punishable with imprisonment. It would be unusual for a defendant to be remanded in custody in such circumstances, either before or after conviction. It was no doubt for this reason that the working party made no recommendation for a specific provision. Nevertheless, it is true that the Bill as it stands would allow such a person to be remanded in custody, if one or more of the criteria set out in Schedule 1 were met.
The Government agreed in principle that a person should not be remanded in custody where the offence was not punishable with imprisonment, except in two circumstances. One of these is where it is necessary to remand him in custody for his own protection or, if a minor, for his own welfare—for example, if he is apparently mentally unbalanced or shows suicidal tendencies. The second case is where he has failed to appear when bailed on a previous occasion and therefore the probability of his failing to
486
appear again unless remanded in custody is raised from a probability to a virtual certainty. Otherwise, the court would sometimes be obliged in the one case to turn a person loose when he was obviously likely to do himself or others an injury, or in the other case to allow him to get away with wilful defiance of the court's authority. But these would be exceptional cases.
The other concern expressed in another place was on the question of extending the presumption in favour of the granting of bail to cover persons remanded in custody for inquiries after conviction but before sentence. Most of the remands by magistrates' courts are under Section 14(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952
"for the purpose of enabling inquiries to be made or of determining the most suitable method of dealing with the case".
Some such remands are, however, specifically for medical reports under Section 26 of the same Act, where the court is satisfied that the accused did the act or made the omission charged
"but is of opinion that an inquiry ought to be made into his physical or mental condition before the method of dealing with him is determined".
The Crown court may also adjourn a case for inquries under its inherent powers, in which event it may either commit the defendant in custody or use the powers in Section 13(4) of the Courts Act 1971 to grant him bail. In 1974, about 12,500 persons were remanded in custody for inquiries, mostly under Section 14 of the 1952 Act. Only 2,782 were remanded under Section 26. About half this total received a custodial sentence, and another 12 per cent. were made subject to a hospital or guardianship order. Those remands arose mainly because of the requirements in Sections 19 and 20 of the Powers in Criminal Courts Act 1973, that the court, before sentencing a person under 21 to imprisonment, or imposing a first prison sentence on anyone,
"shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances, and shall take into account any information before the court which is relevant to his character and his physical and mental condition." Courts were advised by circular in 1971 that only in rare circumstances should a young adult receive a custodial or supervisory sentence without the court

487
considering a report of the kind I have outlined.
It will be seen from these figures that a substantial proportion of defendants do not ultimately receive a custodial sentence or enter an institution for in-patient treatment. Various reasons have been adduced for this. One suggestion put forward by Mrs. Dell in an article in the New Law Journal for 1st April is that
"a remand in custody is the simplest and most convenient as well as the traditional, way of obtaining reports".
Others have suggested that some courts use this to give an offender a taste of prison and thus deter him from committing further offences. A third possibility is that in some areas, at any rate, it is not possible to obtain a report on a person remanded on bail within a reasonable time, because of pressure on hospital facilities for out-patients. We have tried to meet the last difficulty in part by providing facilities for out-patient examination at certain prisons, but of course there are sometimes problems of travel. Lastly, and perhaps most obviously, the court may intend—and the defendant may know that the court intends—to pass a custodial sentence unless something in the report reveals a good reason why it should not do so, and in the event that the report reveals such a reason.
Since we are here concerned with persons who have been found to have committed an offence, there is not as strong a presumption in favour of the grant of bail to them as there is with purely accused persons. Nevertheless, the Government accept that there should be a presumption. The question is, in what circumstances should the presumption be overridden?
I do not think it is in dispute that where bail may be refused to an accused, it may also be refused to a person who has been convicted. The question is, what further action, if any, is necessary.
In this context, I should like to refer to the Report on Young Adult Offenders. It disapproved of the practice, in so far as it exists, of remanding in custody to give a defendant a taste of prison, on the ground that the courts should not seek to achieve such an end in a covert way.
488
On the other hand, it expressed some sympathy with the view that it may be
"inhumane to release an offender into the community and subsequently to take his liberty away"
though it thought that the prospect of a custodial sentence should be thought of merely as one important factor to weigh in the balance against any other considerations. As regards psychiatric reports, it did not consider that the need for a psychiatric report justifies a remand in custody where bail would otherwise be granted, but mentioned that there were complaints that psychiatrists outside the prison service take longer to prepare their reports and acknowledged that courts should be able to obtain reports at reasonably short notice. That is being done not merely for the convenience of the courts, and I am sure that the Opposition will also consider the point about the length of time in which a charge hangs over a person, with the consequent disruption of his life and well-being.
I will state the Government's general conclusion. First, we agree that a presumption in favour of bail should apply to persons remanded for inquiries after conviction but before sentence. Secondly, bail need not be granted where it would not be granted to an accused person. The criteria are set out in the Bill. Thirdly, we think that it need not be granted where the court is able to say that it is probable that it will impose a custodial sentence unless the report indicates the contrary.
Fourthly, we think that it need not be granted where it appears to the court that it would otherwise be impracticable to obtain the report. We recognise that this does not go as far as some would like, but we have to have regard to the practicalities of the situation. I hope that all hon. Gentlemen who wish to take part in the debate will recognise that this is an honest attempt to meet the needs of society and also the needs of those who are accused of offences and who do not subsequently receive custodial sentences.
Inevitably, this is a technical Bill, but I wish to emphasise that we are dealing here with often conflicting but necessary matters which must be reconciled in the interests of the protection of society and the liberty of the individual.

489
This House has a long and honourable record in resolving these two problems—[Interruption.] I say that despite the mutterings of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who has now returned to us having failed to hear what I have said in the intervening period about steps taken to invite the views of the police, among others, on these matters. I repeat that this House has an honourable record in resolving those twin criteria. I believe that if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, we shall add a further chapter to that honourable record.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. Edward Gardner: I am sure that the House will agree that this Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation of its kind which the House is likely to consider for many a year. Its provisions aim at improving the quality of the administration of justice and will affect an untold number of people who may be charged with criminal offences and who, as a consequence, might be exposed to the risk of finding themselves deprived of their liberty if it were not for the change in the presumption which this Bill introduces.
The Bill deserves, and indeed demands, the most careful and thoughtful consideration by this House. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood when I say that it is a great shame that this Bill should come before the House today when our affairs have been overshadowed and overtaken by events so recently discussed. For the first time I slightly envy Ministers who are able to look at briefs prepared for them by departmental officials. I hope that when these discussions are read outside the House, it will be recognised that, although we shall try to do our best to deal with these provisions as sensibly and as firmly as we can, we have been taken by surprise because this debate is being held at a time when few of us expected to have to deal with these matters.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend, in his mild way, has underlined a point that I sought to make, perhaps a little less mildly, earlier. Will he not accept from me that the official Opposition have a duty to this House to complain to the Government when events make it impossible for large
490
numbers of people outside the House to make representations to their Members of Parliament? We surely must complain when those people are disabled by the Government's action from being able to see their parliamentary representatives and to put forward their views on this important Bill.
Mr. Gardner: I accept all of that. I understand all too well—and I hope that they will be understood outside the House—the difficulties in which we are all placed by the suddenness with which we have had to deal with this Bill.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If the hon. and learned Member will accept that proposition from his hon. Friend, will he accept from me that this Bill would have been debated in a Second Reading Committee in the Session before last if the official Opposition had permitted it to go into that Committee? It would also have been debated earlier in this Session if the Opposition had so agreed. We have had two years to receive representations about the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be prepared for it.
Mr. Gardner: I was anxious not to be driven off the serious points in this Bill. I wanted to make—and I think I made it with justification—a complaint about the fact that we suddenly find ourselves having to debate a piece of legislation of such importance at such short notice. Of course the Bill came out in March; we all know that. But we have not been reading this Bill and nothing else but this Bill since then. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is absolutely right when he says that the public need the opportunity to approach their Members to put their views so that they may be reflected in this debate. Our constituents have been denied this opportunity. My hon. Friend said that I put the point mildly. I did so for the purpose of avoiding this kind of argument in the middle of an important debate. Perhaps I may get on with the points that I was trying to make.
There is no doubt that over many years hon. Members have seen the need for a Bill that contains provisions of the kind contained in this Bill, which seek—I do not say that they necessarily

491
achieve their end—to deal with the intractable problem of bail. It is a problem that will by no means be extinguished, although we hope that it will in some measure be diminished, by the Bill's provisions. The Society of Conservative Lawyers, Justice, the Criminal Bar Association and the Home Office working party have all been at one in trying to reach conclusions that would be helpful in dealing with this issue.
In looking up an old diary I saw that it is almost eight years to the day that I was appointed as chairman of a committee of Justice that had among its terms of reference a consideration of the problem of bail. That committee reached a number of conclusions as a result of many weeks of deliberation. We made a number of unanimous recommendations, which the Government of the day introduced into the Criminal Justice Act, 1967. That Act provided that bail should not be refused except on one or more specified grounds, and that if it were refused, the reasons for the refusal should be made known to the defendant. The provisions of the 1967 Act, however, applied only to people who had committed what might be described as lesser offences. It is right to say that as a result of this Act, remands in custody fell from under 40 per cent. in 1962 to 15 per cent. in 1974.
Although I agree with the Minister that our record in respect of the number of successful applications for bail is a good one—we apparently have the lowest number of people remanded in prison awaiting trial of any country in Europe, if not in the West—the fact remains that in 1974 almost 65,000 people were re-remanded in custody and of that number more than 2,000 were later found not guilty and 29,000 were given non-custodial sentences. Those figures, stated in that way, can easily be misunderstood. It is true, and I believe it is a proposition to which we would all subscribe, that a person who has been tried for a criminal offence and found not guilty should, in a perfect world, not have been subjected to imprisonment before his trial.
There are some who say that someone who has been found guilty at his trial should not have been put into prison before that trial and have had an application for bail refused. I do not support
492
that view. Indeed, in many cases when a person is not given bail and is later found guilty the court decides that his case has circumstances which enable it to pass a non-custodial sentence. One of the circumstances frequently taken into account by the court is the fact that that person has been imprisoned and has had a taste of imprisonment before the conclusion of his trial.
We accept the introduction of a statutory presumption in favour of the granting of bail to people who are awaiting trial, because we think it right that our law, which presumes innocence until guilt is established by trial, should protect people, if at all possible, from being sent to prison without good cause before they have been shown to have committed any crime.
We welcome Clause 3, which abolishes the need for personal recognisances for persons granted bail, and Clause 6, which creates a new criminal offence of failing without reasonable cause to surrender to custody. The latest paper produced by Justice, again after a considerable amount of work and research, reflects—and by that reflection approves—the various measures contained in this Bill.
I have been asked to point out to the House—because it is something that has the approval of the Opposition—that Justice has always been anxious to see that there should be what has become known as verified information available, upon which the decision whether to grant bail can be founded. Again I refer to the Justice committee. One of our recommendations was that the kind of work being done by the Manhattan bail project by the Vera Institute of Justice in New York, which had experimented in providing verified information, should be followed here. I am glad to hear that such an experiment is now being carried out here and that it appears to be successful and helpful.
We on the Opposition side of the House—I say this after considerable thought and discussion—are not satisfied that the aims that the Bill clearly has and declares are likely to be achieved by its provisions in their present form. We are particularly anxious about the interpretation of Clause 4 and Schedule 1. It is the reading of Clause 4 with Schedule 1 that gives us a good deal of concern.

493
We recognise that the general aim of the Bill, to keep as many people as possible out of prison, is laudable. We recognise that the aim of protecting people from unjustified and unnecessary imprisonment is laudable. At the same time, we bear in mind the equal and balancing requirement of seeing that the public is protected against people who, if left at large, might be a danger to it.
The impression one gets on reading the Bill is that a discretion is left to the magistrates or to the Crown court to allow bail in certain circumstances, but, on reading Schedule 1, one begins to wonder whether that discretion is anything more than an illusion. I understand that in Committee the Government intend to alter the wording of Schedule 1. Paragraph 1 reads:
"The accused need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would"
and there then follow the three conditions that have to be satisfied. I understand from the Minister that it is the Government's intention to replace "unacceptable risk" with the word "probable".
I do not follow how a court is going to be satisfied that it is probable that a certain person is likely to fail to surrender to custody. What kind of evidence would one expect to discover that would bring the court to a state of mind in which it would be able to say "This person will probably fail to surrender to custody", or "This person will probably commit an offence whilst on bail", or "This person will probably interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice"? How is the court to be persuaded that these things are probable? It is making conditions which make it impossible for a court to act effectively. Unless in Committee we can do something pretty fundamental about the wording of Schedule 1, we are going to say, in effect, that the presumption that a person shall be entitled to bail is a presumption that is to be enjoyed by anyone who is charged with a criminal offence.
Mr. John: Do I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman's strictures also apply to the test of "unacceptable risk"?
Mr. Gardner: Yes. I think that that is so in both cases. Perhaps I can suggest
494
a way out. It is not something for which I can claim any responsibility. It is a suggestion by the Criminal Bar Association, and the House should consider it carefully. But first I want to illustrate the dangers which lie at present in the restricted language of Schedule 1.
Supposing—and there will be many cases where this applies—there is a bloody murderer or someone who has committed a heinous crime involving extreme violence. Where do we find in the wording of Schedule 1 any kind of opening for a court to say "In this case, taking into account the gravity and nature of the offence, we cannot expose the public to the risk of allowing this man to remain at large"?
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: But surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about a serious offence which will carry with it severe and serious penalties. Presumably, in such a case, the court would have to do no more than refer to paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 1 to consider that that person will be one who will be assumed to fail to surrender to custody.
Mr. Gardner: No. That would be to abuse the wording of Schedule 1. First, if the Government have their way, the condition will be that it will be "probable" that the person will fail to surrender to custody. But a person who has committed a dreadful crime may well be a person who would surrender to custody, although, of course, the more extreme the gravity of the crime, the more likely it is that, if there is any propensity to run away, the person involved will be tempted not to surrender.
Mr. Weitzman: I honestly cannot see where the difficulty arises. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman read through the whole of paragraph 7(a), (b), (c) and (d)? Surely a court with any sense of responsibility must take all these factors into account in dealing with paragraph 1 of Schedule 1.Where does the difficulty arise?
Mr. Gardner: The difficulty arises in any specific words in Schedule 1 which cover the nature and the gravity of the crime. I submit to the House that one of the provisions expressly put into the Criminal Justice Act 1967 should also be put into this Bill. This suggestion has the support of the Criminal Bar Association. The provision in question is Section

495
18(5)(f), which says, in effect, that magistrates shall not be required to remand or commit a person on bail.
"where the act or any of the acts constituting the offence with which he is charged consisted of an assault on or threat of violence to another person, or of having or possessing a firearm, an imitation firearm, an explosive or an offensive weapon, or of indecent conduct with or towards a person under the age of 16 years".
Mr. Weitzman: But where is the difference between that and paragraph 7(a) of Schedule 1, to which I drew attention, which deals with the nature and seriousness of the offence?
Mr. Gardner: I want it to be expressed in language which is understood not only by lawyers but by the public outside. The hon. and learned Member should not dismiss so readily a serious contention of this kind. I want the public to know what the Bill is about and to realise that the statutory words in the Bill do something to protect them. I do not accept at the moment that in its present form the Bill gives the public that protection.
The recommendation of the Criminal Bar Association, which I put to the Government on behalf of the Opposition, is that the words of Schedule 1 should indicate that, where there is a real possibility that a person is likely to fail to surrender to custody, or is likely to commit an offence while on bail—and there should be no great difficulty in so finding on evidence—the court should be in a position to refuse bail.
I do not want to persist with what may well be, in effect, a Committee point in a Second Reading speech, but on the Opposition side of the House we recognise and emphasise the need for the maximum protection of the public, and we do not accept that the Bill in its present form enables the public to be protected as it deserves to be.
There are a number of occasions when the question of bail arises and must arise for consideration. The first is after a person has been charged with a criminal offence. The second is after a case has been committed for trial by a magistrates' court. The third is during the trial of the offence itself, when the judge has to make up his mind whether to continue bail at all times, or whether to restrict bail to certain times and to exclude it
496
at others—for example, during a midday adjournment.
The Bill deals, or is intended to deal, with each of those occasions, but the question of bail arises also after conviction and after sentence. I understand the Minister to have said, in the course of his opening remarks, that the Government now intend to amend the Bill so that the presumption that a person is entitled to bail will continue after conviction and before sentence. That proposition ought to be examined very carefully indeed before it is accepted by the House, for all kinds of reasons.
Finally, concerning the Bill as a whole, I draw attention to an important provision that refers to chidren and young people. As has been said so often before by hon. Members on both sides of the House, there is the most intense disquiet at the prospect of children under the age of 17 being sent to adult prisons. We know that this is happening now. There would, I think, be few, if any, hon. Members in the House who would not wish to see the Government put an end to this practice forthwith.
6.18 p.m.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this matter on the Floor of the House today, instead of having it debated in a Second Reading Committee upstairs.
I share the concern of some hon. Members about the problems that the Bill presents to hon. Members and to outside bodies. I have received representations from many groups that are in favour of the legislation but want to see it amended in different directions. Having collected this information, I put it on one side, waiting and hoping to be selected for the Second Reading Committee, at which stage I would have given the material rather more careful scrutiny than I have been able to do this afternoon. However, it is a considerable advantage that the matter is being taken on the Floor of the House, because an important measure of this sort gains some stature by being taken in this way.
I welcome the measure, which is an attempt to reduce the number of people who are at the moment imprisoned. That is the major aspect of the Bill. Clearly,

497
there are many ways in which this can be done. One of the most important is to try to get out of prison those who are clearly not guilty of any offence. Although it may be a fairly small proportion of people who at the moment are remanded in custody awaiting trial and are then acquitted, it is still important for us to get them out of prison altogether. The advantage of getting such people out of prison is that we thereby help to reduce the present overcrowding in our prisons. This is important both for the prison officers and for the people who should be receiving treatment as well as punishment in prison.
We then come to the much more substantial number who may in the end be found guilty, but not of an offence that will produce a prison sentence. I realise that this category is harder to deal with, because some of them will not receive a prison sentence, for the very reason that they have been remanded in custody. But there are still many people remanded in custody awaiting trial who would in no circumstances, if convicted, receive prison sentences. In my view, it is very important that such people should not be held in prison.
In this respect, I am also concerned about the advice that some lawyers give to clients whom they know to be guilty. All too often, they encourage them to stay in prison on remand rather than try to get out on bail, because conditions in prison, on remand, are that much better than after sentence. I accept that remand prisoners get some privileges, but they do not receive treatment of any kind while on remand. In my view, in many cases it would be far better for lawyers to suggest to their clients that, although they are "guilty" and eventually will go to prison, they should apply for bail and spend their time while on remand trying to sort out some of the real problems that they will leave behind for their families, rather than relying on social workers to cope with them after they have been sentenced.
I should like to see lawyers advising their clients to apply for bail so that they might have an opportunity to sort out their personal problems, with the result that, when the time comes for them to serve their prison sentences, it is the sentence that involves punishment and
498
treatment, rather than the limbo stage of being held on remand.
There are many strong reasons for keeping people out of prison if they are not guilty of the offences with which they have been charged, not the least of which is the cost to the community. It is ridiculous to spend £60 or £70 a week keeping someone in prison only to find afterwards that he is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged. What is more, it results in a considerable sense of injustice, not only on the person concerned but on his family, if he is held in prison when he knows, and when eventually the court establishes, that he is innocent.
One of the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill is the wide variation between the regions in the numbers of people let out on bail. It is ridiculous to have a situation in which in Liverpool, for example, an accused person has a better chance of being released on bail than if he lives elsewhere in the country and is accused of the same offence.
Then there are wide variations in practice according to the social class and background of the accused person. Recently I dealt with a case in my own constituency in which an accused man was refused bail because, according to the police, he had no fixed abode. In fact, he had been living in the same lodging-house for 18 months. The use of the term "no fixed abode" is extremely unfortunate. I realise that many people who live in lodging-houses move frequently. However, if a person has lived in the same lodging-house for 18 months, it is a little unfortunate if he is said by the police to have no fixed abode.
One argument against this measure is the increased possibility of people not surrendering to bail. The figures suggest that, at the moment, between 3 per cent. and 6 per cent. do not surrender to bail. However, the case can be argued two ways. It can be argued that if we extended bail we would not see many more people failing to surrender. The same figures also argue that we have it about right now. But it seems that, in view of the very small percentage who do not surrender, we ought to take the risk of increasing the figure, bearing in mind all the benefits involved in doing so.

499
I have heard it argued by police officers that this proposal will involve them in more work and that it will take up more of their time. I do not accept that, because, on the presumption that people should have bail, the police will spend less of their time checking up on people and less time in court opposing bail applications, and I suspect that this saving of time will match any additional time and work involved in going after people who have jumped bail.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that the police service wishes to make representations on this matter? The police wish to provide evidence and statistics which would have been helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House as a whole in arriving at a judgment. The hon. Gentleman has been denied access to their views, as has the House as a whole.
Mr. Bennett: I have evidence from some police officers. But it is amazing that, this matter having been on the Order Paper for such a long time, if the police had any intention of supplying every hon. Member with this information they did not do so before now. I accept that in Committee the police may wish to supply some Members with much more detailed information. However, the information that I have received about the number of people who fail to surrender to bail does not suggest that the police would be involved in a great deal more work.
I am more concerned about the problem of informing people who are out on bail when they are due to appear in court. If they are in custody, there is no difficulty, but if they are out on bail it is sometimes difficult to let them know when they should appear in court. In my experience, the police are often used as messengers for this purpose. That does not seem to be a very good use of police time, and I hope that in Committee we shall be able to look further into how far we can ensure that people know when they are required to appear in court without the need to involve police officers in this work.
Recently, I have become aware of an attitude among individual policemen in my constituency that causes them to believe that a little time in prison is good
500
for certain people. There is a growing divergence of opinion between the police and social workers. In the past few months the two bodies have been extremely critical of each other. I appreciate that this may be the overriding feeling in the mind of the policeman who has seen the damage or destruction involved in the case with which he is dealing. But, recently, I inquired about a constituent of mine who had been refused bail and, as soon as I began talking to the officer concerned to try to get the background to the case, he stressed the human misery that had been created by the offence, and I could well understand why he wanted to see a strong prison sentence imposed. However, when I spoke to the social worker involved in the case, I became aware that he was more concerned with the mental state of the person who had committed the crime and had not seen the effect of the crime. As a result, he had a completely different attitude.
Although I do not advocate policemen and social workers doing each others' jobs, it is very important that in their training both should have a little more experience of the respective problems that they have to face. Then, perhaps, we could get away from some of the argument and dispute between them.
If policemen are not happy with the sentences that our courts are imposing, we come back to the need for a change in the law. We do not want the police trying to get round the courts to ensure that accused persons spend some time in prison on remand, which is in my view a very dangerous and damaging way for the police to behave.
It is very important that we emphasise that no one should be held in custody charged with an offence when a conviction will not involve a custodial sentence. The Minister went a long way to meet this point, but he appeared to have reservations about people who might be a danger to themselves or to the community. In such cases, far more emphasis should be placed on finding somewhere other than prison for these people to spend their remand period.
I came across an utterly ridiculous situation when I was dealing with the case of a constituent of mine. For some time,

501
he had been voluntarily attending a mental hospital. He discharged himself and subsequently became involved in a series of offences. The court decided to remand him in custody for medical reports. In the end, when the medical report came through it stated that a custodial sentence was completely inappropriate for this person. What was required was to get him back to hospital for treatment as soon as possible. But he spent three weeks in Risley, which was the least suitable place for a person in this state of illness. It is very important that in this legislation we try to ensure that if people are a danger to themselves or to someone else they are put in the right place, which is very often not a prison.
It seems to me that the Bill does not provide the best way to reduce the number of people in prison, because it puts another offence on the statute book that carries a prison sentence. Obviously, one is increasing the risk of people not surrendering to bail by bringing forward this legislation, but I think that £400 or 12 months' imprisonment is not the best approach. I hope that in Committee we can probe the Bill a little further to see whether there are better approaches than the one we have. It seems strange that a Bill such as this can produce a new offence that actually can put someone into prison.
If the Bill is successful, nobody who is subsequently acquitted will spend time remanded in custody. But we should probe the question whether people who are remanded in custody and later found to be not guilty are entitled to compensation for the havoc that has been done to their lives, and also the financial havoc that has been caused. I realise that problems of compensation are difficult, but I hope we can probe this in Committee.
The Bill as it stands will do nothing to speed up the process of justice, which is something I would like to see. The biggest problem we have at the moment arises from the time it takes between a person appearing in court and the next stage in the proceedings. If that time could be reduced, much of the debate on the necessity for bail could be shortened. We must consider ways in which we can speed up the process of justice, to ensure that people spend less time remanded in custody.
502
I welcome this measure, and I am glad it has been taken on the Floor of the House. However, in the rushed circumstances of this debate, it has not been easy to look through all the material that should be put forward.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. Roger Sims: It is not my intention to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but I had hoped that we would hear from the Minister of State a fuller justification for it. 'What does it achieve, other than create a new offence of failing to surrender to bail? My reading of the Bill is that it seems to put into legal form what is already the general practice. The Minister said that the Bill makes clearer the provision of bail, but I think that all it does is to repeat what was in the Home Office circular, after the working party report. Shortly after publication of that report, the Home Office issued Circular 155 of 1975, which dealt precisely with the circumstances in which bail should or should not be given in exactly similar terms to those contained in the Bill.
We are told that the Bill introduces a presumption in favour of bail, but that presumption already exists. In paragraph 5 of the Home Office circular it says:
"It is intended that the legislation now being prepared should introduce a statutory presumption. The Secretary of State is aware that many courts already proceed in accordance with the Working Party's recommendations and he hopes that all courts will adopt this practice pending the introduction of a statutory presumption."
This presumption is already there. It is not necessary to have it written into the Bill.
Mr. John: But it is not statutory.
Mr. Sims: It may not be statutory, but I am not convinced that it is necessary to put the presumption into statutory form, because it is generally practised in most courts already.
The fact that the Bill has been brought forward in these terms implies that magistrates' courts are not granting bail when they should. That is the implication, and I think it is perhaps a little unjust. When a magistrate is presented with a bail application it is a difficult decision for him. But magistrates spend a great deal of time and trouble in considering every application made to them, and my con

503
cern is that the implementation of the Bill will be a further step in restricting the discretion of the courts.
One of the reasons that the Minister gave for introducing the Bill was that he hoped it would go some way to reducing the prison population. Will it do so? The Minister should bear in mind the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) that we have in this country one of the lowest figures in the world—six in every 100,000. In any case, the fact that some people are remanded in custody and are not subsequently imprisoned is not necessarily a relevant argument in this context. There is a difference between "preventive custody" and "penalty after conviction." If the court really believes that a defendant may not surrender to bail, or that he may interfere with witnesses before the hearing, it is right that bail should be withheld, whatever the likely outcome if the defendant is found guilty.
My fear is that if the circumstances for bail are laid down in an Act of Parliament, the granting of bail becomes more rigid. At present, every case is dealt with on its merits. Under the Bill's provisions, rules are laid down, and in certain circumstances bail could be granted when it should not be, and the reverse could also apply. The Minister said that the purpose was to improve the quality of decisions on bail. I am afraid that it may have the reverse effect.
If the Bill proceeds I hope that we shall give further consideration to the circumstances outlined in Schedule 1, to which reference has already been made. At present, it reads:
"The accused need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would—

(a) fail to surrender to custody, or

(b) commit an offence while on bail, or

(c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person."

I would have thought that "might" would be a more appropriate word than "would" here. The court cannot possibly know what a defendant is likely to do—it can only have suspicions.
What about the circumstances in which the defendant is likely to do harm to
504
himself or others? Perhaps the Bill covers circumstances in which he might do harm to himself in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, but circumstances in which he might harm others do not seem to be covered.
We have had a brief discussion on the extent to which the seriousness of offences will be covered in the final form of the Bill. I can just imagine the sort of arguments which we probably will have about what constitutes "unacceptable risks". This only illustrates the fact that the Bill will give wide scope for legal argument. One can visualise hon. and learned Members from both sides of the House having a field day disputing whether an offence is serious in terms of the Act, what an unacceptable risk constitutes, and what "probable" means in a legal context.
Reference has been made to bail after conviction. I think there should not be an automatic assumption for that. If there is a question of further remand for reports, in addition to the criteria laid down there should be added the one that the court may consider a custodial sentence—in which case continued custody may be appropriate so that reports can be obtained, when they can be obtained only, or perhaps more quickly, while the person is in custody.
Mr. John: I think that the points that I made, although not exactly meeting the formula that the hon. Gentleman is now putting forward, substantially meet his point, particularly where there is no other way of obtaining reports. I stated that this was one of the criteria under which bail should not be granted when awaiting reports.
Mr. Sims: Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman referred to that matter, but I was not clear about the form in which that would be included in the Bill. Perhaps this is one of the points that we may discuss in Committee.
I should like to mention briefly three further points for consideration in Committee. The first is the question whether there should be some sort of penalty for false information given on bail information forms, because it may well be that a court could be misled into giving bail in circumstances in which it should not have done so.

505
Secondly, if a defendant has the right of appeal to a judge in chambers, against a bail refusal, is there not a case for the prosecution having a similar right of appeal where bail has been granted against the prosecution's wish?
Thirdly, perhaps we may take the opportunity in Committee to use the Bill to revive a proposal raised in another place in connection with the Criminal Justice Act 1972, but subsequently dropped, giving the courts, when bail has been refused, the power to remand in custody for longer than eight days; for example, for 28 days, with—I add this stipulation—the consent of the defendant. One can deploy the argument on the issue at greater length in Committee. However, it seems to me that the saving of time and expense—not least police time, and the cost of legal aid upon such custody—would be substantial.
Finally, there is an issue that has not been specifically mentioned and does not appear on the face of the Bill but which is important to its successful implementation. That is the issue of who is to complete the bail information forms that will be an essential part of the procedure if the Bill becomes law. The Home Office circular to which I have referred suggests that probation officers would be the appropriate people to do it, and, of course, probation officers have been used in the experiment at Camberwell. The working party's report suggests that it would be the job of the court staff to complete the forms. Another possibility raised in certain quarters is that it be the job of the police.
I should have thought that there were strong arguments against any of those three bodies of people being involved in completing these forms. Probation officers have a rôle akin to that of social workers. They are involved in advising, assisting and befriending defendants. They are certainly not administrators and would not be appropriate for the task. Court clerks may be involved in the subsequent case, and of course, almost certainly the police will be involved. In any event, all of those three bodies suffer from similar problems and shortage of manpower. Perhaps the answer is something on the lines of a duty solicitor, or a trained voluntary worker, who would be prepared to undertake this aspect of the work.
506
As I have indicated, I have yet to be completely convinced that this is a necessary Bill. However, if it receives a Second Reading, as I trust it will, I hope that we can fashion it into an instrument that will enhance, rather than detract from, the efficiency and justice of our system of magistrates' courts—a system that is unique.
6.44 p.m.
Mr. David Weitzman: I read with great interest the debate in another place. I am very glad that I did so, because I share the indignation expressed by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and by another hon. Member about the fact that the debate has come on without any real notice. This is a very important Bill. I should have thought that much more time should have been given so that we could ascertain the views of constituents and the public, and so that expressions of opinion on this matter could have been given in the Press and we could have dealt with it in some detail. I am glad that I read the debate in another place, because, at any rate, I went into the views that were expressed there.
This is a very important Bill, because it deals with the liberty of the subject. After all, the principle that every person is deemed to be innocent until his guilt has been proved, and that the burden of proof of that guilt lies upon the prosecution, is something that is most important in our law. Therefore, unless there are weighty reasons to the contrary, surely it is of vital importance that bail should be granted in every case.
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the number of men and women who were remanded in prison before trial for criminal offences in 1974. I think that it was overy 60,000. We know that every year about 2,000 persons are remanded in custody and are subsequently acquitted. There may be reasons why they are not given bail—in some cases they may be important reasons—but, bearing in mind those figures, it is startling that so many people are treated in that way. Bearing in mind how full our prisons are and how difficult it is to cope with the prisoners, and how, in many cases, there exist rotten conditions with which, because of our economic circumstances, we cannot deal.

507
in a matter of this kind surely the question of bail must be very carefully considered.
Therefore, it is extremely important that the Bill should enact in Clause 4 the principle that bail shall be granted, the emphasis being on the word "shall". Clearly, there must be exceptions. I take it that those exceptions are not merely cases in which a police officer opposes bail or gives an opinion that cannot be tested. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the exceptions in Schedule 1. It seems that the exceptions are very properly set out. Paragraph 1 reads.

"(a) fail to surrender to custody, or

(b) commit an offence while on bail, or

(c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person."

There has been some suggestion that the words "unacceptable risk" should be deleted in Committee and that the word "probable" should be inserted. I certainly think that the words "unacceptable risk" ought to be deleted, because they involve an almost impossible task in the question of bail. What is an unacceptable risk?
Mr. Edward Gardner: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the words "unacceptable risk" erect a burden of proof that is almost insurmountable, but is not the word "probable" an even higher obstacle?
Mr. Weitzman: No, I do not agree. I do not know whether the word "probable" is satisfactory. I am not suggesting that it is completely satisfactory, but it is probably much better than the words "an unacceptable risk". This matter must be looked at very carefully in Committee, because something must be done to put it in its proper perspective. Although I think, with respect, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in referring to the suggestion made that the words in the 1967 Act ought to be put in, in my view the interpretation clause—Clause 7—is very satisfactory, with the omission, of course, of the constitution of an unacceptable risk. Perhaps the words should be the consequence of events occurring constitutes the "probability", or something to that effect. I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to look carefully at the words in sub-
508
paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), because they set up exactly the same standard that he was suggesting. They are there as a complete guidance to the magistrates.
Mr. Edward Gardner: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not see that the interpretation in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 and the other grounds in paragraph 1 are the only grounds upon which magistrates and Crown courts can act? They are not extended by the interpretation sections; they are merely enlarged. They do not cover our suggested new ground of something similar to the provision in the 1967 Act.
Mr. Weitzman: I do not appreciate the force of that argument. Paragraph 1(a) mentions failure to surrender to custody, and when a magistrate is considering whether to grant bail he will take into account such matters and look at the interpretation sections to judge the situation in the light of those sections. I see nothing to prevent magistrates considering the matter and acting upon that basis.
I welcome Clause 3, which abolishes recognisances. They have often been useless and extracting them has led to real hardship. Certain reasonable safeguards are included in the Bill. Under Clause 6, a person who fails to surrender to custody will be guilty of a criminal offence and subject to the penalties contained in subsection (7)
Perhaps the most important point was made when the Bill was considered in another place. It is the need for information to be given to magistrates. The pilot schemes being carried out to secure that information were mentioned in the debate in another place.
Magistrates have a most difficult task if they wish to deal with bail applications fairly. They have to take into account the need to protect the defendant's liberty, but also the need to protect the public from the danger of further crimes. It is important that they should have the fullest possible information about a defendant's background. I hope everything possible will be done to assist them in order that they may be able to deal with applications fairly.
Clause 11 relates to legal aid. It is important that this should be granted wherever possible. I know the difficulties

509
caused by our present economic situation, but the granting of legal aid should be constantly kept in mind in court cases.
It will be very difficult to impose upon judges the obligation set out in the Bill to grant bail after conviction and before sentencing. When a jury has convicted a man, the judge will know the character and background of the defendant and the consideration of bail will then be an entirely different matter.
Judges sometimes grant bail if there is an appeal on an important legal point, but these are rather exceptional cases and I hope that before coming to a decision on this matter, hon. Members will consider it very carefully in Committee. Considerable thought must be given to the Bill before we get down to brass tacks.
I support the Bill. It will be a great help in many directions. I hope that it will receive attention in Committee and come out in a satisfactory form, as something that we can all support as it is put on the statute book.
6.56 p.m.
Mr. John Stonehouse: I am glad to follow the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), who speaks with much experience on this subject. I am also glad to be able to agree with his first point about this Bill being foisted on the House for Second Reading.
It is quite unsatisfactory that such an important Bill should be brought up suddenly because other business is not being considered today. The Bill has been considered in another place and hon. Members have had the opportunity to read a report of the debate that took place there, but the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who speaks for the Police Federation in this House, made a valid point when he said there are many outside organisations which wish to communicate their feelings on the Bill to hon. Members.
These organisations had assumed that there would be a public announcement stating when the Bill was to be considered. It is normal for them to circularise hon. Members a few days before a Second Reading debate. They know that hon. Members are inundated with correspondence and that if they receive
510
material weeks before a debate it may get lost.
I can speak from unique experience. I suppose that this is the first time that an hon. Member has spoken in a debate on the bail system when he is on bail himself. I have not only been on bail for some time, but I also have the unique experience, among those speaking in this debate, that bail was refused to me not once but on many occasions. I have had the opportunity of seeing the situation from the other side of the fence.
I do not intend to talk about my case, but my experience has given me an insight into the way in which the bail system operates and into the conditions suffered by the poor, unfortunate people who are denied bail after being accused of an offence and find themselves in a remand prison. The situation is very serious, and I shall refer to that aspect in a few moments.
The House of Commons research department has produced figures showing that in 1974—the most recent year for which statistics are available—51,422 persons were held for some time during the year awaiting trial. Of those, 2,101 were found not guilty or discharged and 20,915 were convicted of minor offences and received no custodial sentence. Is that figure disputed? According to the research document that I have in my hand it is 20,915, but that may be inaccurate. Research documents of the House are sometimes wrong. Most of us have seen the Home Office working party report, which gave similar figures going back over the past 10 or 15 years. For almost any year the figures demonstrate, whatever figures are used, that a large number of people go into remand prisons for some considerable time. At the end of the day, about 40 per cent. of them are acquitted or given non-custodial sentences.
The situation is serious. I read the report of the debate in another place. I was interested to read the comment of Lord Wigoder, who said that the situation was serious not only because people were denied bail but because they were
"remanded in custody to places where the conditions are as unpleasant as in Brixton Prison "—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22nd March 1976; Vol. 369, c. 520.]
I was pleased that Lord Hailsham agreed with that comment. Indeed. Lord

511
Hailsham must be complimented, because when he was Lord Chancellor he made some very outstanding statements, which have now found their way into the Bill, about the right of all Englishmen to bail.
Comments were made in another place about the conditions in Brixton. I share in those comments. I wrote an article about the matter in the New Statesman last September, shortly after I came out of Brixton. I pointed out that the conditions were deplorable. I wrote:
"The pressure on space and the antiquated buildings condemn the defendants to live in squalid and dehumanising conditions. In C Wing in Brixton, built for just over 100 prisoners nearly a century ago, there are about 340 defendants living three to a cell. In a space of just over 100 square feet three men have to spend 23 hours a day, apart from the occasional solicitor's or social visit and the brief intervals for 'slopping out' or collecting food. There are no communal rooms for association and recreation. The toilet facilities in that particular wing consist of only four water closets for 340 men and plastic chamber pots in each cell. There are four showers and a shower is allowed to each man only weekly."
To lock men up for 23 hours a day, three men to a cell, is a deplorable way to behave, whoever they may be. Let us remember that all these men are defendants awaiting trial, and that a large number of them will be acquitted at the end of the day. Indeed, 40 per cent. of them will either be acquitted or given non-custodial sentences. The crime of society in putting them into those conditions is even more serious. It is absolutely deplorable that tonight, as we debate the Bill in the Chamber, there are 1,000 men in Brixton Prison, most of them defendants awaiting trial, living in deplorable and antiquated conditions.
I welcome the Bill although, in a sense, it is unnecessary. I agree with the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that it is unnecessary, but at least it recognises that there is something wrong. The Bill is a sign of earnestness on the part of the Government in thinking that something must be done to avoid treating men in this deplorable way.
The Bill needs improvement. It is necessary that Schedule 1 be looked at again. I am glad that the Minister of State has indicated that that will be proposed in Committee. If we are to have it I should prefer it to be reworded to provide for a high probability.
512
It must be clear that, when considering bail and whether a defendant will abscond, the onus of proof must be on the prosecuting authority. It is not for a defendant necessarily to prove the matter, although he will want to bring forward the best possible information, either directly or through his solicitor. The onus must be on the prosecution to show that the defendant is a person who is likely to fall within the categories set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the schedule.
It is important that the prosecution should be expected, if it is opposing bail, to show clear evidence that the court may expect the defendant to behave in the way that is suggested.
That brings me to a key point about the whole matter of the granting or denying of bail. Unfortunately, the police, in particular, and, to some extent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, still take the view, despite the attitude that has been taken by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and successive Lord Chancellors that bail is the right of all Englishmen, that the denial of bail is a useful weapon in their pursuance of an individual whom they wish to make into a convict. The police, after all, have regarded themselves as having a duty to get convictions. It is not part of their responsibility to try to see the defendant's point of view. The police identify a person whom they consider to be a criminal, and all their efforts are directed towards obtaining a conviction.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's last remark should go unchallenged. It is not correct to say that it is the duty of the police to get convictions. Their duty is to bring people to trial. It is not the duty or concern of the police to consider the outcome of the trial.
Mr. Stonehouse: That was a facile interjection. First, I did not say it was the duty of the police to get a conviction. I said that, unfortunately, the police often regard it as their duty to get a conviction, which is another position altogether.
The police, unfortunately, have an attitude that it is their responsibility to win the game at the end of the day. This is an unfortunate aspect of the way in which the police go about their work. It

513
was demonstrated the other day by no less a person than the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark. Sir Robert made a speech in which he said, revealingly, that 50 per cent. of criminals are acquitted and get away with it: he thought that was deplorable.
That remark reveals that Sir Robert Mark has set himself up as a higher court of appeal. He considers all those individuals within the 50 per cent. who have been acquitted to be criminals who have got away with it. That attitude of mind must be deplored.
It remains true, despite the interjection by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), who speaks with a certain amount of experience of one aspect of the administration of the law, that in many cases the police regard their job as getting a conviction. If they fail to get a conviction, they feel that somehow they have lost out. That is why the police often go about their job by suppressing information that may be of advantage to a defendant at his eventual trial. The police often prevent a defendant from having contact with witnesses who might be advantageous to him by opposing bail so that the defendant is safely out of the way in prison.
When I was in Brixton Prison I met many people who, like myself, had been denied bail. Some of them suffered severe penalties as a result of that denial. The denial of bail to a man or a woman—certainly to a man who is the breadwinner for his family—is a serious condition. If he is eventually acquitted nothing can take away the stigma of having been in prison for even a short time. His neighbours will know something about it. If he is acquitted they will still think that he is a bad man because he would not have been put into prison unless there was something bad. Most of them will probably not even know that he has been acquitted, but they will know that he was locked away for a time. Furthermore, the employer of a man who is denied bail will get to know about it very quickly, and that man may lose his job. He will need a very understanding employer to allow him to be away for months on end and then come back to his job after he has been in prison.
514
In the most serious cases wives have left their husbands because they have been in gaol for so long. Fortunately, those examples are rare, because most wives are loyal to their husbands when they are in prison. Indeed, they go to extreme pains to travel long distances to visit them. When a wife gets to the prison where her husband is on remand, she may discover that she has only half an hour, or even less, to see him, in an overcrowded visitors' room where it is almost impossible to have any private conversation.
Any man who is denied bail and goes into prison, even for a short period, pays a very big price. I met men in Brixton who had been denied bail for over a year. I heard of several who, at their final trials, were acquitted of all charges against them. Yet for those men there is no compensation. Society has made them pay a price that they should not have paid, but they cannot expect anything back from the society that has done this terrible thing to them.
We should not only introduce the concept of the presumption of every Englishman to have bail, but change the practice of the police and prosecuting authorities of automatically opposing the granting of bail to suit their own purposes. I hope that, through every possible measure of education, the DPP, prosecuting authorities, the police and everybody involved in the bringing of charges will understand that they should not come to the court and automatically oppose bail, but that they should get into the spirit of the Bill and bend over to ensure that the presumption of bail is in their minds, as well as in the Bill.
There are many cases where men are denied bail at the first hearing in the lower court, but subsequently obtain bail, after a week or so, as a result of an appeal to a judge in chambers or, indeed, when they appear at the commital proceedings. If it is right that a defendant should get bail as a result of an appeal to a judge in chambers or in some other way, it should be presumed that it is right that he should get bail at the first hearing of the charge or charges against him.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the importance of correct procedures being adopted the first time

515
a defendant appears in the lower court. A remarkably interesting article, written by Mr. Michael King, appeared in The Guardian on 11 th July 1972. Mr. King drew from the report produced by Mr. Michael Zander as a result of research conducted by the London School of Economics with 134 prisoners. Mr. Zander and his team found that almost two-thirds of those who had asked to speak to a solicitor after their arrest were denied that right by the police.
Going back to the first experience of an individual when he is arrested and his wish to obtain bail at that stage, it is vital that he should have access to a solicitor for assistance with his application for bail at that critical stage in the whole process. As Michael Zander and his researchers discovered, of those who asked to see a solicitor, two-thirds were refused. Therefore, at that critical first stage they had little chance of getting outside assistance in the preparation of their applications for bail. They appeared in the magistrates' court having had no contact even with their families before their applications were heard. When cases are heard in the magistrates' court, invariably the only information available to the court is that produced by the prosecuting authority or by the police.
As I said, in too many cases the police have a vested interest in denying bail to a defendant. They are not interested in bringing before the court the full facts. Therefore, at the first stage it is vital that an individual who is arrested should, as of right, have access to a solicitor. I think that an individual who is arrested should, within the first six hours after his arrest, have the right to telephone to his family, friends or a solicitor, so that someone on the outside will know that he is under arrest. In many cases the persons arrested are kept virtually incommunicado by the police in police cells—sometimes for several days. Often their families do not know where they are and they have no opportunity of getting any help in preparing bail applications for when they eventually appear in court. It is important that when the court first considers a man's case for bail it has information about him, and that that information should be provided by the defendant and his solicitors by allowing him access to outside contact.
516
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Chislehurst about the importance of completing bail information forms, but I do not agree with him that the probation department should be absolved from responsibility in this connection. I speak as a former assistant in a probation department. I believe that no probation official worth his salt would reject the opportunity to assist a defendant coming before the court by providing objective information about that person's circumstances. I do not disagree that there should be an opportunity for voluntary social workers, properly trained also to give assistance in this connection.
I hope that when the magistrates' court is first hearing an application by the prosecution to deny bail, with the onus on the prosecuting authority to prove whatever is laid down in Schedule 1 as the conditions for opposing the application, there will be the fullest opportunity for information about the defendant to go forward at that stage, instead of being deferred to another occasion, because if there is a deferral even for a day or two, the defendant will find himself locked up in Brixton, or in some other remand prison, and I am sure that it would be the wish of the House that wherever possible even that short period of incarceration should be avoided. In fact, if there has to be a delay—an hour's delay, a day's delay or even two days' delay while the information is being obtained—it would be better for the accused person to be kept in a police cell for that period rather than be sent to Brixton.
I take strong objection to the provision in the Bill creating a new criminal offence. This is a backward step rather than a step forward. Indeed, it would be better to do without the Bill than to include this provision in Clause 6, because it will bring yet another offence on to the statute book. If persons abscond from bail, this provision will have the result of putting them through the hoop again after they have stood up to the charges of which they were originally accused.
I believe that if a person has jumped bail and comes forward to the court, either voluntarily or because he has been discovered by the police and apprehended to stand trial on the original offence of which he is accused, that, together with the extra sentence that the judge might impose, will be sufficient penalty, and that

517
he should not be subjected to the hazard of further criminal proceedings, which will only have the effect of cluttering up the courts.
If someone is acquitted of the original offence of which he is accused, even though he had jumped bail during the intervening period, it would be deplorable to drag him back, he having already suffered a great deal of anguish as a result of being subjected to trials on charges of which he has been acquitted, and subject him to yet another trial on a charge of absconding from bail.
There is another objection to this provision, and that is that it will not be a deterrent, because any individual who is considering jumping bail will not stop to say to himself "I cannot do that: I cannot jump bail, because at the end of the day I might face another charge". He is already facing charges which he regards as so serious, or so stupid, or because he has had a psychiatric breakdown or something, that he is convinced that he has to jump bail, and the fact that there is a criminal charge involved in the action of jumping bail will not be a deterrent to him in that frame of mind.
I do not think that that clause is of any value, and I do not know why it has been introduced into the Bill. I suspect that it is here only as a sop to the police and others who may object to the improving of the bail conditions, and I very much hope that in Committee it will be removed from the Bill.
I now propose to refer to the further steps that could be taken by an accused person to obtain bail if he were denied it in the lower court. There is a method by which an individual, or his solicitor, can appeal to a judge in chambers, but this is a cumbersome procedure, and I suggest that considerattion should be given to a proposal that has been put forward by prison officers themselves. They suggest that the judge should visit prisons to hear appeals for bail from remandees, rather than have the cumbersome business of the person concerned, or his solicitor, going to a judge in chambers. This proposal would be far more convenient and a far better way of dealing with the situation.
I should like to see a change in the practice of dealing with sureties. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the onus will be on the court, not merely
518
on the police, to consider whether the sureties are acceptable. I hope that in practice this will mean that more sureties will be acceptable than has been the case heretofore. In too many cases a defendant has been granted bail only after many attempts, either because sureties have been difficult to obtain or because they have been brought forward but rejected by the police, and presumably sureties could be rejected by the court if the same attitude were adopted in future as has been adopted up to now. I greatly admired the way in which the prison staff at Brixton, in particular, applied themselves to the job of assisting remandees to get in touch with possible sureties. I hope very much that that kind of assistance can be extended, so that prisoners who are trying to get sureties receive every possible assistance in that regard.
I hope, too, that another aspect of this matter can be considered, and that is the length of time that accused persons have to await trial when they are denied bail. There is a provision in Scottish law that if an accused person is not brought to trial within, I think, 110 days, he must be released. That aspect of the administration of justice could well be adopted in England, because in far too many cases persons are denied bail, sometimes for good reason, and are then kept in prison for 18 months or even longer before the trial takes place. I would hope there can be a speeding up of the hearing of cases where the accused person has, for one reason or another, been denied bail.
Although I do not think that all the provisions in the Bill are satisfactory I welcome it as a small step in the right direction. I particularly hope that the change in attitude that it shows on the part of the Home Secretary and his Department will be mirrored in the attitudes of those who have other responsibilities in the administration of justice.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: There has been a great deal of criticism from some hon. Members about the fact that we are having this Second Reading debate in the Chamber. Yet had it not been for the rather strange and, some would say, somewhat unfortunate circumstances of earlier this afternoon the Bill would have gone to a Second Reading Committee.

519
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) came into the Chamber in a great huff, after the Minister had started speaking, complaining that the Bill was being taken today. He might have joined me and some of my other hon. Friends in putting pressure on the Lord President and the Home Secretary to make sure that the Bill was read on the Floor of the House. He complained about the Bill being given a Second Reading today. Had it not been today, had the Bill gone to a Second Reading Committee and had he been observing what was going on, he might have been able to consult his paymasters and to make later the kind of comments he wanted to make in defence of the police. But he stormed out in a great petulant huff, which is not exactly the kind of attitude or demeanour which one would expect from an hon. Gentleman who claims to represent law and order and to speak for the police.
Mr. Ian Percival: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If I may finish this point first. Indeed, had the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds been before a juvenile court, his behaviour might have been described as meriting the granting of an unruly certificate.
Mr. Percival: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is a pity that he did not do so a moment ago. He ought to know that there was no question of the Bill going to a Second Reading Committee. That procedure would have been objected to from this side of the House and the Bill would have been dealt with on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That may well be.
Mr. Percival: It is.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I accept that. I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman's party would have taken that attitude, but I wish I had known about that earlier. My hon. Friends and I would have been grateful for assistance in twisting the Whips' arms.
One of the main complaints by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was that not sufficient time had been given for representations. But that is not the case. The Bill was mentioned in the Queen's
520
Speech and it has been in the other place. Dozens of documents have been issued for some considerable time, such as the joint policy statement from NACRO and the Howard League. Many other organisations seem to have taken this place seriously enough to find out what was going on here and to make their representations. If the police are as concerned as appears from their public statements, they should have taken some appropriate action to ensure that their views were put across. Indeed, they were, for the hon. Gentleman knows full well that we have heard of nothing but the complaints of Leslie Male and his cohorts about this Bill and many other things proposed by the Government or proposed and amended by successive Governments in the past.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A few moments ago the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said that I came into the Chamber complaining that I did not have time to "consult my paymasters." I would ask you to tell him to withdraw that imputation against me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Did the hon. Gentleman use the word "paymasters"?
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Yes, I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if it was incorrect, of course I withdrawn it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is withdrawing that remark?
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it were incorrect.
I also understand that the Police Superintendents' Association has issued a draft policy statement on the Bill. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has it in his possession now. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is so keen to represent the police that I would have thought that he would be a little more careful in finding out what they think rather than waiting for them to come to him. Some hon. Members on my side of the House have managed to do that very effectively and very well.
So far, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman's petulant tantrums, this has been an interesting and well-balanced

521
debate. On the whole there has been a welcome, conditional in some instances, for the Bill and its provisions.
It is difficult to strike the fine balance which is necessary between the inestimable value of the liberty of the subject and the clearly established and accepted right to protect society from those who would commit offences against it. I believe that the Bill goes a long way towards enhancing the liberty of the subject, although its provisions, in certain respects, are perhaps better dealt with in Committee. Perhaps it is too cautious in its urge to protect society rather than the liberty of the subject with which it is concerned.
However, I welcome the fact that we are debating it today and I welcome the Home Secretary's and the Government's commitment to it. It is sad that we should even have to debate this issue at this juncture. It is a sad commentary on our society that so many people are incarcerated in prison establishments. I am thinking not just of the many found not guilty or given non-custodial sentences, but of those who, under our present law, are found guilty of offences which many of us would regard as inappropriate for imprisonment. I am thinking of vagrants, drunks and even prostitutes, none of whom is in any sense redeemed, reformed or rehabilitated by a dose of imprisonment.
It is sad that so many of them are in prison when we have almost an all-time high in the prison population and there are plans for further extensions to existing prisons as well as for new prisons. We expect the prison population to rise to about 50,000 in the early 1980s, at a time when we are trying to devise and to put into practice means for reducing the prison population and cutting public expenditure.
It is also an extremely sad fact, which we must take into account, that so many of those people who are put into prison are subsequently found to be not guilty, have their cases not proceeded with or are given non-custodial sentences. Of the 64,981 persons remanded in custody in 1974, 2,101 were subsequently found not guilty or did not have their cases proceeded with and 29,015 were given non-custodial sentences. Only 26,000-plus were imprisoned after conviction.
522
It should give considerable cause for concern not just to those who have the liberty of the subject and his rights under the law uppermost in their minds but to any decent law-abiding citizen that more than 50 per cent. of those put in prison turn out to be people determined subsequently by the courts never to have needed a prison sentence. That is a blight on what is otherwise a civilised society.
It is, of course, true, as the Minister of State said, that the numbers on remand in this country, per head of population, or by any other series of indices which one takes, are lower than those of most comparable Western civilisations. But this is not a reason for complacency on the part of those of us who wish to improve our system of justice and our penal system and to extend the liberty of the subject even further. I do not accept as a reasonable or convincing argument that one can point to some other country where things are worse than they are here as a reason for not improving things in this country. We may lead the world in this area, bat let us continue to lead the world by (living a further example.
But, it is not the figures that are important. The right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse), who now sits for some nationalist party or other, has given us a clear account of the personal effects of imprisonment. We are dealing with people—people who are affected psychologically, emotionally and financially by imprisonment. We have all bandied about a number of figures. Few of us have the capacity to speak with personal experience. Some of us have spoken of cases known to us personally, but the effects of imprisonment, certainly on those who are subsequently found not guilty or given a non-custodial sentence, are traumatic.
They have already been punished, they have already lost earnings, for which they will receive no compensation. Hardship has been inflicted upon their families, they have probably subjected themselves and their families to great psychological and emotional turmoil. As is the case in many instances known to me, they may even have lost their homes as a result of being in prison, although eventually found not guilty. They may have been evicted for failure to pay rent which they could not pay because they were

523
in prison and could not earn A whole host of social problems follow from the simple refusal of bail.
Anyone who knows deeply and clearly about this kind of problem cannot but welcome any attempt to ensure that only those who are a clear danger to society should be deprived of their freedom until they are convicted. But we are dealing with a large number of people who, under our present system of justice, are innocent until they have been convicted—and few of them have been treated as such.
It is not only a question of hardship—financial, emotional, psychological and social—which is caused to the individual and his family and relatives. His reputation is also severely affected. The fact that he is subsequently found not guilty is neither here nor there to the general public. They know that he has been inside and they feel that there is no smoke without fire. We have a great responsibility to bear that in mind when discussing the Bill.
Other disadvantages apply to someone who is remanded to prison to await trial. He is at a severe disadvantage in preparing his case. He does not have the same kind of ready access to his solicitor. He may indeed be geographically isolated from both his family and his solicitor and may not have the physical communication with his advisers to help him to present his case. He cannot brief his friends in the simple operation of tracking down witnesses and persuading them to appear on his behalf. These are some of the disadvantages and side effects of this system.
There is also the problem of overcrowded prisons. We have heard of the Home Secretary's wish to reduce the prison population to the "irreducible minimum". The untried inmates on remand make up a considerable proportion of the normal certified prison population. I would not wish to exaggerate this, but on any one day there are between 3,000 and 5,000 people on remand awaiting trial. The last figure that I have been able to obtain shows that the average daily remand population in 1974 was 5,081. The latest figure for this year was supplied to me by my hon. Friend, but because of the speed with which this debate was entered into today,
524
I have not had access to all the figures that I have been assiduously collecting in the past few months.
At Brixton, the certified normal accommodation is for 649 prisoners. In addition to 222 convicted prisoners, there were 714 untried inmates on 15th February this year. At Leeds, the total number of inmates is 1,009, including 180 untried inmates—yet the certified normal accommodation is for 592. One could go on giving examples of local prisons as well as remand centres.
No one should be remanded in custody unless he has first been offered legal representation. That is something that we should discuss in Committee and perhaps put into the Bill. There should be a clear offer of legal reresentation to any one, even as a result of these changes, before he is remanded in custody.
Surveys have shown that a higher proportion of those who are legally represented get bail against police opposition. The solicitor can often offer information to the courts which is subsequently sought as a result of the social or psychiatric inquiry. Perhaps a court asks for information, and the absence of that information might be given as a reason for refusing bail. Those who are legally represented are generally more successful. On such a serious issue as depriving a technically innocent man of his liberty, we must ensure that he is adequately represented.
I support the presumption of bail for social, psychiatric and medical remands. Speaking from memory, I believe that there were about 12,000 remands into custody for psychiatric reports in 1974. That has always seemed to me a bizarre way of proceeding. I did not know that it was considered to be appropriate to send a person to prison to see a doctor, but that is what we are doing. Nor would I have thought that a prison was the proper environment in which to carry out a psychiatric, still less a social, inquiry. Yet we send many people to prison establishments for such reports.
Surveys also show that two-thirds of those remanded for psychiatric, social and medical reports are eventually given non-custodial sentences. So we are putting away 12,000 people a year for these reports and subsequently two-thirds are

525
given non-custodial sentences and therefore should not have been in prison in the first place. That is a slander on our penal system and something which the Bill must remove.
The Advisory Council on the Penal System, in its report on young adult offenders, argued that young offenders should not even be remanded to prison for psychiatric reports. I should think that many such observations would be invalidated simply because of the unnatural nature of the surroundings and the superficial and artificial environment.
I should also favour a presumption of bail pending appeal. There are arguments either way and there are difficulties in imposing such a presumption. But it is known that many offenders, particularly those convicted of petty offences, do not apply for bail and are deterred from appealing simply because they have been given light sentences. They accept a light sentence rather than the remand in custody which would automatically follow their attempt at appeal. I am sure that many such people are prepared, whether guilty or not, to take the consequences of a relatively short period of imprisonment instead of the longer one which would be involved if they appealed.
Therefore, there should be a presumption of bail pending appeal after conviction but before sentence.
I cannot see why the criteria listed in paragraphs 1 and 7 of Schedule 1 cannot also apply to those who are convicted but are given bail pending sentence or those who are appealing and given bail. I do not accept the interpretation of Schedule 1 made by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner).
The same criteria for those who cannot get bail now apply to those awaiting sentences and meet all of the requirements. With other hon. Members, I take great offence at the creation of new offences in a Bill the aim of which is a reduction in the prison population. I cannot see the necessity for, or the logic of, the new offence of absconding from bail. That will not act as a deterrent. Few will abscond anyway, and the fact that there is an offence of absconding from bail will not deter people from absconding. If somebody absconds, that is taken into account when he is subsequently dealt with.
526
We are dealing here with such people as drunks and vagrants. They are the people who do not turn up when they are supposed to turn up. Those who abscond and are later caught are those who should not be imprisoned and for whom the Criminal Justice Act, when the Secretary of State has sufficient resources, will provide. Drunks and vagrants abscond for a variety of reasons, few of which have anything to do with a wilful attempt to disobey the law. To penalise them with a further term of imprisonment or to impose upon them a fine when they cannot even find five bob to buy the wine that one can obtain in Liverpool is a nonsense and makes a mockery of the law. It may be possible to delete that part of the Bill in Committee.
I wish to fly a few kites. Would it not be appropriate for compensation to be paid to those who have been refused bail and who are subsequently found not guilty? They will have already suffered a great deal—loss of liberty, the disruption of family life and financial loss. The courts might take matters more seriously if they had to find compensation for those who are wrongfully imprisoned. Compensation is paid in France and Western Germany, and perhaps we can do the same. It might also be appropriate to provide legal aid for bail applicants to justices in chambers.
The remand into custody of school children between the ages of 14 and 16 worries me. One should not let the subject pass without talking about such remands in custody. No one would suggest that we should put school children into prison. There is no legal requirement or power to put them into prison when they are guilty, but we imprison them when they are innocent and on remand. In any one year, up to 6,000 school children pass through our penal institutions, many of them adult prisons.
There has been a White Paper in response to the Expenditure Committee's Report on the Children and Young Persons Act. It deals with the remand of schoolgirls of 14 to local adult prisons but leaves aside the problems of girls of 15 and 16 and of boys of 14 to 16. It deftly smoothe over the fact that remand centres are prisons. They have cells and bars and the strict regimentation which applies to local adult prisons.

527
It is intolerable that we as a society can, almost without thought, put so many of our school children into adult prisons. What is worse, so many of them are subsequently found not guilty or given non-custodial sentences. A total of 205 boys and girls were detained in local adult prisons in 1974. I inquired how many of those were subsequently found not guilty or given non-custodial sentences. The House must remember that we are talking about school kids in adult prisons rubbing shoulders with real criminals and other worldly characters. I found that 75 per cent. of the girls and 50 per cent. of the boys were found not guilty or given non-custodian sentences. Yet they had already, in effect, served prison sentences, with all the damage that that can do to their mental state and future development. What kind of bitterness and resentment must that create within them against a society which treats them so callously and cruelly?
I cannot see the reason for the absurd Schedule 1(2) which reads:
"The accused need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that the accused should remain in custody for his own protection or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare."
Are we saying that we shall not grant bail but we will put into prison, for his or her own welfare, a child or young person? Is that what that schedule says? By any stretch of the imagination I cannot see how one can so torture the English language as to put a child or a young person into prison for his or her welfare.
I have spoken longer than I intended, but I welcome the Bill, which closely matches that which many hon. Members expected and hoped for. It manages to draw the fine line between the liberty of the subject and the defence and protection of society. That is a fine balance which we must tread carefully and warily. Parts of the Bill need to be tightened if it is to revolutionise our attitude to innocent people charged with offences. I warmly support the Bill and I hope that it gets its Second Reading and passes quickly through its remaining stages.
7.59 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I listened with much admiration to what was obviously the fruit of considerable research by the hon. Member
528
for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). It is not research that I can match. Perhaps there will be an advantage in that my speech will be considerably shorter.
I join the hon. Gentleman to the extent of underlining what he said about the evil of committing young people to prison. I am certain that we still underestimate, although we are much better at the matter than we were, the harmful effects upon young people of having at so impressionable an age that experience of prison life.
I cannot help feeling a little ashamed for the House that at about six hours' notice we are debating what is agreed on all sides to be one of the more important measures in recent years in this area. I am also slightly ashamed of the necessarily superficial way in which my speech will deal with the few issues that I want to touch upon. I wholly support what the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) said about that.
It is rather trite now to remark that the decision the House must take on the question of the circumstances in which bail may be granted or withheld is an exercise in balance, like most decisions in politics. We must balance the need to preserve the liberty of the individual and the need to secure the safety of society.
I listened with great attention to what the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) said about conditions in Brixton Prison. I believe that we are primarily discussing a matter of principle, but the importance of that issue of principle cannot but have been underlined in the mind of every hon. Member who heard what the right hon. Gentleman said about the conditions in which men on remand live in Brixton Prison. The hon. Member for Ormskirk spoke of other prisons throughout the country. With that practical evidence in our minds, we should approach with the greatest care the deliberation of the circumstances in which bail should be withheld.
For most people the severity of the personal catastrophe of being incarcerated without trial is so great that it must be right that the presumption should be in favour of bail being granted. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Bill spells

529
it out clearly. I know that in part this was done in the 1967 Act, of which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) spoke. But it related only to the more minor offences, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that it did not relate to the more serious offences or to bad offences. I welcome the fact that the Bill is all-embracing in criminal matters.
We have not heard very much today about the circumstances in which it is right, and the considerations which make it right, for magistrates to withhold bail. This short debate has been all about the catastrophe represented by somebody going into prison without a trial. I do not wish to pour cold water—
Mr. James Dempsey: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the circumstances in which magistrates in England grant bail but insist that if the sureties are Scots people they must travel to the nearest English town to provide that bail?
Mr. Mayhew: I do not want to prolong my speech by embarking upon that topic.
Whatever criterion for the granting or withholding of bail the House thinks it right to adopt should be genuine. It should not be applied cynically or in a manner which makes it impossible to fulfil.
Although we have not heard much about them in this debate, there are circumstances in which the need to protect the public makes it right that bail should be refused. We need only cast our minds back to highly-publicised cases such as a man granted bail after particularly notorious offences for which he has been arrested but not yet tried. He subsequently commits another offence and there is great public indignation. One understands why, and sympathises with it. Time and again the cry goes up, also well-publicised, "Why on earth did they let him out?"
That is the dilemma which magistrates face, and it is an important matter. Few things do more to undermine public confidence in our administration of justice than an instance of that kind. We are not so confident in the stability of our administration of justice or many other institutions that we can afford to
530
have them undermined gratuitously. We should not lose sight of the fact that there are circumstances in which it is right to withhold bail.
That brings me to the passage in the Minister of State's speech in which he said that the Government proposed to move an amendment to reinstate the word "probable" in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. That schedule deals with exceptions to the right to bail. It says:
"The accused need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released on bail … would—

(a) fail to surrender to custody, or

(b) commit an offence while on bail, or

(c) interfere with witnesses".

I believe that the wording is right now, or very nearly right. It is certainly much better than it was when it included the word "probable", as it did when the Bill started its passage through Parliament.
The important point is that the concept of unacceptability, the forming of an unacceptable risk, enables the court to take into consideration the seriousness of the offence with which the man is charged and of any offence the court may think it likely he will commit if he is let out on bail. That is why it is better than the formula of "probable" and of "a serious risk". If it is said that there must be proof that it is probable that he will fail to surrender to custody, it is virtually impossible for magistrates to satisfy themselves of that. Therefore, they will be disentitled to withhold bail.
That would be a logical thing for the House to legislate if it took the view that there were no circumstances in which the public interest required bail to be withheld, but, for the reasons I have advanced, that would not be a realistic position to adopt. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about their intention to reinstate "probable". I know from another field that the Minister of State is a fairly determined operator when he has made up his mind. I hope that if the Government press on with their intention the amendment will be rejected.
The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington welcomed, as I do most warmly, the proposals for the extension of legal aid. He said that he understood that there were

531
economic considerations which made that a difficult matter. In so far as economic considerations are relevant to the question of legal aid, let it not be forgotten that it is very expensive to keep a man in custody. It may well be a very good bargain, if one looks at the matter solely with economic considerations in mind, to extend legal aid in every case where bail is in issue.
I welcome the clear statement in the Bill that there is a presumption that a man shall have bail, but it should be remembered that the administration of justice is a mortal institution and therefore one which will make mistakes. It is the job of everyone concerned with it to try to keep them to a minimum. I hope that magistrates and judges will not be deterred by the possibility of making a mistake, and of injustice resulting, from carrying out the other part of their duty—to secure in all appropriate cases the protection of the public.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to reply to some of the aspersions that he sought to cast. In his absence, I shall confine myself to a number of brief observations on the reckles and foolish charges that he made at the beginning of his speech.
Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate on the question of bail has important consequences for Scots who have been apprehended in English courts pending bail, because Scottish sureties are not allowed to pay that bail in Scottish police offices—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order?
Mr. Dempsey: The point of order is as follows: am I to take it that the debate is being wound up following the present contributor, or will it be possible to catch your eye a little later?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the information of the hon. Member, I must inform him that the Bill does not apply to Scotland. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is not winding up. The debate is exempted
532
business, and the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) can speak until two or three in the morning if he so desires.
Mr. John: It may also help my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) to know that when I opened the debate I specifically mentioned that Clause 8(6) makes it clear that the procedure by which Scottish sureties have to travel to England is being changed by the Bill.
Mr. Dempsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that information.
Mr. Griffiths: There are some hon. Members in the House, including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whose rebukes I take seriously, but the hon. Member for Ormskirk is not among them. He knows a lot and talks a lot, but I am afraid that in his human relations in this House he displays a moral arrogance, a lack of humour and a carelessness for the truth, which will no doubt take him far on the left wing of his party, but will not stand him well among the sensible men in the Labour Government or, indeed, in the House as a whole. I only regret that he is not present in the Chamber, because I wanted to say these things to his face.
I wish to deal with three items, all of which begin with the letter "p". There is first a procedural point, secondly, a point of perspective, in regard to the Bill as a whole and, thirdly, a number of matters relating to the police.
On the point of procedure, I believe that it is an outrage to Parliament and to those who will be affected by the Bill that this measure has been brought on without notice and at the end of a long wrangle about another matter. As a result hon. Members have not been able to prepare themselves for this debate with the material that they need.
Furthermore, those who are affected by the Bill have not been able, because of the short notice, to bring to the attention of their parliamentary representatives material of significance—material that I am sure would have enriched our debates and, indeed, may have led the Government to reach different conclusions. That is wrong, and I hope that it will never happen again. If the Government run into a procedural muddle on one subject, that is no reason for their prejudicing debate on another

533
subject, on which they have given inadequate time for preparation. That attitude has denied certain people access to their members of Parliament, and as a result their views may not be made known during this debate on an important Bill.
I turn to the question of perspective. I recognise the value of the Bill. I shall support its Second Reading. But I believe that the priorities are all wrong. In short, I believe that more important matters dealing specifically with crime should be before the House today. This Bill seems to me to demonstrate that Parliament is getting out of touch, and certainly out of step, with public opinion and the true wishes of our constituents.
We find the same story running through nearly all our recent criminal legislation. It is the story of pressure groups, skilled propagandists and special pleaders. These groups appear to get their way despite the wishes of the vast majority of our people.
We have only to look back to what has happened to criminal legislation in recent years. What happened when Parliament abolished the death penalty? That took place not because of the wishes of the majority but because a minority convinced the House that it should be abolished. How did it happen that Parliament agreed that criminals should be paroled after serving a small proportion of their sentence? Was there a vast public demand for that course? I doubt it very much.
We now see the mounting campaigns aimed at lowering the age of consent in sexual cases, liberalising drug laws, irrespective of the dangers to young people, and permitting homosexuals to indulge themselves in public places. There is agitation to liberalise the sale and supply of pornographic literature and to permit the showing of pornographic films, and, indeed, to spend public money on introducing such material into every home in the country. The ordinary man see these things taking place and asks himself "Why is it that Parliament can find time to debate these strange matters but can find no time to tackle the real problems of crime?" That is why believe that the present Bill is out of step, and, indeed, out of tune, with public opinion.
How is it that today we can find time to deal with the Bail Bill when, at the same time, we have done nothing in a
534
parliamentary sense to discuss the conclusions of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which has recommended tightening up the trial procedures to make them less of a game, if I may so express it, between lawyers and more of an inquiry into the real truth? And how is it that we can find time to deal with this Bill and yet take no action to tighten up the legislation on firearms, particularly that relating to shotguns? There are many aspects of law and order which are of concern to our constituents, but I doubt very much whether the Bail Bill is the main matter in their minds.
I now wish to say a few words about the views of the police on this subject, and particularly the views of the Police Federation, with which, as the House knows, I have a connection. The police have a right to have their views heard on these matters, because they are in the front line. They have probably more to do with questions of bail than do any members of this House. It is the police who have to carry the scars of battle. I must tell the House that 12,000 policemen are injured every year, and that the police have to deal with 2 million indictable offences. It is the police who stand between violence and anarchy and the public. Therefore, what they have to say about this Bill is most important.
I hope that I can carry the Minister with me when I remind the House that the policeman sees the battered child not in the antiseptic atmosphere of a court of law but in the flesh or, indeed, in the blood. He sees the effects of crime on human beings, the drunken savagery that will leave many people, in any one year in our country, blinded or maimed, and children mutilated. The police see this in the flesh. Perhaps that conditions their attitude to what happens when violent men are brought before the law. All too often the police believe that there is an imbalance between the human misery created by crime and the way in which the offender is dealt with, by being bailed, under-sentenced or paroled too early.
In accepting the philosophy of the Bill I agree absolutely with the arguments and amendments made in another place. Specifically, I believe that the courts must be able to continue to refuse bail wherever, after hearing the prosecution

535
view, they believe that there is a significant risk—not just a a probable or unacceptable risk—of violent men being released to commit further violent offences. If there is any significant risk, it ought to be possible for a court to deny bail.
Equally, if there is a significant risk of an arrested person interfering with a witness by intimidation, once again the court ought to be entitled to refuse to grant bail.
It must also be right for the court to have regard to the seriousness of the offence. This is an amendment that was inserted in another place. As I understood the Minister's speech, the Government have no intention of altering that.
Mr. John: Except, to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, for such changes as are necessary to make the Bill conform to the "probable" rather than the "unacceptable" risk basis.
Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that the Minister has intervened, because I did not entirely understand what he had in mind. No doubt in Committee the hon. Gentleman will be advancing his arguments for this change. I shall need to be convinced about this.
Let me put two specific examples. Suppose a woman is charged with having brought a rabid dog into the country. Suppose the charges against her require a good deal more evidence to be procured, and the woman seeks bail. Is the Minister satisfied that using his terminology of "probable" and the amendments that he proposes, it would be possible to deny bail to such a person if there were a risk that during the period of bail she might bring in another rabid animal? The Minister will understand the importance of taking every conceivable precaution against a foul disease of this kind. The hon. Gentleman must satisfy the House that in his own judgment the amendments that have been made and that he proposes will give adequate protection.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member is almost suggesting that whenever there is a risk that anyone may break the law he should be locked up before he can do so. Surely that is a completely new principle.
Mr. Griffiths: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I did not say that. I said that if there is a significant risk of violence being committed while on bail, and if there is a significant risk—I am using the example of rabies—of a further offence being committed of such a serious nature that the court ought to have regard to the possibility, the Minister must satisfy the House that his amendments will take care of the situation. Rabies is a good example, because we all know the terrible nature of the disease. It must not be possible for anyone to be released on bail if there is the slightest chance that he will again bring a rabid animal into the country. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he is satisfied that his wording will cover that case.
The other example concerns State security. It may be that it would be wiser not to go into details. Is the Minister satisfied that his proposed wording will ensure that a court will be able to deny bail when evidence is put to the court by the police that during the time on bail State security may be jeopardised by the actions of the accused? I should be glad if the Minister would give me an assurance on that point, which I do not want to labour, because it is highly sensitive.
My third point on behalf of the police is that this Bill, almost inevitably, will add to their burden of work. The amount of additional paperwork is speculative, but the advice that I am given is that there is certain to be a great deal of it. The amount of police time that will be consumed is, I am advised, likely to increase greatly.
The amount of potential frustration of the police is much more difficult to measure, but I hope that the Minister will accept from me that there is now a morale problem among the rank and file in the police. Often they take great risks to apprehend dangerous, violent criminals and all too often they see that, in the first instance, such persons are bailed and then receive sentences that many—the majority of the public, as well as the police—regard as too lenient. These convicted criminals may also be paroled too rapidly, and go on to commit further crimes.
The Minister must realise that there is great sensitivity among the police on this issue. I hope that he will say that if the

537
Bill goes through, and with it the Bill setting up the Police Complaints Board, these measures will take their place within a more general pattern of the attempts to contain crime and violence.
The problem seems to be that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of reforming, liberalising and ameliorating the law, away from what the majority of our people and we on the Opposition side care much about, namely, the protection of society and the maintenance of law and order at this time—for seldom has it been so much at threat.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. Charles Irving: I have sat through the whole of this debate so far and have been impressed by the sincerity of the speeches that have been made. I will not delve into the intricacies of the legal situation because there are many distinguished lawyers on both sides of the House who can deal with them. I want to say a word or two about the human situation.
The importance of the bail issue has never been better described than by Lord Hailsham when, speaking in 1971 as Lord Chancellor, he called the refusal of bail
"the only example, in peacetime, where a man can be kept in confinement without a proper sentence following conviction after a proper trial. It is, therefore, the solitary exception to the Magna Carta."
A court's decision whether to grant bail can vitally affect on the one hand the individual's right to liberty and on the other the proper administration of justice and the protection of the public from people charged with serious offences.
No legislation which exposed the public to a real risk of serious crime by people on bail would be acceptable to the House, the public or any of the professions involved in the criminal justice system. But the report of the Home Office Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts, on whose recommendation this Bill was based, showed that senior and representative members of those professions considered that some of those now being remanded in custody could be granted bail without any such risk.
The report, whose signatories included senior and representative police officers, magistrates and justices' clerks, stated:
"We do not believe that the stage has yet been reached where those remanded in custody
538
form an irreducible minimum, none of whom could safely be released on bail."
Although, to our credit, we in this country have a smaller number of remand prisoners per 100,000 population than comparable industrialised Western States, our figures for remands in custody are still disturbing. There was a carefully-documented article in The Sunday Times, republished from the Law Society's Gazette, stating that 500,000 days a year are spent in prison by people accused of crimes for which they have not been tried or convicted.
In 1974, a total of 64,981 people were remanded in custody, of whom 2,100 were found not guilty, or whose cases were not proceeded with; 29,000 were given non-custodial sentences and only 26,000 received custodial sentences. Of course, the fact that an offender is eventually given a non-custodial sentence does not necessarily mean that it was wrong to remand him in custody, since different considerations apply at the remand stage from when the court passes sentence.
Even so, it must concern us that so high a proportion of people remanded in custody are not eventually sentenced to imprisonment. The Home Office recognised this in its Circular 155/75 on bail procedures, which said:
"It is a cause for particular concern that defendants remanded in custody who do not ultimately receive a custodial sentence represent about one half of all defendants remanded in custody."
Why is this a cause for particular concern? Partly, of course, because of the sheer economic cost of locking people up who could safely be granted bail. In 1974, the cost of keeping someone in prison was £59 a week for a man, and £74 a week for a woman. According to a recent Parliamentary Answer by the Under-Secretary of State, for the financial year 1975–76 the estimated cost of running the prison system in England and Wales is £140 million. In addition, allied services incurred for prison purposes during the year are likely to amount to about £25 million and the capital expenditure on building and the purchase of plant to around £31 million. If we take all this expenditure into account, the average cost of keeping someone in prison in the financial year 1975–76 works out at the colossal—and I repeat "colossal"—figure of over £90 a week.

539
But the financial cost is only part of the story. We must not forget the human cost of unnecessary remands in custody. A defendant who is refused bail loses earnings if he was employed at the time of his arrest; he may well lose his job; he will also almost certainly fall behind with his rent, and since landlords cannot be expected to keep accommodation open for more than a few days, eviction may well follow; if he has a family, it will suffer both financially and emotionally as a result of his imprisonment.
But the further cost of unnecessary remands in custody is the stress and strain on the prison staff who have to work in our overcrowded prisons, and on the prisoners who are incarcerated in them. In 1975, remand prisoners constituted over 14 per cent. of the average daily prison population. Over the last decade the number of remand prisoners has increased even faster proportionately than the number of prisoners serving sentences. Overcrowding is particularly severe in prisons which receive people on remand.
To take one example—we have heard about it previously from the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse)—Brixton Prison officially has accommodation for 649 inmates, yet in 1975 its average daily population was 960. At one point during the year its population reached the appalling figure of 1,090.
The stresses and strains of overcrowding cannot be under-estimated, and the current public expenditure restrictions have made the situation even worse.
The Sunday Times said this on April 11th:
"Fresh outbreaks of violence in goals are feared by prison officers because prisoners are facing longer hours locked up in their cells and are having their privileges cut. This results from a cost saving edict by the Home Office that the overtime worked by prison officers is cut by 10 per cent., saving £2 million a year. The prison service is some 20 per cent. undermanned, and only exceedingly long overtime has kept the prisons running.… The overtime cuts, which came into effect on 1st April, have already meant some prisoners being locked up in their cells for 23 hours a day. At Winson Green, Birmingham, prison officers say that nearly 1,000 men have been affected in this way…'If staff are not available, then the least essential parts of the regime have to be axed', the Home Office said.
At the big remand prisons, including Brixton and Holloway in London, and Winson Green
540
in Birmingham, the primary function was to serve the courts. In these places, the opportunity to work could be axed in some circumstances, as well as sport and recreational facilities. But there is nothing new about a prisoner spending 23 hours a day in his cell ', the Home Office added."
That is quite true, but to me it is tragic, and I welcome and support whatever steps we take with regard to the Bail Bill. Any legislation which, while maintaining real protection for the public from those accused of serious offences, attempts to minimise the financial and human cost of unnecessary remands in custody must surely be welcomed.
8.38 p.m.
Mr. James Dempsey: I was very pleased to hear the Minister state that there would be provision in the Bill to deal with the changing procedures in the payment of bail. This is very important to Scots people. It may be that some right hon. and hon. Members will be wondering why I have intervened in the debate. The reason is very clear. We have already had some experience of the very unfair operation of the English law as it applies to Scots people.
A constituent of mine was released from a court in Essex on the understanding that bail would be paid and that the surety would be the parents. When it came to the payment of that bail, a local police office refused to accept it, having been told that a Scots police office had no authority to accept bail due in an English court. The two parents, my constituents, had to motor all the way to Carlisle, 100 miles there and 100 miles back, in order to deal with the problem of guaranteeing the surety and depositing, the bail to ensure that their son would be released from custody at a court in Essex. When they got to Carlisle they were kept in the station for nearly five hours, only to be told that not even there could the bail payment be accepted. They were sent back to Airdrie.
It was at that stage that they contacted me. I, in turn, made representations to the office of the Home Secretary. In that connection, I should like my hon. Friend to convey my personal gratitude to the official who dealt with the problem for me. The upshot was that the parents were again asked to go back to

541
Carlisle where, on this occasion, their surety was accepted, following which they returned again to Airdrie. It meant that they had travelled 400 miles before their surety was accepted for their own son.
In fairness to the Carlisle police, they apologised courteously for their failure to accept the surety on the parents' first visit. However, I raised the matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland and asked him to consult the Home Secretary and his team of Ministers about this unacceptable provision in English law, whereby bail, once fixed, no matter what the circumstances, can be paid only in an English authority office—either the court or the police office.
This, of course, is a tremendous disadvantage to Scots people. As I pointed out, it cost my constituents 400 miles of petrol, two days' loss of work, the time involved, considerable inconvenience, the expense of buying meals, and so on, when the whole matter could have been resolved by the law permitting them to deposit their surety for their son at the local police office.
The Minister may be surprised to hear of a case of that nature. I merely remind him that, although my constituents may belong to a country called Scotland, they are United Kingdom citizens. They pay their taxes in this country, they work for this country and, when the necessity arises, they fight for this country. In my view, it is completely unacceptable to treat citizens of this country in that fashion.
I wish to draw attention to what I believe to be a serious omission in the English system for the payment of bail. I understand that conditions are bound to be laid down by the appropriate magistrates, and I also appreciate that legal techniques are different from those applying in Scotland. But I cannot understand, why, in circumstances like those affecting the case of my constituents, English law cannot be adjusted so as to enable a Scot to be accepted as surety for a member of the family who has been released on nail and to enable him to deposit that surety in the police office nearest to his place of residence.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to this invidious situation and to express the hope that, in Committee, there will be a detailed discussion of what is happening in such cases.
542
The Minister talks of changing procedures. I hope that in future any changes will mean that Scots people will be spared the inconvenience and cost of having to travel to the nearest England town to deposit bail as surety for some member of the family, for some friend, or for some other person who has been released on that condition by an English court.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will have consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to looking more fully into this matter and discussing it with the Home Secretary in the hope that we can arrive at a much better provision and a more acceptable arrangement for the payment of bail by Scottish sureties on behalf of people who have been charged with offences in English courts.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak briefly and give a general welcome to the Bill. In doing so, I reiterate my concern that we are taking this Bill in this way today. I did raise a point of order with Mr. Speaker, and made a protest, because I think it is totally wrong that a Bill of this nature should be brought on to the Floor of the House at the last moment, just because the Government got into difficulty over their programme of business today.
One of the consequences of this situation is that not only is one not prepared for the debate, but there are circumstances which mean that hon. Members cannot attend the whole debate. I had a meeting, which I could not avoid, at 5 o'clock, and I did not have an opportunity to hear either the Minister of State or my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) speak in opening the debate. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of State will forgive me if I cover matters that have already been raised, cir ask questions with which he has dealt already. It is not my fault that I could not be here.
In 1970, when I was a Minister in the Home Office, we looked at the general question of the prison population, which had reached about 40,000 a year. I remember that at an early meeting the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office told me that we should consider that part of the population which had not yet been sentenced. I remember thinking at the

543
time that there was very little hope of making much of an advance in reducing the population by dealing with those on remand. Not only was I proved completely wrong; I was surprised to learn—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) has just pointed out—just how high a proportion of the daily prison population was either unconvicted or unsentenced. It runs to about 5,000 of the daily population.
The next thing I noticed was that this high proportion of unconvicted people in prison was put in those jails which were the most overcrowded—of necessity, the local prisons. Reference has been made to Brixton Prison, and one has only to look at the Ashford Remand Centre to see another example of overcrowding.
One has the problem of the size of the prison population, the fact that it is in the most overcrowded prisons, and also the fact that these are the prisons which are extremely hard on the number of staff they take up, because of the work that has to be done in taking those on remand back and forth to court. Therefore, many of the prisoners are in their cells for 23 hours a day, because they cannot be required to work and the limited number of staff available means that they must for long periods be locked in their cells.
All these factors add to the argument that one should, wherever possible, reduce to a minimum, at any one time, those in prison who are unconvicted. I think that the aim of keeping to the irreducible minimum the size of the population of those remanded in custody is one that hon. Members on both sides would support.
Although I welcome the Bill, I am bound to say that I do not believe that it will have a major effect. In practice, I think that courts already start, rightly, with the presumption that bail should be granted to those who are unconvicted or unsentenced. On the other hand, it is right that that presumption should be set out in the form that it is in the Bill. I add the suggestion that one might go further and suggest that where bail is refused, the court should give its reasons for refusal. I think I am right in saying that this point is not covered by the Bill at present.
Mr. John indicated dissent.
Mr. Carlisle: I apologise if it is covered. Perhaps the Minister will deal with the point when he replies.
In a way, I was responsible for setting up the Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts, out of which the Bill has now appeared. That is why I am glad to give it a general welcome.
I should like to ask the Minister certain questions about other experiments to reduce the remand population that have been started by the Home Office in recent years. What is happening about bail hostels? Many people have been and are still remanded in custody because they have no home to which to go. We need a wider provision of bail hostels. What up-to-date figures can the Minister give us on the experiment started in 1971 for the provision of bail hostels?
What has happened with the experiment that was started so that those who are remanded for medical reports would undergo medical examinations as outpatients either at hospitals or in the prisons themselves? Is that working? Are people still being remanded for medical reports, or are more being dealt with on an out-patient basis?
It seems to me that if a medical report is required, it is never a good reason to remand a person in custody for that report if there is any other way in which the report can be provided. I hope that that is another matter that will be looked at during the passage of the Bill.
I have said that the Bill will not have any earth-shattering results. I do not think that we shall vastly reduce the number of those remanded in custody, but I think that the Bill will help. We ought not to get too upset about the fact that a proportion of those remanded in custody are ultimately acquitted. That is always bound to happen, for reasons that have been pointed out. The grounds for remanding in custody are subject to a test completely different from that in relation to the eventual acquittal of the individual. Nor should we place too much store on the fact that a high proportion—about 50 per cent. or so—of those remanded in custody eventually finish up with a non-custodial sentence.
We must face the fact, as a practical issue in the courts every day, that often for those who are remanded for sentence

545
to the higher court, the only thing that one has left to say there on behalf of the individual is that he has been in prison for about four weeks awaiting sentence. It may be that factor that influences the judge most of all in deciding ultimately, in a borderline case, that he need not impose a custodial sentence. Therefore, the fact that every remand in custody does not end with a custodial sentence does not necessarily mean that in every case the magistrates were wrong to remand in the first place.
That having been said, we still have a duty to keep to a minimum the number of the remand population, because of the cost, the conditions, and, of course, the human effects that being in prison has on someone who is unconvicted. If we are to reduce the daily remand population we must consider not only the cases remanded but also the length of time for which each person is remanded.
Substantial progress has been made in the past five to seven years in reducing the waiting period for those in custody before trial. Can the Minister give us any figures of the up-to-date position? My recollection was that it was good in the rest of the country, but still pretty bad in the London area. Have there been improvements? Is everything possible being done to bring forward the trials of those remanded in custody at the earliest possible moment?
I hope that the Minister will resist the suggestion—currently being widely reported—that some presumption of bail before sentencing should apply to those who give notice of their intention to appeal against conviction. That would be disastrous. We have already removed from the Court of Appeal any power to increase sentences, with the result that there is very little disincentive for anybody to appeal to the Court.
The Court of Appeal has been inundated with work, and this lengthens the waiting time for meritorious appeals. The suggested presumption would increase enormously the number of people who would submit appeals because they wanted a few weeks on bail before starting their sentences, and would increase unacceptably the volume of unmeritorious work in the Court of Appeal.
On the amendment to the schedule to which the Minister referred, I believe
546
that the words that have come from another place are considerably better than the words that went there. We cannot forget that this is a question of balance between the rights and freedom of the individual and the duty of courts to protect society.
In our desire to see that the remand population is kept at an irreducible minimum, let us make sure that we do not go so far that we reach the situation that exists in many American cities, in which policemen tell stories of picking up armed robbers one day and shooting at them—while they are committing other offences after being let out on bail—the next day.
There is bound to be a responsibility to remand some cases in custody, and the words in the schedule are about right.
Having read the working party report with interest, I welcome this Bill, which has resulted from it. I hope that it will help to reduce the remand population of our prisons.
8.59 p.m.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I do not welcome the Bill. I do not welcome any legislation which will not remedy positive evil or do positive good. We spend too much of our time churning out legislation which will not achieve anything very much.
The Bill is unnecessary and it is a pity that it has been slipped in today for the convenience of the Government, who are going through an embarrassing time. It is not good enough to treat a matter which involves the liberty of the subject with such scant respect as has been achieved by slotting in the Bill to fill in the business for today. A number of my hon. Friends who would have wanted to take part in the debate had already been committed elsewhere and have been unable to take part. I have had to play truant on a Select Committee which is discussing an important matter because I happened to think that it was more important for me to be present in the Chamber. It is a choice that should not have been presented to us.
It is well known that constituents and interested parties keep the correspondence which they send to Members to the very last minute before a Bill is discussed so it is in the forefront of our

547
minds and does not get lost beneath a stack of papers. There is a real point made by so many of my hon. Friends—namely, that what has happened will derogate from the value of this Second Reading debate.
The hon. Members for York (Mr. Lyon) and Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said that the Bill could have been debated at an earlier stage, but the liberty of the subject should not be discussed in some Second Reading Committee. That is what would have happened if the Opposition had not insisted on the Bill being debated in the Chamber. Of course, we did not insist that it should be debated in these circumstances. However, as we have to have the Bill and today's debate, there are one or two points that I must make. I shall be brief because much has been said and there is not a great deal more that can be said very eloquently.
Some of the measures contained in the Bill merit support—for example, the legal aid provisions, the putting of reasons in writing, coroner's powers and a number of other matters. But most of those measures could have been achieved by administrative action. Possibly the introduction of the offence of failing to surrender provides a tidier way of dealing with the absconder than the recognisance system, but that has not been proved to anybody's satisfaction as being a likely benefit of any great substance to the law.
I am concerned that there might be people outside this place who hope too much of the Bill, who hope that it will do something substantial. To some extent, some of the things that have been said as a prerequisite for supporting the Bill are misapprehensions. For example, it is said that 20,915 people who were remanded in custody were subsequently not given prison sentences, as though that is necessarily an injustice which has been caused them. But that is not so. Most of those cases, perhaps all of them, might have been matters in which the judge or magistrates considered prison appropriate, but as the short remand had had an effect upon the defendant it was found not necessary to pass a prison sentence, bearing in mind the need not to clutter up the prisons with people who might have learnt a lesson through a short remand in custody. The sum total of that
548
action might have been of some benefit to the accused.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the 20,915 there was a substantial number of people who could not have been given prison sentences if proved guilty? Therefore, for the magistrate or anyone else to suggest that they were not given prison sentences because they were remanded in custody would in effect, be getting round the law.
Mr. Lawrence: If that had happened in a substantial number of cases it would have been wrong. However, the hon. Gentleman has given no figure for those who ought not to have been remanded in custody. I see the Minister of State shaking his head.
Mr. John: I was merely wishing to say to the hon. Gentleman that he has given no figures to substantiate his statement that it was the effect of short remands that led to non-custodial sentences.
Mr. Lawrence: I cannot give any figures, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I had been a daily practitioner in the criminal courts for 13 years before I came to this place. In the course of my career, I must have made hundreds of applications for bail. Therefore, I have experience of the way in which I, as an applicant for bail on behalf of countless accused persons, have reacted to the decision taken by the court. The Minister may accept that or not. In some ways, it is perhaps better than a statistic; we contribute the benefit of our own experience and knowledge where we can.
A second matter that has been raised as a basis for the Bill is that 2,101 people were subsequently found not guilty. The Minister's predecessor, in an Answer to me, said that in 1974 no fewer than 52 per cent. of people who were tried before juries in the Crown courts, having pleaded not guilty, were acquitted. On the basis that most of those people were highly unlikely to have been innocent, my conclusion is that if the guilty people had to serve only a period on remand in custody, they were lucky.
No one should be left with the impression that the Bill is likely to have much effect on the 51,422 people who were

549
remanded in custody. The law on the question of when bail is to be refused will not be changed substantially or at all by the Bill. All that is happening is that statutory effect is being given to what is a presumption of bail in practice in our courts at present. Whatever may have happened in years past, magistrates, after the 1967 Act, and judges do appreciate the undesirability of unnecessarily remanding people in custody. Therefore, the practice is to grant bail, and the requirements are clearly laid down in the 1967 Act. The practice in the Crown court is to grant bail unless there are substantial objections—for example, that the accused is likely to interfere with witnesses, to abscond, or to commit further offences.
Bail is usually treated as a matter of common sense. Nothing in the Bill will alter the need to apply common sense, nor is it in any sense desirable that it should. Those of us who practise in the Crown courts know that bail applications are simple, speedy matters in which the judge who is a practitioner of experience applies his mind to the essence of the question. It would be seldom, in my view, that persons who are likely to be granted bail under this Bill would not already be granted bail under the present system.
The Government are taking this opportunity to present a clear statement of the grounds for refusing bail. However, they have made a somewhat clumsy effort in Schedule 1. If what is needed is to provide everybody with a clear statement which can be seen and understood of the grounds for not granting bail, Schedule 1 is not clear enough. I submit that it is not necessary to use the phrase "unacceptable risk" or "probable". It is better that we use the phrase that was used in the 1967 Act
"where it appears to the court that … he is likely to commit an offence".
That broad definition will avoid all kinds of legal arguments about the meaning of "probable" and "unacceptable risk" and the necessity of producing lots of books to argue about it. It might be simpler for a list of the exceptions to be clearly set out. The first is where it appears to the court that he is unlikely to surrender to his bail because (a) he has no fixed abode, or because (b) of the seriousness of the
550
offence and the likely sentence, or because (c) of his character and antecedents, or because (d) his previous history in regard to bail.
The second is where it appears to the court that he is likely to commit an offence whilst he is on bail; thirdly, where it appears to the court that he is likely to interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice; fourthly, where it appears to the court that he should remain in custody for his own protection; and fifthly, where the court is satisfied that it has not been practicable to obtain the necessary information. If they were listed in that way, the position would be clear to everybody.
There is one point that I consider to be of great importance. The nature and strength of the evidence is a matter that ought to be considered by the court considering bail, and that is a welcome addition to the Bill. It ought always to have been the law, and there is clear authority for saying that the nature of the evidence is a matter that ought to be considered.
Unfortunately, I had one experience of a case in which a senior police officer went into the witness box and said that he wanted a remand in custody, and when I asked what was the nature of the evidence, he said "I would rather not say". The stipendiary magistrate said "If the chief of police says that he would rather not say, that is good enough for me". I said "It is not good enough for me because, as I understand it, the law is that there must be some justification for arresting a man and keeping him in custody".
One must be forgiven for suspecting that what might have happened there was that a man against whom there was no evidence at all was arrested by the police in the hope—and the hope may have been fulfilled in this case—that once he was arrested a number of witnesses would come forward to give evidence. When the matter went to the Divisional Court, I was told that it was all academic since by the time it took me to get to the Divisional, Court witnesses had come forward with evidence.
That is obviously an undesirable situation, and I do not think it happens very often. This may have been a one-off out of hundreds of thousands of cases. It was a matter of a serious crime which

551
was causing a great deal of general concern. But obviously, if we can stop that from ever happening again by putting this provision in the Bill that is desirable, although I do not think that that example is sufficient reason for introducing legislation.
As long as there is a provision that bail need not be given, whether the test is unacceptable risk or probability, only because the accused has no fixed address, this is an undesirable factor. It is probably the principal reason why our prisons are cluttered with persons who would otherwise get bail, and I hope that the Minister will use the powers of Sections 48 and 49 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1971 which enable the Government to spend money to provide more bail hostels. I trust that there will be a satisfactory answer to the question posed on those lines by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle).
Bail presents society with a considerable ideological problem which is simply postulated in this way: if everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty, why do we put people in prison when they are presumed innocent?
That is a difficult question to answer directly, but one can avoid it and say that four practical situations at least are clear: first, that it would be nonsensical to release some accused persons whom the police after great trial and risk to life and limb have finally apprehended; secondly, that it would be nonsensical, and the public would think it to be nonsensical, if people who were known to the police to be likely to go on committing crime—for example housebreaking—were granted bail to be able to do so; thirdly, that it is important that the conditions of custody must be decent and tolerable at all times—and I share some of the criticisms that have been made by the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) and others; and fourthly, that the consequences of remand in custody must be recognised by everybody to be so catastrophic for prisoners who may not, when the truth is eventually known, deserve to have been in custody—catastrophic for their families, their work, their position in society, and even in many cases for the adequate preparation of their defence.
552
Apart from clarifying the principles upon which bail is granted, and setting them out in this Bill, if we are to have it, we should think a little further about improving the consideration of bail along the lines suggested by the Society of Conservative Lawyers in 1971—namely, that the accused should have his right to liberty examined with the same care before trial as his plea of innocence during the trial. The society recommended that:
"Courts could be provided with a universal questionnaire to cover all these matters. In busy courts the possibility of using special bail officers to collect essential information should be considered. A certain way of reducing the number of remand prisoners is to see that the courts have all the relevant facts for a decision of bail. The court must not be left to rely, as so many are, merely upon the favourable or unfavourable advice of the prosecution."
I know that an administrative direction has gone round and that, to some extent, it is being implemented, but here is an opportunity to make it a statutory requirement. Perhaps the Minister will look further into that.
We are passing legislation which I believe to be unnecessary. In contrast with so many of the Government's Bills, which will do a great deal of harm, I do not think that this Bill will do any particular harm. I just do not think that it will do much good. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that our time could have been better spent than it has been spent this afternoon.
9.18 p.m.
Mr. Ian Percival: It is entirely fitting that we should be discussing this Bill, which is concerned entirely with that most important of all matters—the liberty of the subject—on the day when Magna Carta has been so very much in our minds and on the very day when we presented a facsimile of it to our American cousins in the Great Hall of this Palace and such fine words have been spoken about it, in all sincerity. But it is outrageous that this debate should have been arranged at such short notice that, contrary to the spirit of that greatest of all charters of human liberties, we are precluded from discussing it properly, and—one has only to look at the House to realise this—many hon. Members have been deprived of the chance of being here. Many members of the public, and

553
public associations—for instance the Magistrates Association—which might have liked to be here, and others, like the Police Federation and members of the Criminal Bar working party, and so on, have also been deprived of the chance of being here.
It is right that the public should know why this has happened. I am perfectly conscious of the fact that the point I am making is a party political point. It is right that the public should know that this has happened because the Government managers, having got in a terrible muddle over their business, have chosen to force this Bill into the space vacated by their own errors, despite the fact that, by common consent, it is a very poor way of treating a measure of this importance.
What I have just said is intended to be a party political point, and a strong condemnation of the Labour Party. But having said that, I may say that there is nothing else in my remarks which has any party political content.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) has made it clear that we wholly subscribe to the underlying philosophy of the Bill. Certainly we shall give it a Second Reading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, we must be sure that we are doing something useful. I agree with him. Far too many measures do nothing useful, and only create problems. But I believe that this is a Bill by which we can do something useful, provided that we are careful and do not simply assume that by passing it, never mind in what form, it will do good. It will do good if we get the form right; it will do no good unless we do.
I want to sound a few notes of warning designed to contribute in the long run towards that end, and in three different fields. First, we must be careful how we talk about reducing the prison population. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) is right to say that we must reduce it to the irreducible minimum, but how do we decide what is the irreducible minimum? We can do so only by getting the right balance between the liberty of the individual on the one hand and the protection of the public on the other. If that also produces a reduction in the prison population, well and good, but our aim in looking at the wording must
554
be to get that balance right and hope that it does in fact reduce the population, rather than to approach the matter the other way around.
Secondly, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has not found it possible to spend more than a minute or two in the Chamber since speaking. Many of us are conscious of the space that he has taken up with Written Questions and Answers on the Order Paper recently on matters relating to the prisons. One might have expected his interests to be sufficiently genuine to lead him to listen to what others had to say about it.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not accept the point that my hon. Friend made at the start, that the way in which these proceedings have been put on today has caused many hon. Members inconvenience?
Mr. Carlisle: He said that it had not.
Mr. Percival: My hon. and learned Friend reminds me that that particular hon. Member said that it had not caused any inconvenience to him except that he had not had time to get hold of the many Written Answers that he has had from Ministers in recent months, so I think that my point is not a bad one.
However, I should have liked, in the hon. Gentleman's presence, to follow up some of the points put by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) about the figures of those who are remanded in custody but are subsequently not given a custodial sentence or are acquitted. One has to be careful in interpreting them either way. There is a tendency to believe that it is always harsh to remand a man in custody and kind to give him bail. Hon. Members should know that it is the experience of many of us that that is not always the case.
Like many others, I sit as a Recorder from time to time, and I know from experience that in many cases the worst thing that one can do for a man or woman is to turn him or her loose from the court there and then. If one is confronted with a man or woman with no fixed abode, accused of, say, shoplifting, with nowhere to go and not a penny in the world, what will happen if one

555
puts that person on bail at, say, 4 o'clock on a Friday afternoon? Almost as sure as eggs are eggs, that person will be in trouble again by Monday. Could one expect anything else?
I have often been clear in my mind that I wanted to put a convicted person on probation but that I should not make the order until I knew where he would go when freed and so have postponed sentence and remanded him in custody for a few days for arrangements to be made for him. I do not consider it to be a kindness simply to mutter a few words to the prisoner in the box and to wish him good luck and turn him loose without knowing where he can go, what he can do and whether there is anybody to whom he can turn. I am now speaking at first hand. I know of many cases in which bail has been refused for that sort of reason—and a very good reason it is. The situation frequently arises, although no one can give the precise figures.
Further, if a man has been on remand in custody, that can and does often tip the scales. Instead of giving a custodial sentence, the court will often gladly agree that as the man has suffered imprisonment and has seen what the inside of a prison is like, it can then take the view that it is unnecessary to impose the custodial sentence which it might otherwise have felt to be necessary. No one knows the numbers, but that happens sufficiently frequently that every recorder and practising barrister that I know has had personal experience of such cases.
Of course the figures in the working party report should be viewed with concern. We must make as accurate an analysis of the figures as possible. But the inferences to be drawn from the figures are not all the same way. The people who draw the inferences all one way are not being fair or accurate. I accept that no one desires that. That is why I have spent a little time dealing with an aspect on which I do have first hand knowledge, as a person who has been called upon to decide many times whether bail should be granted.
I turn to the form of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said that we should be careful
556
not to create more legal problems. I am glad that that observation was made by a layman, because as a lawyer I have been singing that song year in and year out. I have appealed time and again to Parliament to decide what it wants and then to say it in clear words. I have urged Parliament not to write into the statute book words that will surely raise more problems for the courts and lawyers.
Let us look carefully at the parts of the Bill where difficulties might arise. In considering Clause 4 and Schedule 1 we must bear in mind the twin objectives of deciding what is the right balance and, no less important, of using the correct words to give effect to it, so that we do not start an interminable series of new arguments on the meaning of the words used.
I hope that the House really does realise the importance, in the context of bail, of the nature and gravity of the offence alleged.
The working party, whose efforts everyone has rightly applauded, said:
"The first factor which the court should consider is the seriousness and nature of the offence charged. It would be impracticable to divide offences so as to say that persons accused of certain offences should normally have bail and those accused of other offences should be remanded in custody, since many offences, such as theft and criminal damage, cover a very wide range of gravity and much depends on the circumstances of the individual offence."
There cannot be a catalogue of offences. But the report went on:
"However, the more serious the offence charged, the stronger the temptation to abscond is likely to be, since a defendant who is liable, if convicted, to receive a long sentence of imprisonment has more incentive to abscond than one facing a less serious charge. Moreover, the more serious the offence, the smaller is the risk that can justifiably be taken either of the defendant's absconding or of his committing offences similar to that with which he is charged. Indeed, in our view there may exceptionally be occasions when all the circumstances of the case make the offence so grave and so shocking to public opinion that bail can properly be refused on this ground, even though the danger of absconding or of offences being committed if bail is granted is slight."
All those are cases which might excite the public comment to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) referred: "What on earth have they done allowing that man out?"

557
The working party continues:
"We accept that usually the seriousness of the offence is closely related to the likelihood or otherwise of the defendant's answering bail."
Then we come to this important paragraph:
"It seems to us, however, that cases can arise in which it is artificial to regard this only as an indication of the defendant's likely reaction to bail rather than as a reason in its own right for refusing bail."
As the Bill stands, one must go to three places in it before coming to the first reference to the gravity and nature of the offence. Clause 4 lays down the presumption that a man should have bail. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 sets out the exceptions. There is no reference in either of those to the gravity or nature of the offence. It is only when one comes to paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 that we find any reference to the gravity or nature of the offence, and then it is only a matter to be taken into account by the court in deciding whether one of the requirements of paragraph 1 is met. That is, the court is to ask "Do we think that because of the gravity or nature of the offence he is likely to fail to surrender to custody?" In the Bill as it stands we are doing exactly what the working party recommended we should not do. I hope that the House will carefully consider whether it cannot even now state this as a consideration to be borne in mind by the court directly as one on which it is entitled to refuse bail, instead of doing it in this convoluted way, contrary to the recommendations of the working party.
The working party of the Criminal Bar cited many instances in which, in its experience and opinion, there could be very serious offences in which there was in fact a very slight likelihood of the person concerned absconding, and therefore in which it would be highly artificial for the court to refuse bail because of the seriousness of the offence.
Mr. Stonehouse: I am following with fascination what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but surely the point is that the person concerned is presumed innocent. In using the word "offences", the hon. and learned Gentleman is presuming some guilt. Should he not put the word alleged "before "offences"?
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with a matter that so often arises in criminal cases, when the prosecution
558
brings a large number of charges, with the intention of making a deal with the defence outside the court to expedite the trial, and not with the intention of pressing all the charges?
Mr. Percival: If I had been as cautious in my language in this House as I would be in court, no doubt I would have referred to an alleged offence by the defendant. However, one deals with an offence that has been committed. Let us, for example, take the case of a murder—
Mr. Stonehouse: Or a suicide?
Mr. Percival: The right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) is now doing what he accuses lawyers of doing, namely, taking very fine points. Let us take a case in which somebody has suffered a violent death in circumstances which all point to its having been the result of a crime—perhaps not a murder, but a case of manslaughter. If in that case a person is charged with crime, the right way to describe the situation is to say that there has been a very grave and serious crime and then to add the words—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—"which it is 'alleged' this defendant has committed"
On the main part of his question, yes, there is an ideological difficulty, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton faced it squarely. If one had always to apply a presumption of innocence, everybody would be given bail. Equally, we know that that is not possible. That is why we all talk in terms of holding the balance—the balance between the right of an individual to enjoy his liberty on the one hand and, on the other hand, the protection of the public. One cannot ignore the latter.
My last point relates to Schedule 1. Many of us feel that, although the present form of Schedule 1, paragraph 1, may yet be open to improvement, the form introduced into the Bill by my noble and learned Friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone in the other place, taken together with paragraph 7, added to the Bill by the Government in the other place, produces a much more satisfactory package than the Bill contained in its original form.
The Minister said that the Government intend to put paragraph 1 back in its

559
original form, that is, to reinstate probability as the test, though retaining the criteria set out in paragraph 7 in something like the form in which it originally existed.
I must stress that here we are dealing with a choice of words which determines the central issue in the Bill, i.e. the balance we strike between two conflicting interests.
I do invite the Minister's attention to what has been said by noble gentlemen of all and no parties in another place, including at least one Lord of Appeal, who expressed grave misgivings about the balance in the Bill so long as the word "probable" was used as the test. One senior member of the judiciary was quoted as saying that he found it difficult to visualise circumstances in which magistrates faced with such a test could grant bail, that is, if they had to be satisfied as to probability. It is too heavy a test. Hon. Members must try to put themselves in the position of magistrates considering how the police are faced with proof of that probability. It is no good saying "Oh well, the magistrate can wink a blind eye at that". If we put this provision into the Bill, that is the standard which the courts will have to apply.
I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that many voices, some with party connections, some with no such connections, have expressed considerable misgivings about the fact that in its original form paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 tilted the balance far too far in one direction. I earnestly ask the Minister, before the Bill goes into Committee, to reconsider his intention to revert to it.
If the Government were to stick to their intention I anticipate that there could be a substantial difference between the two sides, whereas if the approach were "Let us forget about that: it was not bad as a first attempt, but we are now satisfied that the balance was wrong, so we can rule it out, but we are not absolutely satisfied with what is now in the Bill, so let us get down to it and see whether we can improve paragraph 1" there would be every prospect that the Committee could settle down to the constructive task of doing its best to achieve what I am sure we all want, namely, the proper balance. It is something
560
that we must achieve if the Bill is to serve the purpose that we hope it will serve. With those reservations, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I wish the Bill well.
9.42 p.m.
Mr. John: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the debate.
This has been such a valuable and thoughtful debate—although right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have disclaimed the value of their contributions because of a lack of preparation—that I feel that it has been one of the best of its kind we have heard. Contributions have been made from a wide variety of experience and many points have been raised. I know that right hon. and hon. Members will understand if I say that many of those points will be pursued in Committee and that I cannot deal with them all now.
I thank the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) for his reference to the Vera experiment. I am glad to say that after the pilot scheme at Camberwell three courts are now operating this scheme. It is a valuable experiment which has had useful and beneficial results.
Much of the time today has been devoted to the argument of "unacceptable" v. "probable" as a form of words. I respond at once to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) by saying that since I was not the draftsman of this Bill I have no parental or proprietorial claim on the words. This enables me to think about the matters the hon. and learned Member has raised, without commitment but with a desire to reach the best formula we can devise to obtain the balance which he thinks is right. I must point out that "probable" is not a word entirely unknown to the law. It sets the tone that we want to accept, arising out of the working party report—namely that bail should be a right and that it should be an exception for it to be refused.
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde was a little hard upon his noble friend Lord Hailsham when he said that the unacceptability test was unacceptable to his noble Friend. There has been a great division, not only between the two sides of the House on this issue but within the parties. Some see the

561
Bill as it is drafted, containing the unacceptability tests, as adequate and admirable while others say that it is inadequate and wholly unadmirable.
Dealing with the criteria in relation to paragraph 7, I share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) who had difficulty in understanding the objections to this part of the Bill. The criteria are set out quite clearly in paragraph 1. The evidence necessary to support the criteria is contained in the regulations on the criteria in paragraph (7).
Mr. Edward Gardner: My objections are contained in paragraph 56 of the report of the Home Office working party, the first sentence of which sums up the whole matter.
Mr. John: I was about to deal with that point. I refer hon. Members to the summary of main conclusions in paragraph 185, which says:
"There should be no change in the three established reasons for refusing bail, which are"
those which are contained in paragraph 1 of the schedule. So I do not think that it quite bears the interpretation which the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to give it. Nevertheless, as I have said, and as Lord Wigoder has said from his very considerable experience, the seriousness of the crime of itself has never been an independent reason for refusing bail. Hon. Members will also understand and accept that there has been criticism of Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 on the ground of absence of criteria and absence of evidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) raised the question of compensation. This point must be borne in mind, but whether it comes within the Long Title only the Committee stage will tell. But it would be a serious step and potentially very expensive.
The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) was one of the few who, in a general welcome for the Bill, expressed some agnosticism. He has explained why he cannot be here now, and I fully understand that other matters are pressing. But the value of the Bill has been established notwithstanding certain dissenting judgments within the House. The general body of opinion has been that
562
the Bill is valuable, and I believe that it is no answer to say that one can substitute Government by legislation with Government by circular. That would be a wholly objectionable course of events, and I could well understand the hon. Gentleman making a passionate speech if it were to be done in that way.
The hon. Gentleman expressed certain concern, echoed by others, about the assimilation of the question of bail after conviction with the presumption of bail before conviction. In my opening speech I was clear about the Government's attitude—that they favour a presumption of bail in the specific circumstances where a convicted man was remanded for reports, and not only could bail be refused in the circumstances in which bail could be refused before conviction but also it could be refused in the circumstances where the magistrates had it in mind that they would probably imprison the defendant unless the reports indicated to the contrary, or unless it was impracticable to get a report in any other way. In other words, if the only practical way to get some report was to remand him in custody, they could do it then.
That was a specific and limited exception, and I would not want the House to be under any apprehension that the Government are giving a general welcome for assimilation of the criteria before and after conviction, and certainly they have made no proposal on the question of impending appeal.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about who fills in the information forms. He raised a point about whether the court staff did it or the probation officers. As far as we are concerned, that is a matter at the discretion of the court, and I hope that the most appropriate and efficacious means of getting the forms filled in would be taken by the court concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) raised a number of points. One of them concerned the creation of the new offence, and this was echoed by a number of my other hon. Friends. The working party, after much study of the position—the tribute paid to the care with which it approached it is well justified—came to the conclusion, as stated in paragraph 102 of the report, that it was necessary to have some sort of sanction in relation to failing to answer to bail, which the working party regarded

563
as a serious violation of the criminal process.
In addition to this, my hon. Friend mentioned that the fact that we have a good record in the matter of remands is no reason for complacency. He will acknowledge that I said that in my opening statement. There is no reason for us ever to be complacent, and the manner in which the Bail Bill approaches the question is evidence of this.
The question of legal representation is important. My hon. Friend will know that Clause 11 makes specific references to that matter and helps in that direction.
My hon. Friend also raised centrally the question of the Children and Young Persons Act and the question of remand to adult prisons and to what he called children's prisons. If bail helps generally, it will also help children and young persons in those circumstances, but I think he goes much to far in saying that moral welfare does not enter into it. Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act lays this down, and the question of moral welfare has been demonstrated in the "Johnny Go Home" programme shown fairly recently.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my hon. Friend saying that it is for the welfare, moral or otherwise, of a school child that it should be put into prison?
Mr. John: My hon. Friend uses the term "prison" in a very wide sense. I am saying that we cannot rule out prison entirely, although we hope that all means or measures would be taken to avoid it.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), I emphasise that Clause 8(6) of the Bill deals with Scottish sureties.
I come to the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I will not, if he will forgive me, deal with the rather Stromboli-like eruptions to which he gave vent at various points in the debate but rather with the serious points which he made about the Police Federation. He will know that representations were made to the working party by the Police Federation.
No representations have been made to the Government by the Police Federation
564
since the publication of the Bill, but there were on the working party two very distinguished policemen, the Chief Constable of Leeds and the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Therefore the police interest was not ruled out. It was not a working party report which came, as it were, from the hothouse of inexperience. It was tempered with the experience of serving policemen.
The hon. Gentleman asked about rabies and about State security. The same criteria apply there. He asked whether I was satisfied that my formula would work. Subject to the natural caveat of the lack of absolute dogmatism that I have shown in answer to the Opposition Front Bench, certainly I am satisfied.
Mr. Percival: Does the Minister not appreciate that what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) complains about is the haste with which this matter has come on and that those who had the chance to present their views beforehand have not had the chance to listen to the debate?
Mr. John: That is a refinement which was not at first made. I understand the point now being made, and I make no comment on it save to say that, if the complaint were, as it were, the question of representations, the position is quite clearly as I stated it.
The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) directed a series of questions to me, and I shall try to answer them as briefly as possible. If he will refer to Clause 5(3) and (4), he will see that the reasons need to be in writing. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about bail hostels. There are five bail hostels and 30 probation hostels which have space for some people on bail.
Next the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about out-patient examinations in prison. These are currently running at four prisons at the moment. There have been a number of appointments, but there are some vacancies, and we hope that increasing use will be made of these facilities.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised one problem which underlies a lot of the concern in this House. It is that many

565
people have to wait many weeks on remand before they achieve trial. I cannot give precise figures in the confined situation in which we are at the moment, but the position is undoubtedly worse in London than in the rest of the country. Roughly, the time awaiting trial is about 14 weeks in London and eight to 10 weeks elsewhere. We have tried more judges and the provision of more court rooms to cut this down but, unfortunately, there has been an increase in indictable crime which has prevented major improvements in that regard.
At several stages, we have been counselled not to claim too much for this Bill. Certainly nothing that I have said has made any exaggerated claim for it. What I have said is that the Bill, with its enshrinement of the principle that a person is entitled to bail unless there are exceptional reasons, is an important one to put in a statute.
It will be a valuable Bill, and the Committee stage can perform a valuable function in this regard in scrutinising it carefully. I commend it to the House as
566
being a measure which will do good. It is not a neutral measure. It is a measure for the better in our penal policy.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

BAIL BILL [Lords]

  BAIL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision in relation to bail in criminal proceedings in England and Wales, to make it an offence to agree to indemnify sureties in criminal proceedings, to make provision for legal aid limited to questions of bail in certain cases and for legal aid for persons remanded in custody for inquiries or reports, to extend the powers of coroners to grant bail and for connected purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. John.]

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
9.58 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill has been widely debated in another place and in the Press. It will give effect to the Government's undertaking to establish a public lending right for the authors of books. The new right will entitle authors to payment from public funds for the use made of their books when they are borrowed from public libraries.
In this country we borrow more than 600 million books each year from more than 6,000 points of issue. About £20 million is spent each year on 13 million books to replenish and improve library stocks.
The difficulty that we have to tackle in this Bill is that at present the author receives only the royalty to which he is entitled for each copy purchased, whether it is purchased by a private individual who puts it on his shelves or whether it is
purchased by a public library which lends it out again and again over a period which may be anything up to 10 years.
I think that there is general agreement that something should be done to remedy this state of affairs. But there are a number of technical problems involved. Many possible solutions have been put forward. One is that when each book is borrowed a stamp should be purchased or some other small payment should be made for the benefit of the author. While it is easy to imagine this happening at the level of the branch library, the problem is one of detail, and, even more, one of the cost of administration of any such scheme. We have hundreds of millions of borrowings, and thousands of borrowing outlets.
It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the Business.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [Lords]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made and Question put, That Government Business may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]
  The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 12.

  Division No. 155.]

  AYES

  [10.00 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Pardoe, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Park, George

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Harper, Joseph

  Parry, Robert

  Ashton, Joe

  Hooley, Frank

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Penhaligon, David

  Bean, R. E.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Perry, Ernest

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hunter, Adam

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Buchan, Norman

  John, Brynmor

  Rooker, J. W.

  Campbell, Ian

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cant, R. B.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Coleman, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Corbett, Robin

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Small, William

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cryer, Bob

  MacCormick, Iain

  Snape, Peter

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  McElhone, Frank

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dempsey, James

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Doig, Peter

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stott, Roger

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Madden, Max

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  English, Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Marquand, David

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Ewing Harry (Stirling)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Tomlinson, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Forrester, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Ward, Michael

  Freeson, Reginald

  Newens, Stanley

  Watkinson, John

  Freud, Clement

  Noble, Mike

  Watt, Hamish

  Golding, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  White, James (Pollok)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. David Stoddart and

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Mr. Alf Bates.

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  NOES

  Bottomley, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Mr. Iain Sproat and

  Durant, Tony

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mr. Roger Moate.

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Monro, Hector

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Question accordingly agreed to.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
10.13 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill we are discussing has been promoted over many years by interested parties, some of whom—with financial interests—sit in this House. Some have written books, some have not.
Should persons with such an interest, since it is not declared in the Register of Members' Interests, speak or vote without declaring an interest in the debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Perhaps I can help the hon. Member. There has arisen a convention in the House that hon. Members should declare such an interest in debates. Personal interest in votes on questions of public policy is covered in "Erskine May", as is the more hypothetical question raised by the hon. Member. At this hour of the night, I should be unpopular if I read pages 407 to 412 inclusive of "Erskine May", but I hope the hon. Gentleman's point has been met.
Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think you are quoting from the old edition of "Erskine May"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is erroneous in his impression. I am quoting from the new edition.
Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I congratulate you and the Clerk's department on having a copy before it is published. Even when the new edition
570
was being written, the House had not reached its recent decision on registering interests—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I can help the hon. Member. To my certain knowledge, there has been a copy of the new edition in the Aye Lobby for a number of weeks. If the hon. Member cares to direct his attention to page 412 of the new edition of "Erskine May" he will see that paragraph F refers to the Declaration of Personal Pecuniary Interests and the House of Commons' Register.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not correct to suggest that hon. Members who have written books have not declared their interest. I have entered in the Register of Interests my occupation as an author. It was the only other occupation I could find. I entered that interest in the full knowledge that virtually all my books are out of print.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
Mr. English: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I did not impugn personally any individual hon. Member. I think that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will be aware that I was not referring to him. He will be aware that certain people who have written books have not registered that fact in the Declaration because they are not required to do so. That is no fault of theirs, because they are not required to make the declaration. I raise the matter to ask whether they should declare an interest if they speak subsequently in the debate. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has written a book.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, most certainly they should declare an interest.
Mr Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whichever edition of "Erkine May" one consults, will you confirm that any interest declared in the Register does not remove from any Member who speaks in a debate the obligation of declaring a practical interest in the matter being considered?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can confirm that point. Miss Jackson.
Miss Margaret Jackson: As I was saying, there is no doubt that, although many suggestions have been made for a variety of schemes involving public lending right, it is easy to see that the costs of administering so complex a scheme could easily outweigh any potential advantages either to the community or to authors of any payments which could be made. The whole task of the Government in preparing for the Bill has been to find a practical scheme which can work within existing knowledge, and to go for that as a real contribution to the problem. Moreover, we take the view that payments to authors should be dealt with on the same basis as assistance to other forms of the Arts—namely, that it should be a charge on my noble Friend's resources for the assistance of the Arts.
Both the providers of library services—the local authorities—and users can therefore be assured that they will not have to bear the costs of operating the scheme, and that these will rank with other forms of assistance to the Arts as and when resources can be made available.
Mr. Jasper More: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but will she make it clear whether she has an interest to declare as the author of what she is reading to us, or has it been written by somebody else?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Miss Jackson: I am sorry if this comes as a dreadful shock to the hon. Gentleman, but I actually wrote my speech. I realise that Conservative Members are accustomed to having a vast retinue of people, and need them, to help them com
572
pose their speeches, whereas my hon. Friends and I are accustomed to having to help ourselves.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend has referred to the cost of administering the scheme, but will she tell us what proportion of total expenditure will go to authors and what proportion will be involved in administrative expenses?
Miss Jackson: It might have been better if my hon. Friend had waited until we got a little further on in the debate. I do not think I can give him any clear figures. It is being suggested that quite a high proportion, perhaps 40 per cent., of the sums involved initially will account for administration. As my hon. Friend will realise, the initial cost of establishing such a scheme is likely to be very high. It is only when or if additional money becomes available that it will be possible to distribute more to authors. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to return to that matter later in the debate. To ensure that the costs of administration are capable of being met from the scheme, a basic principle of the Bill is that these costs shall be a first charge on the additional resources available. It is therefore of extreme practical importance that these costs shall be kept to the minimum so that the maximum amount can be made available for distribution to authors.
I now turn to the main features of the Bill. Clause 1 establishes a public lending right as a right of authors to be paid out of a central fund on certain books lent by public libraries in the United Kingdom—books which, by their appearance on the register, entitle the authors to public lending right. The clause also provides for the appointment of a registrar to administer the scheme.
Clause 2 establishes the central fund out of which public lending right will be paid. This clause places an upper limit of £1 million on the annual liabilities of the fund. The Government must require—indeed, it is a principle of sound finance, apart from protecting other demands on resources for the Arts—that the scheme shall not be open-ended and that Parliament maintains firm control over the total resources devoted to the scheme. However, there is provision in Clause 2(3) for my right hon. Friend the Secretary

573
of State, with the consent of the Treasury and, of course, of this House, to increase the limit by order.
I now come to one of the more unusual features of the Bill.
Mr. Philip Whitehead: Could my hon. Friend tell me what the Government calculate will be the average annual amount which will be received by each author from the central fund?
Miss Jackson: That is not an easy calculation to make, as my hon. Friend may know. I am aware that my noble Friend quoted some figures in another place. This will depend on when the scheme is introduced and what the administrative costs turn out to be. It is difficult to look too far into the future. If my hon. Friend wants the figures, I will endeavour to get them for him later.
Mr. Clement Freud: That is an unsatisfactory answer. Will the hon. Lady consider the question put to her by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead)? The answer is simple. If there is an upper limit of £1 million and it is expected that 40 per cent, will be paid for administration, it should not be too difficult to work out the average sum per author.
Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is over-simplifying the case. It is posible to work out the overall sum available to authors on the assumption of the expected administrative costs. My hon. Friend was asking what was likely to be the average return per author. It is not a matter of dividing the number of authors into the amount available. It is possible that, on the present size of the fund, the more popular authors will obtain sums of about £100 a year and that less popular authors will receive about £10 a year. The amount involved depends on whether the final scheme adopted has a ceiling for the amount of income might be involved, whether it is a tapering scheme, or whatever. These matters will be considered later in committee.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps I may assist the hon. Lady. Lord Goodman, speaking in the other place, calculated that approximately 113,000 authors would claim and that the average payment would be £5 a year. That, even
574
by my frugal standards, is not a very large sum.
Miss Jackson: I did not say that it was a very large sum. I said that it was difficult to calculate. The amount will vary enormously depending on the popularity of the author. I gave a figure of about £10 for authors in the medium range, not authors whose books are borrowed over and over again. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is considering figures of the same order. I cannot say that I am tremendously grateful to him for his help, but I am sure that the House is.
Clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to prepare the draft of a scheme for the administration of public lending right to be laid before Parliament. The reason for this way of proceeding is that, as has been made plain in the debate, a large number of detailed arrangements will have to be made before we can have an operational scheme for paying public lending right. These involve not merely the nature of the equipment required to measure the books but the way in which returns will be made to establish the entitlement of payment, the working out of the sample of libraries selected for measuring the right, and the way in which the expenses of the local authorities are paid. The Government believe that the time is ripe to establish the right and work out the consequential details against the day when we all hope resources will be available.
Mr. Robert Cooke: The Minister in the other place, Lord Donaldson, promised a Green Paper, a discussion document, in advance of publication of the scheme. When are we to have that?
Miss Jackson: Since the debate in the other place was a couple of days or perhaps a week ago, I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is not expecting a Green Paper the day after tomorrow. My recollection of what my noble Friend said was that we would seek to have the fullest possible consultation on the detailed form of the scheme. He thought that one way that might be appropriate was to publish a Green Paper, but I do not recall that he gave any indication of time, and I do not feel that I can do that now.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Lord Donaldson did give an undertaking to publish a discussion document in advance of the scheme.
Miss Jackson: Yes, but, as I have not given an indication, and do not propose to do so, of how the scheme will be worked out, because this will depend on when resources will be made available—and no time has been stated for that—the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to give a date for publication of a discussion document. If Conservative Members will be a little more patient, we might come to this question again in the course of the debate.
Clause 4 provides for the establishment of the register which will be the evidence on whether the lending of a particular hook will earn public lending right and to whom payment is due. The onus will be on the applicant to furnish proof of his claim to the satisfaction of the registrar, who will be charged with the duty of establishing and maintaining the register in accordance with the scheme.
It is the Government's intention to conclude the necessary work on the negotiations and consultations needed to prepare the scheme as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law. My noble Friend has made it clear that he will spare no pains to ensure that before the scheme is laid before the House both the research and the consultations will be carried out.
I now turn to two points which gave rise to amendments to the Bill in another place. These relate to the use of the word "works" in place of "books" throughout the Bill. The intention behind this amendment is one with which the Government have considerable sympathy; namely, to ensure that the new techniques of communication between authors and the public, with which public libraries are becoming increasingly involved, should not be excluded by the Bill. Against this, however, I must make it clear that the Government see no way of producing a practical scheme to give effect to this change in the foreseeable future. We see no way by which works other than books which are borrowed can be recorded and their use measured on a statistically justifiable basis at reasonable cost, and we take the view that it would be totally irresponsible to legislate for a purpose for which no practicable
576
scheme seems to be possible at present.
The intention is to devise in this scheme the cheapest form of statistical sample of lending which can be justified, and this in itself is a sophisticated problem. The Government have not seen a way to extend the system of measurement to reference books except at inordinate cost, and reference books are, therefore, excluded from the Bill on grounds of practicability. We shall therefore move an amendment at a later stage to restrict the application of the Bill to books. Nothing would damage the interests of authors in the long term more than the failure to achieve the limited objectives that we are setting.
The second point raised in another place relates to the eligibility of foreign authors, which is dealt with in Clause 1(7)(e). As it stands, the Bill reflects an amendment in another place which restricted the eligibility to authors who were United Kingdom citizens or residents, or citizens of other countries which give reciprocity to English authors.
The Government are obtaining further legal advice on the legal issues involved and on the relevance of international copyright conventions. As a result of this advice we may be obliged to move amendments later, but there are strong policy issues involved concerning the whole of the international copyright situation, from which the United Kingdom derives a large net advantage, and, quite apart from the legal issues, the Government may decide that they cannot be justified in being too narrow in their approach to this problem. We do not expect not to have to pay for our imports, and there is no doubt that if we accept the principle of payment for services, foreign authors provide services for readers in this country.
I now turn to the question of resources. Hon. Members will accept that this is a particularly difficult time to start new programmes of public expenditure, and they will not therefore be surprised to hear that I cannot say when the resources will be available to enable this measure to come into effect. But this is no reason, in the Government's view, why we should not make a start in establishing the right and working out the way of implementing it as a consequence. This will be a complex and difficult task and it cannot be

577
achieved overnight. The Government are sure that authors will accept the Bill as a firm beginning to the honouring of an undertaking to provide them with a return for the use of their works in libraries—a cause for which they have striven for many years and on which there is general agreement on the merits of their case.
It would be wrong to move the Second Reading of this Bill without paying a warm tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins). Just as I believe a general agreement exists in respect of the need for this measure, so, too, I believe it is generally agreed that we would not be in a position to consider this Bill had it not been for the work of my hon. Friend. Whatever disagreement there may be on the Bill, or on the scheme, I think there can be none in respect of the valuable contribution he has made.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I am delighted at long last, and at six hours' notice, to welcome the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing it. Any deficiencies in her script were more than made up by the mellifluousness of her delivery.
We have a lot of people to be thankful to for the fact that we are having this Second Reading debate. We have to be thankful to whoever on the Government Benches was responsible for the error made in respect of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. We have also to be grateful to the private enterprise of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). With some prescience I acquired his advice on procedural matters in respect of the Education Bill a few weeks ago. Let us hope he is equally successful in that direction. Anyhow, one can say about the results of today O Felix culpa, if I may lapse into my native Latin.
The Opposition welcome the Bill in principle. We are not entirely in agreement with some of its clauses but the principle is right.
Mr. English: It is a middle-class subsidy.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion; he is more an authority on the middle classes than I
578
am. If the cap fits, the hon. Gentleman must wear it.
I am delighted that it is one of the first acts of the period of office of Lord Donaldson that this Bill should be brought before the House. I welcome the appointment of the noble Lord. If we could not have the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) as Minister for the Arts, Lord Donaldson is the next best thing. We wish him well and we look forward to a period of fruitful co-operation. The Arts should be above party politics, and we hope we shall see a new era of co-operation now opening.
The public lending right campaign has had a long history. It may be difficult for the House to believe that it is 25 years since I first became associated with Sir Alan Herbert in his pioneering campaign to secure justice for authors. Unfortunately, it took a long time for this cause to get off the ground. In November 1973, when I was appointed Minister for the Arts, it was one of my chief hopes that I would be able to play some part in getting a public lending right on the statute book. To aid that cause I sought the help of Mr. Ernie Money, then the hon. Member for Ipswich, who had a Private Member's Bill on the subject. I should like to pay tribute to him for his work in this respect. I should also like to thank Lord Goodman for the important role that he played from the Cross Benches in the other place in achieving this cause.
At the time as the Conservative Government were considering introducing a Bill on this subject, authors were divided on their approach to it. Some wished to see a purchase right and some a lending right. It was thanks to Lord Goodman that an agreement was reached. The agreement which was reached between myself and the various groups of authors was that a Bill should be introduced which would confer both a purchase right and a lending right—or, rather, the possibility of either or a combination of the two.
Which scheme was eventually to be adopted was left open in the agreed Bill. That was to be decided in the light of the report of a committee of experts which I appointed, or was about to appoint when the Government left office, to consider the extremely complicated

579
technical questions involved in this matter.
The point of principle established by the then Government was that the money should be provided by the Government. That was an extremely important decision of principle, because if the money had to come from local government, the local authorities would be likely simply to economise by buying fewer books and there would probably be less, rather than more, money available for authors. I am glad that the Government have adhered to the principle, which was established by their predecessors, of finance from a central source.
The sum obtained at the time was £1 million. The fact that that sum was found and was agreed by the Cabinet was primarily due to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the Opposition. She was tireless and was unshakeable in the support that she gave against those Treasury advisers who were extremely reluctant to see this injustice righted.
On 7th February 1974 the Cabinet agreed to proceed along these lines, and the Public Lending Right Bill was to be introduced in March. Unfortunately, on 8th February, the day after the agreement was reached, Parliament was dissolved and the Bill then lapsed for two years. But it is important that the record should be straight on this matter. I am glad that tributes have been paid to the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) but it is a fact that the groundwork was laid by the Conservative Party, by the Conservative Government in 1974.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would the hon. Gentleman now admit to the House that the groundwork was wholly wrongly laid during his disastrous 10 weeks in office? We have had to change it ever since and have spent most of our time trying to put right the mistakes he made during those 10 weeks.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thought that it would be a mistake to pay a tribute to the hon. Gentleman, but the thought came too late. I should have followed my worse judgment rather than my better and more noble judgment. I do not begrudge the hon. Member for Putney, who is sitting there looking like a cross between
580
Karl Marx and the Archbishop of Canterbury, his claim to be the father of this Bill. But if he can claim to be its father, I can legitimately claim to be its grandfather. In a sense that makes me the father of the hon. Gentleman, which means that I am quite a good age.
I was, naturally, anxious at that time that all the progress that had been made should not go by default. It was agreed that a pledge for public lending right should go into the Conservative Party election manifesto in February. But, owing to the speed of the election, when the manifesto was published there was no sign of the pledge. The matter has had a chequered history and we might as well get the record straight. When I inquired what had happened, I found that it had been left out in error by a typist because it was at the end of the page dealing with education. I went round to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and at his first Press conference on 11th February he pledged that public lending right would be introduced. It was not mentioned at all in the Labour Party's campaign documents, although the hon. Member for Putney, with some rather ethereal reserve, eventually pledged £5 million for the implementation of a public lending right. The pledge was for £5 million but it was subject to economic circumstances. That did not receive the publicity. The £5 million caught the headlines.
Mr. Roger Moate: Some of our hon. Friends may not understand that last point. Can my hon. Friend say by whom and when that pledge was made—bearing in mind the earlier criticism that the sum was frugal? Does my hon. Friend intend that that should be the sum?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The pledge was made by the hon. Member for Putney. I should be delighted if £5 million could be devoted to this cause, but I recognise that in the present economic circumstances it is not possible for a sum of that size to be made available. I hope that in the future the sum provided in the Bill will be increased.
I want to stress for the record that the Bill is not a concession. It is not an act of favour from the Government.

581
It is a simple act of justice, because authors have a right to reasonable remuneration for their work. They receive only one royalty for a book in a library which may be borrowed many times. I have already declared my interest—such as it is. I have written 10 or 12 books. For work lasting many years one receives a pitifully inadequate return. The novelist, for example, may sell 3,000 copies of a first or subsequent novel which can be borrowed about 117,000 times from libraries—that is the average calculation. The author will obtain between £600 and £800 for the sale of the book but for the 100,000 borrowings he will receive absolutely nothing.
The situation is pretty acute in Britain because of the excellence of our library service. Libraries are popular here. They average 600 million loans a year. In Germany, with a rather larger population, the loans are 75 million a year. In the United States, with a population four times that of Great Britain, the circulation from libraries is 450 million loans a year. It is excellent that we should have such a good library service, but it is right that compensation should be paid to the authors who, above all, make the service possible. It is on their contributions that the service is built up.
I am also delighted that the Government have decided to make this a lending right as such and not a purchase right. But there is a flaw in the Bill which was fleetingly referred to by the hon. Lady, that it does not extend to reference works held in public libraries. They are the books on which most work is done, and yet the least reward is given to their authors by the Bill. I hope that it will be possible in Committee to devise an amendment so that the authors of reference works are included within the scope of the Bill.
I turn to the question of the sum of money involved. The Conservative Government fixed upon £1 million two years ago. That is equivalent to only about £600,000 today. Inflation has taken its toll, but it has not been allowed for in the sum provided by the Government in the Bill. Worse still, the cost of administration, which has been estimated by the Government at £400,000, and which is much more liable to go up than to go down, leaves only £600,000 for the authors. But it would be wrong to
582
press for a large sum of money in our present economic circumstances. Everyone must make sacrifices.
It is true that the principle is important, but the sum should not be so small as to make the implementation of the principle in effect derisory. That was the point raised by hon. Members on this side of the House, who asked the hon. Lady whether she could say how much authors were likely to receive. The fact is that they are likely to receive probably about one-tenth of 1p. for the loan of a book. Another calculation is that an author can expect about £5 a year.
The reward to the author should not be such that it is liable to become less than the cost of the administration of the Bill. It would be a very bad principle to establish that in the law. The hon. Lady should look again at this question, to see whether the cost of administration of the scheme could not be excluded from the notional £ 1 million which is the limit on the Bill. That would not be a large addition to public expenditure but it would make the working of the Bill much more reasonable.
The Minister has given no date for bringing the Bill into operation. It is certainly not in the Bill. An indication this evening of the Government's intention would be most welcome. Perhaps the hon. Lady can give at least a rough forecast of the date on which a scheme is to come into operation. I suggest that a scheme should be submitted to Parliament not later than six months after the Bill has received the Royal Assent.
It is very bad constitutional practice to introduce a Bill embodying a principle and to say "This is the beginning of a process" but not to give any indication of where that process is to begin. In the two years that they have had, the Government should have thought out the difficulties associated with the Bill and should be ready to bring a scheme into operation. Otherwise, they should not have introduced the Bill. To introduce a Bill and say "We haven't made sufficient preparations to bring it into operation" is a dereliction of their constitutional duty.
Miss Margaret Jackson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the argument he is now advancing is to the

583
effect that the Bill should not have been introduced. If he wishes to see the Bill on the statute book, he would do well not to press his suggestion that the measure should not have been introduced at all until the scheme had been worked out. If he has now changed his mind from the impression he gave earlier and does not want the Bill to be enacted, he should make that plain.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Lady's logic is at fault in that she has drawn the wrong conclusion from my argument. My argument was not directed at the conclusion that the Bill should not be introduced. The effect of my argument was that the Government should have spent the period of two years constructively and should have worked out their ideas more fully. The Government are not at fault in bringing in the Bill. They are at fault in not coming to the House fully equipped with the answers to these pertinent problems. After all, they have at their disposal all the resources of the Department to give them the answers to these questions.
Miss Margaret Jackson: I think the House should know that, despite the rosy picture painted by the hon. Gentleman as to the state of affairs on this subject when he left office, it was necessary for the Department to put in a considerable amount of work in producing a scheme. The two reports are the fruits of that work, and indeed a great deal of time has been needed in bringing any scheme at all before the House. Indeed, there is still a great deal of work needed. This is a complex problem and cannot be solved overnight. Since the Conservative Party, with all its good will, did not manage to produce any scheme at all in a period of 25 years, it is a little hard for the hon. Gentleman to accuse the Labour Government of not having worked out a practicable scheme.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: We produced a blueprint for a Bill, and that Bill was produced within a period of six weeks. If the Government had proceeded at the same pace as that at which we proceeded, these problems surely should have been worked out by now. Problems do not get easier to solve merely by delaying them. Within the five-year lifetime of a Parliament, a period of two years surely
584
should provide enough time to work out what is admittedly a complex problem. I believe that there has been a lack of urgency and drive by the Government on this matter.
I wish to make the point that it is important that if there is only a limited sum of money available it should go to the right persons. It should go to the authors and not to the publishers. It would be monstrous if the greater part of the money provided by the Bill went to the publishers and administrators and the authors got the minority share. That must be wrong. This Bill is intended to give justice to authors.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say what is the role of publishers in this scheme and to outline the benefits which they will obtain.
The Minister did not deal with the important matter of payment. It is important that no well-known author should scoop the pool and leave the less-well-known authors to get the dregs. That is an important point. I am sure that bestselling authors would be willing to accept some limitation on the amount of money which any individual can get from the sum of money available.
I put forward as a basis for discussion the suggestion that the limit should be £1,000 per author for £1 million in the pool. That would mean that everyone would get a fair share of the help available.
This debate is taking place late at night, but it is an important debate and I hope that it will be a lively one. The House is not unanimous on this subject, although I believe that there is a majority on both sides of the House who are in favour of the Bill. It is the policy of the official Opposition to support the Bill. [Interruption.] I am aware, from some of the noises I hear behind me, that there is a certain amount of dissent from the Bill. I do not complain about that. I have done my bit of dissenting in my time, and I may well have to do it again in due course. But the Bill has not only my assent but the assent of the entire Shadow Cabinet and the vast majority of the Parliamentary Conservative Party. Subject to its improvement in Committee along the lines I have suggested, I wish the Bill a speedy passage.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the succinctness with which she presented the Bill and wish her every success in carrying it through. I would like to have been in her position, I must confess, but, since that was not to be, it would be appropriate for me to say that, since the Bill had to be carried through by someone other than myself, I could wish for none other than her to do it.
I must make amends for being perhaps a little sharp with the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). Although I had the feeling that he got off on the wrong foot on the question of public lending right with his idea of a purchase right scheme, I believe that, as Shadow Minister for the Arts, he fulfils a useful and satisfactory function, and I hope that he will long occupy that position.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reference to me, but I must correct him. I never adhered to the purchase right as such. It was a policy developed by my predecessor. I modified it as much as I could. I was never in favour of purchase right, save that it was part of my inheritance.
Mr. Jenkins: I am delighted to hear that.
One reason why it has taken perhaps two years to reach this stage with the Bill is the complexity of arriving at the right solution. The advantage of the Bill is not so much in the wording itself but in the work which has been carried out over those two years, in which we have succeeded in establishing a loan-based scheme—a payment made to the author every time a book is borrowed—as a practicable proposition whereby, properly and fairly, the most popular authors will not scoop the pool and in which the cost of administration is no greater than the administration of purchase right would have been.
I share the view that, as a result of inflation, the percentage of the sum of £1 million mentioned in the Bill which is likely to be spent on administration—perhaps about 40 per cent.—is too high. But I also draw attention to why my hon. Friend said that that figure is likely to
586
decline. The first year's cost is likely to be about 40 per cent., but after that it will be a reducing percentage as an annual cost. The early years will entail a complex process of selecting 72 libraries, putting machinery into them to get a fair sample, and then rotating the sample to ensure that it works. That cost will have to be set against the early years and is likely to decline. It is also my firm conviction now, as it was in Government, that the figure of £1 million is a start.
I believe that the importance of the Bill cannot be over-estimated. We are establishing a principle the future of which will fundamentally affect the whole craft of writing, and many other things as well. We live in a society in which we pay for use. We pay for the use of our houses, for the use of our television sets, and for many other things. The proposition of payment for use is firmly established.
This principle also applies to books to some extent, because the author receives a royalty in relation to the purchase of the book. It might be said, therefore, that the principle of payment for use is recognised already by the royalty payment.
Let us compare what the author of a book receives with what is received by the writer of a play. The royalty to the writer of a play is related to the number of people who go to see it. There is, therefore, a continuing income to the writer of a play as long as the play is in use. The author of a book is in a very different position. In this country we borrow books to a much greater extent than people in any other country in the world. In other countries books are bought on a much greater scale. We are not great buyers but we are great borrowers of books.
Although our authors stand high in the estimation of the world, they are the worst paid in the world. It is easy to say, of course, that there are authors such as Agatha Christie who are wealthy, but the average author does not earn the average wage and is a poor person.
We should try to do something to mitigate the loss of the creative artist. Is there anyone in this House who thinks that the creative artist is unimportant? Is there anyone on the Socialist side who

587
thinks the creative artist does not matter in society? No Member on either side should dismiss the creative artist as an unimportant member of society. On the contrary, those who recognise true values in society would say that the artist who is a creative worker is the person to whom all of us owe an enormous debt.
Mr. Whitehead: I entirely agree with by hon. Friend but he has been talking of creative works, and there was an amendment about works, rather than merely books, in another place. Why is he opposed to the extension of these rights to the borrowing of cassettes from a library?
Mr. Jenkins: I am not opposed in principle. But this is an important scheme that we have before us, and it should start off on a basis on which it can be sustained and grow. If we try to do everything at once, and to include cassettes and all libraries, we shall find that we have bitten off more than the Treasury will permit us to chew at this stage. We have to start on a rather small basis. I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that I think that the endeavour made in another place, to include a right for the Government to introduce works by Statutory Instrument, is the right way to go about it.
I should like the Bill to contain a provision that without fresh legislation, and by Statutory Instrument, the Secretary of State may in the future extend the Bill so that it becomes possible to include items other than books—and even to include libraries other than public libraries, to which at present the Bill is restricted. The amendments suggested in the other place should be accepted by the Government, and I hope the Government will not move against them in Committee. There are one or two other matters which the Government might consider introducing as Government amendments to the Bill.
I think that the hon. Member for Chelmsford was right in emphasising that the Bill has taken two years to reach this stage. A great deal of work has been done, however, in this period. Indeed, most of the work has already been done. There need be no great delay in presenting the scheme. The Government should place a limitation on the period of time taken to put the scheme before the House. Therefore it might be said that there
588
should be a period of, say, not more than six months before the scheme gets going.
It may be that the Government already have power in the Bill to increase the sum of £1 million. The £1 million will probably be all right for the first year, but I suspect that it will not be for very much longer.
As for reference books, here again I think that the right solution is not to include reference books in the Bill but, rather, to give the Secretary of State power by Statutory Instrument to include them when it becomes possible technically to do so. It must be remembered that there is a difficult technical problem involved in including them, to say nothing of the financial problems which will arise.
Having put forward those qualifications, I wish to associate myself with the welcome which has been given to the Bill. Its importance is hard to exaggerate. Merely because it is starting off on a small scale, we should not overlook the fact that this is a measure of great importance. We are recognising the right of the writer of books to participate in payment for use, as many other members of the community do. We are doing it without moving against the sacred principle of the free library. We are doing it without in any way taking money away from local authorities or library authorities. We are setting up a new central Government fund which preserves the essential basic principle of the free library. In other words, this measure will benefit the creative artist and will at the same time make us a more caring and conscious community. The Bill will bring credit to the House. Goodness knows, after the goings on in recent days, the House needs a bit of credit of this kind!
11.7 p.m.
Mr. Clement Freud: I begin by saying that we on the Liberal Bench welcome the Bill in principle. The Minister referred to it as a scheme, but it is in fact so light-weight that perhaps "a wheeze" would be a better description. Incidentally, I noted that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) paid tribute to the hon. Lady's mellifluous delivery. It sounded more like a tribute to a midwife than to a junior Minister.

589
It seems to me that the whole point of this Bill is not only to recognise the contribution of the artist in our society, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkin) so rightly said, but, in many ways, to compensate the artist whose books are constantly borrowed but seldom purchased. It will be very important, in Committee, to work out some method not whereby the fat cat becomes fatter but whereby the lean author receives genuine recognition for the value of his books. This is a matter which has to be looked at most carefully.
If nothing else, I hope that there will be generous tax concessions for successful authors who do not demand payment under the public lending right.
A certain amount has been said about reference books being exempt from this legislation. I want to bring in one other matter, concerning school books. They need very special consideration.
I turn now to the question of children's books. Here I had better declare an interest. I have written not between 10 and 12 but exactly three children's books. They tend to be kept in schools without any definite pattern, but in a good school a kid can borrow any book on condition that he returns it. When this Bill is looked at with care, I hope that the position not only of the educational book but of the children's book written specially for children will be considered, to ensure that the person who writes children's books receives proper recognition.
What must be realised—and I was as disappointed about this as all hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House—is that if the limit is to be £1 million, and expenses are to be 40 per cent., our authors will receive, by way of public lending rights, a sum less than twice as much as the amount lost on the House of Commons catering. It is really disgraceful that, between them, 113,000 authors are to be the recipients of £600,000, which is less than twice as much as we lose on our catering.
I hope that when the Bill goes through Committee we shall introduce a proper programme whereby those who write books which are borrowed, rather than sold, receive financial compensation for the number of times that those books
590
are borrowed. Let no one think that £400,000 spent on administration is anything but an insult to the 113,000 people who write books, and who will average £5 a year between them.
I realise that the public lending right debate is a certain election loser, whether or not a typist forgets to put it into the manifesto, but I hope that the Bill will get through Parliament before there is another change of Government.
I hope that hon. Members who are on the Committee—and I hope to be one of them—will remember that the idea is to compensate the poor authors, because those who write successful books are already doing very well.
11.12 p.m.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I hope to be brief. I do not wish to follow in too great detail what the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has said.
I found it rather difficult to follow his argument on the question of books in schools. I was not sure whether he meant text books or children's stories. Children's stories are widely purchased and circulated through lending libraries. So far, my children have resisted the blandishments of the hon. Member and have not yet brought home any books written by him. I am sure he will accept that within the library system the authors of children's books stand to gain from the Bill, as he will himself, perhaps.
I am glad that as the debate has proceeded we have been able to get away from the earlier attempts to dispute paternity and the attempt to canonise the blessed Margaret as the patron saint of authors and the "onlie begetter" of this Bill, even though it did not appear in the Conservative manifesto. I wonder whether that manifesto would be regarded as a work of reference that would not be allowed to receive the proceeds of the Bill, or a work of fiction, which would qualify. That must be left to the Registrar, along with the other onerous tasks that we are giving to the administrative framework set up in the Bill. In my view too large a proportion of the moneys allocated under the Bill's provisions is going on administration.

591
It is regrettable that the actual sum available, once this Bill comes into operation in two or three years time, is so measly. We do not want to remunerate the best selling, rich authors by giving them a payment exactly equated to the number of times their books are borrowed from the libraries. We want to re-remunerate the lean authors. But to give the leaner authors an average of £5 a year from the sum allocated seems extraordinarily little, given the immense apparatus that we are setting up at the same time. We could send those same authors—if the figures quoted in another place are correct and there are 113,000—about £.8·50 each as a kind of authors' Christmas box, without any of this paraphernalia, and they would be rather better off than they will be under the Bill. We should not see ourselves as being over-generous to the unfortunate authors in the actual terms of the Bill.
It is the principle of the Bill that we accept and welcome, and that we are right to accept and welcome. I pay my own warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), who, as the Minister responsible for the early devilling on the Bill—if I may call it that; the Minister himself has been called many things tonight—is probably extremely happy to see it brought before the House tonight.
There are a number of things that we shall have to look at in Committee which are too complex to go into in a short debate now. The question of reference books is absolutely crucial. It is an absurdity that a reference book should be excluded from these provisions, even if that reference book has a single author. Of course, there is a problem about the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the question whether we should offer remuneration to the author of every article in it. But where a reference book is written by one or two authors—and I understand that there is provision, in the case of co-authors of books, that only one will receive payment—surely it will not be beyond the wit of the Committee to decide that we are able to extend the provisions in some way, perhaps—even if it makes the Bill a hybrid Bill—by extending purchase right to the question of reference books.
592
There are some libraries—and I hope some selected out of the 72 in the sample—that keep one kind of book in their reference section, perhaps because they have a singularly mistrustful chief librarian, whereas others allow that kind of book to be borrowed. Some books are categorised as reference books in one library and not in another. I hope that that will not mean that authors will be given inadequate remuneration because of what is being done in one library and not in another.
There were some interjections earlier about this being another bonus and another subsidy for the middle classes, and that the workers would be paying because it is they, on the whole, who go to the lending libraries. We must not get that attitude into our minds. Those who write books and spend a great deal of time on them find—as most authors with whom I am acquainted find—that they cannot earn a living out of writing. They should be in receipt of a working wage, just as everyone else in the country.
The provisions of the Bill make a start in principle, although they do not go very far, to giving some remuneration to authors. This will not be a tax upon the poor. It will not breach the principle of the free library. It will extend within this country a more equitable share of the resources generated by the one group of people, without whom there would be no books or publishing industry and none of the whole apparatus of public lending libraries which have been in their time the great glory of this country—that is, the authors themselves. The authors should be remunerated. The Bill is a start along that road. I hope that in Committee we can amend it along the lines suggested.
11.19 p.m.
Mr. David Walder: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) interjected earlier on the question of our interests. Like someone else who asked that question, he has not waited for an answer. I declare my interest. I am an author and a publisher, and most of my working life has been concerned with books in some way or other.
When this idea was mooted originally, I was very much in favour of some such measure coming before the House. However, in the last few months, although

593
I have not exactly begun to get cold feet about it—that would be the wrong impression—I have certainly got some doubts, because I wonder what we are really attempting to do by the Bill.
Are we pursuing a principle? If we are merely pursuing a principle that authors should be remunerated for lendings, on rather the same principle that a person who makes a gramophone record is remunerated for each performance, very well; the Bill puts that principle into effect, and authors will be entitled, as one understands it, to the princely sum of £5 or so at the end of the year.
No one would pretend that that will provide a working wage for authors, assuming that writing is their only job, or that it will be an inducement to anyone to become an author.
It is sometimes suggested that some people who are capable of producing works of art are held back by lack of remuneration. If we were producing a recruitment poster, the incentive of a fiver at the end of the year—with a bit of luck—would not produce a flood of people with works of art.
It is obvious who will be well off after this Bill is passed—the Registrar. There is no doubt about his position. His salary, pension, allowances and gratuities are guaranteed—and inflation-proofed as well, no doubt. I note that he will not be regarded as a servant of the Crown. I am not doing too much angling, and I do not know how much expertise is assembled in the House, but the job is open.
We are establishing a principle in the Bill, but there will be difficulties in the administration. No doubt some of them will be solved in Committee.
Comments have been made about the difficulty over reference books. Having been on both sides of the writing industry, I find a sort of proviso in my mind. The authors of reference books will have difficulties, but I know how easy it is to sell reference books. In many ways they are easier to sell than fiction or works of art.
In justice, we should say that more money should go to the author who gets one book into a library, even if it is not borrowed a great deal. Perhaps the
594
authors with only one book on the shelves should receive more than the writer with five books. I do not think this is being intellectually snobbish, but one author may have written a worthwhile novel, only one copy of which gets into a library and is borrowed occasionally, while that library may have taken five copies of "Memoirs of a Window Cleaner", all of which will be borrowed constantly. Given this difficulty, are we not to apply standards at any time?
Mr. Tom Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware that, after a great deal of difficulty. I have managed to obtain from the library at Marple, in my constituency, a copy of a book written by him? It grieves me very much that, at the moment, I shall not be in a position to pay him for it.
Mr. Walder: It grieves me that my hon. Friend did not find out about the book before, and buy it when it was on sale. I am happy that he has borrowed it, but when I start calculating how much money he will put in my pocket in the process, I find that it is a little like chicken-feed.
If one could abstain constructively on a Bill, that would be my attitude to this measure. No measure will deal with the mythical person who is starving in a garret but about to produce the great novel of the century. When I was in publishing I used to meet a number of those persons almost every week. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Bill will provide them with wealth, food and drink, or that an author will be hoping for his fiver at the end of the year if only he can get a copy into the local library.
Miss Margaret Jackson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is falling into the trap that one or two others seem to have been straying towards. The Bill is not providing for the support of indigent authors; it is meant to take account of the fact that, at present, authors obtain financial support only on royalties from the sales of their books, and not from borrowing. The Bill is not designed to supplement the incomes of authors at large.
Mr. Walder: That brings me back to my first point. The Bill is merely stating a principle. It is patently clear that £5

595
is not a living wage. We are stating a principle.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Government, by means of the Bill, are stating a principle and giving financial help to authors. It may be that the financial help cannot be very much at present, but we cannot separate the principle from the finance. Provided that a scheme is produced at some stage, this is the beginning of obtaining not a hand-out for authors but, as the hon. Lady says, justice for them.
Mr. Walder: My hon. Friend comes back exactly to justice and principle. I cannot see any future Government, of whatever composition, upping the amount of public money that is spent to provide something like a living wage. Therefore, we are back to saying that we are creating a principle. I must say that it is one to which I cannot object. This is perfectly reasonable, but let us not go overboard and say that we have created a new sort of economic climate for authors. Patently we have not done that.
My last point—I really do not know why I want to mention this—is that publishers sometimes come rather badly out of some of the arguments that are advanced by groups putting forward the case for authors. The principal object of WAG, for instance, would seem to be to keep authors off the streets, but publishers come off rather badly. I remind the House that the hazards of publishing are of a different dimension from those faced by authors. However, they are as unpredictable as those of authorship. Sometimes one reaps the benefits, sometimes one does not.
I was once concerned with a book called "The Sex Life of the Primates". It was a serious book about apes. As publishers we were astounded to find that it sold in vast numbers in translation into French. It appeared that it was thought to have some reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury. All I can say is that so far as authors and publishers are concerned, one never knows. In those circumstances I am prepared to give a very qualified support to the Bill.
11.29 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I share all the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder), but I cannot bring myself to the pitch
596
of emotional support that would drive me into voting for the Bill. I find I have a considerable lack of interest in the proposal. I doubt whether it will make any contribution towards the support of the creative artists about whom I feel we should be deeply concerned. Therefore, I must express doubts, some of which have been referred to already.
It seems that unless we have full details of the scheme that is to be proposed—the details may contradict my doubts—we can assume that only the existing popular author who has achieved a position of some standing is likely to get any kind of remuneration from this scheme, or any scheme that we can envisage the Treasury approving.
Established authors, by and large, do reasonably well—some extremely well—with the sale of film and television rights, and so on. I see no reason at all to support a measure that adds further to their position, even though I appreciate the way in which some of my hon. Friends wish to emphasise the importance of the principle.
I am concerned to try to help artistes who are struggling to achieve some position. I think that I have shown that to some extent in the past by attempting to establish various forms of support for the arts and by helping to create regional organisations for the support of the arts. However unsatisfactory much of that may be. I think that is the channel which is likely to prove the most fruitful in giving support for those who wish to achieve success. That is more likely to be of use to the author who is trying to make his way than anything that is likely to come out of this kind of measure. Struggling authors will get wholly negligible assistance from this proposal. I see no prospect of them getting anything more out of any kind of Treasury provision that we could expect.
On top of that there is to be a heavy administrative charge. I welcome the fact that the libraries are not to be charged directly. Nevertheless, a great deal of the administrative work will fall on some of the libraries. I do not, and I am sure that the libraries will not, welcome that at all.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: I am a great admirer of the work done by my hon. Friend in the Northern Association of the Arts and I

597
strongly support the moves made by the Arts Council to support authors. But my hon. Friend will not wish to argue that that type of support and the public lending right are in any way in conflict. They serve two different stages in the whole process of authorship.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. I am trying to understand what kind of provision the Bill could make. I have heard a great deal of conflicting argument about different types of proposals. I should like to know how this measure will make any significant contribution to those whom I wish to assist. Therefore, I am in a deeper state of doubt than the hon. Member for Clitheroe about this proposal. I am particularly anxious about the administrative costs which are to be saddled upon us for no very obvious reason, and I see no useful product coming out at the end.
Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Snape.]
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [Lords]

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Snape.]

REFUSE DISPOSAL (MANCHESTER)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]
11.34 p.m.
Mr. Fred Silvester: The Under-Secretary of State, unfortunately, always seems to get the Adjournment debate. I think that he must have felt relieved when my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) decided to drop his debate, but the hon. Gentleman now finds himself back in another saddle because I am raising another matter with his Department. I am grateful to the Minister for coming, because this matter is of considerable local importance.
598
Manchester, like every great city, has a great deal of refuse. My constituency has the advantage of bordering on the River Mersey, which is agreeable in many ways, but it has disadvantages, since the valley makes it suitable for the disposal of refuse.
The principal site for some years has been a tip in another part of my constituency—Parrs Wood—where the residents have suffered for a long time from heavy lorries pounding along their highly unsuitable roads. I know that the Minister has similar problems in his constituency. Fortunately for these residents, that site is about to be closed and therefore Manchester is faced with the problem of finding another site, which it has done in another part of my constituency. We are faced with advantage to one group as one tip finishes, and disadvantage to another as a new tip opens.
We are not opposing the need to open the new tip, particularly as it is in an area that has been excavated for motorway traffic and therefore is at the moment filling up with water and is a hazard to children. The basic problem is a simple one. The tip itself is in a suitable area, but the access roads are unsuitable—even more unsuitable than the ones that are servicing the existing tip.
We have a particular problem, in that the most obvious and direct route is through a road—I shall not bother the House with the details—called Maitland Avenue, which is not capable of bearing heavy traffic, in either sense. The structure of the road would have to be reinforced considerably to bear the weight of heavy traffic, in the sense of these heavy refuse vehicles, and—in the sense of the heaviness of traffic—the number of vehicles using the road would be quite a problem, because it is a close residential area where there are many children and the normal activities of a residential vicinity.
We are faced with the need to find a solution to quite a difficult problem, and the Greater Manchester Council has investigated no fewer than nine possible routes to this tip. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a meeting at the Department with the Minister going through these nine routes. I think it would be in appropriate to go through all nine routes, but suffice it to say

599
that most of them transfer the problem to other roads—some of them outside my constituency, which is a bonus to us but hardly to the residents of that area, so there is not much gain there. In other cases they involve the building of special roads, and in one case it looks as though we may have to resort to compulsory purchase.
These routes have considerable difficulties, but there is one that stands out above all others and is the commonsense solution to us in Manchester. I refer to the one that has been designated as route 9. Whether we can use route 9 is in the hands of the Minister, because it involves the use of the bus lane that has been specially constructed along Princess Parkway and the slipway from the M63 to the A5103. For us to proceed, we need the Minister's consent to use those roads. We put this to him before, and although he has been courteous he has said "No". I hope that tonight there will be change of heart.
I should like briefly to put to the Minister four points which, if he is wavering, may help him to come to the right conclusion. First, it is accepted that there will be 500 vehicles a day using this tip. When I say "vehicles", I mean huge lorries full of stuff and empty ones going back rattling, and when I say "day", I mean a working day. If one works that out, it means that one of the vehicles will travel along the road each minute. That rate of nuisance is so considerable that anybody who has any influence in this area must feel that if he has a contribution to make he must make it to fight this nuisance. It will not do to regard this as a matter of precedent or of bureaucratic decision. It is a matter that the Minister has to consider against the weight of that tremendous noise and nuisance continuing for a period of five years.
Secondly, the resistance to the use of the bus lane has been shown to be unreasonable. The bus lane itself exists along the side of the main carriageway and most of the traffic would not have to weave across the flow of traffic in order to use it. The traffic could come along the nearside lane from the point where it joins the dual carriageway on to the bus lane. The Manchester authority has offered to resite the bus stop and alter the
600
direction of signs, and carry out any of the other minor alterations that may be necessary to make this relatively easy passage.
Thirdly, the resistance to the slip road as an exit on the tip site arises from the need for the Minister to reserve the integrity of the motorway system. I think he has particularly in mind that if one allows lorries to go to the tip certain other people may try to dodge the system and slip in and out. I agree that this is a real problem. Most unauthorised users could be stopped from using the system but, possibly, some people from the university playing fields would have to use it. My information is that this would be very slight and would be centred only on Wednesday and Saturday when the tip traffic itself would not be extensive. I realise this is, nevertheless, a weakening of the motorway regulations but it is something we should keep in perspective and which we could live with.
Lastly, I realise that the Minister has to look not only at our local problems but also at the way in which any decision will affect the motorway system and safety. We are not sadists and do not think our suggestion would create a hazard or a danger. We think the proposals we have made are perfectly safe. The site lines are adequate. The necessary adjustments could be made and we think they are sensible.
I also understand that the Minister must have regard to any precedent. One important feature is that the tip will be used for five years. To that extent the derogation from the motorway regulations could be a temporary matter. It is also one that could be kept under review. But we cannot go backwards and forwards on this matter much longer. The tip is due to be finished in June or July. Therefore, before this House rises for the Summer Recess the lorries will start rolling and there will be nothing that we can do about it. I would have thought it would be possible for the Minister at least to make an arrangement whereby we could try this system, which would involve certain expenditure, but not very much. We should try it as a temporary measure, and we could also perhaps have annual reviews. I hope the Minister will feel able to make this concession on this matter.
11.44 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I share the concern of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), having a constituency in Greater Manchester which, like his, has tips belonging to Greater Manchester within it. I know of the considerable difficulties in finding suitable sites for these.
I would not congratulate the hon. Gentleman on thinking up an Adjournment debate at such short notice, when the previous one had been cancelled, but I am grateful for the opportunity of saying what I will tonight.
The background to this matter is complicated, but the central issue involved is a simple but fundamental one; should my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relax in this instance his general standards concerning access to motorways. It is because of the difficulty we have found in weighing the arguments in favour of this fundamental policy against those important environmental considerations expounded by the hon. Member that no early decision to the problem has been possible.
The background to the problem is as follows: the proposed tip site was created when material was required for the construction of M63. Planning permission was obtained and in order to avoid using existing highways a Bailey bridge was erected over the river to give direct access. Because of the short distance between the Wythenshawe Road and the M63 junction with Princess Parkway, the original layout of the M63 junction provided for a bus lay-by to the north of the "on" slip road for northbound traffic on the Parkway with a subway for pedestrians. However, due to local pressure against subways—on grounds of molestation, nuisance and so on—it was agreed that the bus stops should be moved.
The bus stop could not be positioned to the south of the slip road, because that would have produced a dangerous conflict of traffic, with buses on the Parkway weaving with traffic making for the motorway. To overcome the problem it was decided, albeit contrary to the Department's usual policy not to permit connections to motorways and slip roads, to construct two short lengths of bus-only lanes off the slip road with a lay-by on the
602
bus-only lane. It was felt that the exception to normal policy was justified in view of the fairly small number of buses, and the emphasis which the Department also places on the operation of public transport. The use of the bus-only lane can be restricted by Regulations and is practicably enforceable. In discussions with the local authorities both the city council and the PTE considered that there was no reasonable alternative to the bus-only lane system.
The Department's policy—maintained under successive Secretaries of State—is that there should be no access directly on to motorways or their slip roads. The reason for this policy is quite simply one of safety. The motorway public know that indiscriminate access to motorways is not permitted and they do not expect traffic to enter or leave the special road other than at the numbered junctions. Any relaxation of this policy is bound to result in some risk of accident. It will be appreciated that in order to deal with the bus problem the Department did relax its standard to the limited extent of permitting access from the bus-only lane.
The Greater Manchester Council and the Manchester City Council have proposed that the bus-only lane should be used for a period of five years by vehicles going to the Barlow Hall Farm tip. This would not only double the number of vehicles making undesirable movements at the north of the slip road; there is another important difference between this proposal and the limited relaxation approved for buses and this is the problem of enforcement. We shall be putting a number of questions to the Greater Manchester Council about this point, and I shall come to them in a moment.
The Greater Manchester Council has considered alternative means of access to the site but has concluded that the proposed use of the bus-only lanes would be least harmful to the local environment.
Last month my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport received a deputation from GMC and the Manchester City Council at which the local authorities pressed the environmental considerations. They appreciated the Ministers' concern for road safety and they proposed certain modifications to the slip roads and bus lanes and additional signing which in their view would reduce

603
the potential hazard. The cost would be borne by the Greater Manchester Council.
The decision to be made, therefore, is between permitting additional access to the motorway slip roads—a road safety matter—and the routing of heavy goods traffic through residential streets.
The Minister for Transport is anxious to assist, but there are one or two outstanding points on which we need clarification. One is the difficulty of identifying the vehicles which will be using the access to the site. I understood when this was first raised that they would be corporation refuse vehicles which are clearly marked and are unique to the job. The hon. Member mentioned huge lorries. That is something we want to clear up, as it may affect the decision—whether they will be easily recognised corporation vehicles or a variety of contractors' vehicles, which would make identification more difficult.
Mr. Silvester: There is nowhere else for the traffic to go except the pit. I do not see why it should have to be identified as anything but tip traffic.
Mr. Marks: I am thinking of enforcement and of giving other motorway users a way of recognising what is being done. The tip may be open to the general public and it may be possible at certain times of the day for the public to tip their
604
garden refuse or other refuse there. We should be worried about that if it was permitted.
My Department will be writing to the city council and the Greater Manchester Council on this and a number of other subjects. As soon as the Department receives the corporation's reply, I propose to visit the site with council and departmental officials. After discussions, I intend to make a recommendation to the Minister and to the Secretary of State. I assure the hon. Member and all those concerned that I shall do that as soon as I can.
Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer briefly to the previous business? I want to put on record the fact that the Opposition would willingly have proceeded with the Public Lending Right Bill tonight, and that we are most anxious to get it securely into Committee. The Government requested this evening's adjournment. We look forward to a further period of discussion on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): That was implied when the Adjournment was moved.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  CONCORDE
  CONCORDE
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  European Community Directive
  European Community Directive
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY (SCOTTISH REPRESENTATION)
  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY (SCOTTISH REPRESENTATION)
TRADE
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Baths and Kitchen Ware
  Baths and Kitchen Ware
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Scottish Industry (Export Performance)
  Scottish Industry (Export Performance)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Vandalism Prevention
  Vandalism Prevention
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Solitary Confinement
  Solitary Confinement
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Vagrancy and Street Offences
  Vagrancy and Street Offences
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Maintenance Orders
  Maintenance Orders
  Borstal Training
  Borstal Training
  World Revolutionary Conference
  World Revolutionary Conference
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Authority Tendering (European Community Journal)
  Public Authority Tendering (European Community Journal)
  Customs and Excise Duties
  Customs and Excise Duties
  Tax Relief (Charities)
  Tax Relief (Charities)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Capital Allowances (Motor Cars)
  Capital Allowances (Motor Cars)
  Public Expenditure (Scotland)
  Public Expenditure (Scotland)
  Commodity Markets (Speculation)
  Commodity Markets (Speculation)
  Investment Income
  Investment Income
  Public Expenditure (Merseyside)
  Public Expenditure (Merseyside)
  Rating (Denby Dale)
  Rating (Denby Dale)
EMPLOYMENT
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  European Community (Council of Europe)
  European Community (Council of Europe)
  Public Sector
  Public Sector
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Young Persons (Scotland)
  Young Persons (Scotland)
  Pay Settlements
  Pay Settlements
  Home Workers
  Home Workers
  Overtime
  Overtime
  Wages Inspectors
  Wages Inspectors
  Employment Protection Act 1975
  Employment Protection Act 1975
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Diplomatic Missions
  Diplomatic Missions
  Israel
  Israel
  NATO (Ministers' Conference)
  NATO (Ministers' Conference)
  Immigration
  Immigration
INDUSTRY
  Disabled Persons (West Midlands)
  Disabled Persons (West Midlands)
  Government Equity Interests
  Government Equity Interests
  Nationalised Industries (Rome Treaties)
  Nationalised Industries (Rome Treaties)
  Shotton Steel Works
  Shotton Steel Works
  Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing (Scotland)
  Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing (Scotland)
  Steel (Scotland)
  Steel (Scotland)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Urban Renewal (Merseyside)
  Urban Renewal (Merseyside)
  Shipbuilding Contracts (Insurance)
  Shipbuilding Contracts (Insurance)
  Hosiery and Knitwear
  Hosiery and Knitwear
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Shipbuilding Companies (Accounts)
  Shipbuilding Companies (Accounts)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Investment Studies
  Investment Studies
WALES
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Local Government (Reorganisation)
  Local Government (Reorganisation)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Secondary Schools (Blind Persons)
  Secondary Schools (Blind Persons)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Teachers
  Teachers
  School Buildings
  School Buildings
  School Leaving Age
  School Leaving Age
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Advisers and Psychologists
  Advisers and Psychologists
ENVIRONMENT
  Railway Subsidies
  Railway Subsidies
  South Wales Ports
  South Wales Ports
  Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Housing (Homeless Persons)
  Housing (Homeless Persons)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Transport Unions
  Transport Unions
  Transport (Voluntary Organisations)
  Transport (Voluntary Organisations)
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  Transport (Consultative Document)
  Transport (Consultative Document)
  House Purchase (Local Authority Loans)
  House Purchase (Local Authority Loans)
  Council Houses (Tenancy Exchanges)
  Council Houses (Tenancy Exchanges)
  Local Government Finance (Layfield Report)
  Local Government Finance (Layfield Report)
  Central Lancashire New Town
  Central Lancashire New Town
  Housing Standards
  Housing Standards
  Council Tenants (Security of Tenure)
  Council Tenants (Security of Tenure)
  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Highway Routes
  Highway Routes
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Lorry Routes
  Lorry Routes
  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Co-operative Housing
  Co-operative Housing
  Public Service Vehicles (Licensing)
  Public Service Vehicles (Licensing)
  Railways (Southern Region)
  Railways (Southern Region)
  Road Service Licences
  Road Service Licences
  Land Accounts
  Land Accounts
  British Railways
  British Railways
  Community Land Act
  Community Land Act
  Local Authority Associations
  Local Authority Associations
  Ordnance Survey Maps
  Ordnance Survey Maps
  Bus Lanes
  Bus Lanes
  Travel-to-work Costs (London)
  Travel-to-work Costs (London)
  Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation
  Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation
  umber Bridge
  umber Bridge
  Housing Projects (Finance and Administration)
  Housing Projects (Finance and Administration)
  Okehampton Bypass
  Okehampton Bypass
  Dogs
  Dogs
  Falconidae (Importation)
  Falconidae (Importation)
  National Water Council
  National Water Council
  Rateable Values
  Rateable Values
  Planning Inquiries (Party Costs)
  Planning Inquiries (Party Costs)
  Freight Transport Systems
  Freight Transport Systems
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Advanced Passenger Train
  Advanced Passenger Train
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Bridging Loans
  Bridging Loans
  Habitat (United Nations Conference)
  Habitat (United Nations Conference)
  Houses (Conversion and Improvements)
  Houses (Conversion and Improvements)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Aggregates (Advisory Committee's Report)
  Aggregates (Advisory Committee's Report)
  Post Office, Victoria Square, Birmingham
  Post Office, Victoria Square, Birmingham
SCOTLAND
  Fishing Boats (Servicing)
  Fishing Boats (Servicing)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  School Examinations
  School Examinations
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Foster Parents
  Foster Parents
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Teacher-pupil Ratios
  Teacher-pupil Ratios
  Schooling (Part-time)
  Schooling (Part-time)
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Drugs (Children)
  Drugs (Children)
  Glue
  Glue
  Social Work (Expenditure)
  Social Work (Expenditure)
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  European Community
  European Community
  Railways
  Railways
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Employment
  Employment
  Stonehouse
  Stonehouse
  Canderside (Industrial Site)
  Canderside (Industrial Site)
  Regional Development
  Regional Development
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Hydro-electricity
  Hydro-electricity
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Birds (Carriage)
  Birds (Carriage)
  Land Loss
  Land Loss
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Forestry
  Forestry
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Beef (Intervention Stocks)
  Beef (Intervention Stocks)
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)
  DOCUMENTS (SOLICITORS' LIEN)
  DOCUMENTS (SOLICITORS' LIEN)
  SOLICITORS
  SOLICITORS
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
DEFENCE
  Chatham Dockyard
  Chatham Dockyard
  Warships
  Warships
ENERGY
  Electricity Generating
  Electricity Generating
  Electricity and Gas Showrooms (Mergers)
  Electricity and Gas Showrooms (Mergers)
  Coal (Exports)
  Coal (Exports)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Nuclear Power (Fast Reactor)
  Nuclear Power (Fast Reactor)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Amalgamated Industrials Ltd. and Herbert Morris Ltd.
  Amalgamated Industrials Ltd. and Herbert Morris Ltd.
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Patients (Medical Schools)
  Patients (Medical Schools)
  Rubella
  Rubella
  Remploy
  Remploy
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Departmental Offices (Gloucestershire)
  Departmental Offices (Gloucestershire)
  Benefits (Expenditure)
  Benefits (Expenditure)
  Disability Pensions
  Disability Pensions
  Psychiatrists
  Psychiatrists
  Prescription, Dental and Optical Charges
  Prescription, Dental and Optical Charges
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Medical Clearance (Airports)
  Medical Clearance (Airports)
  Widows
  Widows
  Spectacles (Lens Safety)
  Spectacles (Lens Safety)
  Manuscripts (Scrutiny)
  Manuscripts (Scrutiny)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Dentistry
  Dentistry
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  War Pensioners (House Adaptation Grants)
  War Pensioners (House Adaptation Grants)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)

The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford
:
The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
The Viscount Sidmouth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

GOANS: UK PASSPORTS
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:

(i) who authorised the issue of United Kingdom passports to Goan citizens;

(ii) when, where and why this was done;

(iii) whether the Indian Government had agreed to allow citizens from the territory to take up Indian nationality;

(iv) whether Portugal—Goa's colonial power—was approached before United Kingdom passports were issued; and

(v) how many United Kingdom passports were issued to Goan citizens.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, there is no Goan citizenship. Most persons born in Goa became Indian citizens in December 1961. British passports are issued on the authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to persons of Goan birth or descent only if they are United Kingdom nationals. The number is not known. There is no need to approach the Portuguese authorities.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that this situation is perplexing to the average citizen? Goa had been a Portuguese colony from
260
1510 until it was captured by India in 1961, and when that occurred the citizens were offered Indian nationality. How is it that they have now somehow arrived with British nationality? Surely, the first responsibility would have been with India and the second responsibility would have been with Portugal. Is the noble Baroness aware that Goa sent representatives for many years to the Portuguese Parliament, so it was closely allied with Portugal and Goans spoke Portuguese? Is the noble Baroness further aware that a number of Goans moved to East Africa, and that the nation is very perplexed as to how it is that we are obligated to receive all these Goans, if they wish to enter Britain, if they are turned out of Malawi and other East African territories? Could the noble Baroness clarify this position for the benefit of the House and the nation?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords; I think history is nearly always perplexing. The question of when Portuguese citizens of Goan descent became Indian is clearly defined in time. I agree that the situation may seem perplexing, but nevertheless it is perfectly clear what happened. As the noble Lord clearly knows, Goan people, because of their industry and ability, were immensely welcomed in British territories and British Protectorates in Africa and other places; and there they went, largely in order to serve British interests. Then they were given, by a Conservative Government—and rightly, in my view—the right to possess British passports to enable them to come to this country if they were no longer welcome in those countries where they lived.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware, so far as public apprehension is concerned, that the real danger is the ambiguity of all this? The public really begin to feel that we have no powers to decide who shall come and who shall not come to this country. In order to remove, in the words used by the noble Baroness, the perplexity or the ambiguity of it all, has not the time arrived when the matter ought to be presented in such a way as to clarify where our powers are and what we can do? It is from this lack of clarification that the danger will flow, because a wrongly-informed public is one that you sometimes cannot control.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the perplexity that I referred to was only in the case of history. There is no perplexity at all about who has a right to come here and who has not. United Kingdom passport holders—we are talking about Goans—have a right of entry only under the voucher scheme, and a very small proportion of these people are Goans.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question. Are we not in the dilemma that the Indian Government encouraged Asians in East Africa to become citizens of African countries while we gave citizenship to those who did not do so? Is it not now possible to come to an arrangement with Malawi by which there would be phased immigration? Is it not also desirable that we should consider the position of other territories, like Hong Kong, before this dilemma arises?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, so far as Malawi is concerned, there is already phased immigration, and we have no anxieties about how that phasing will work out. I must say to my noble friend that Hong Kong is a different question.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain why it is that we were not able to approach the Portuguese Government about this matter? Is she aware that when I was last in Portugal, before this revolution, the representative of Goa was then sitting in the Portuguese Council?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords; it is almost never the practice to consult the country of origin if somebody applies for a British passport and it is felt that he has qualified under the usual rules to hold the British passport. No other Government is normally consulted.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, should not we start doing so?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I do not think that would be at all useful.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, may I raise a point in a friendly question to the
262
noble Baroness? Would she consider that at the present time there is a considerable amount of apprehension in this country about race relations in general? In view of that, would it not be wise for the Government to make some sort of Statement on the situation, and perhaps curtail very drastically immigration into this country from the new Commonwealth? She will understand that I ask that question in the interests of good race relations in Britain at the moment.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the noble Lord is always friendly and I accept his question in that spirit. We are, of course, discussing Goans and their rights to British passports. Perhaps I should not answer a general question on immigration. But I can say that of course everybody recognises the anxieties, the feelings up and down the country about it. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a very clear statement about this last Monday in another place. Of course, if the noble Lord wants a general debate on it, he has every right to do so by putting down an Unstarred Question or something of that kind.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, with the same friendly intent. may I ask the noble Baroness whether I have this right? It would he helpful in any such Statement to make it quite clear that these Goans received British nationality for contributions made to parts of the world then under British sovereignty, and it would be very difficult to reverse that decision taken at that time.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, following on what has been said, would the noble Baroness consider this point in her very sympathetic manner? The nation is Very perplexed on this issue and Goa is only one facet of a perplexing immigration problem. There are the officially approved immigration quotas, there are the dependants who are coming, there are the illegal immigrants who are coming, there are the students who come legitimately—and we assist them—but who never go back to their nations. Therefore, the country receives a steady and growing influx, and they do not see that the

263
Government have a very clearly defined policy and do not know the numbers which we are obligated to take. Would it not be in the interests of clarification and of good race relations if the Government could come out with a clear statement setting out these facts, so that the nation could understand exactly where it stands?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES: My Lords, I am grateful for the spirit in which that question was asked. I think that the Government have an absolutely clearly defined policy. Far be it from any Chief Whip to encourage any more debates initiated by anybody, but if the noble Lord were to put down an Unstarred Question, or initiate a mini-debate, we shall be only too glad to discuss our policy on immigration. We are proud of it and we stand by it.

COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS: TRAINING
2.41 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: 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 intend members of Community Health Councils to receive some form of training, such as, for example, magistrates receive.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Department issued guidance to health authorities in July 1974 on training arrangements for members of Community Health Councils. Guidance outlined the likely needs of Community Health Council members and asked Regional Health Authorities to make arrangements to meet these in consultation with Community Health Councils. The guidance also suggested that Regional Health Authorities should arrange short seminars for Community Health Council members if they wish to be assisted in this particular way.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that Community Health Council members have a tremendous amount to do? I think it is far more than they realised in the beginning. Is he
264
aware that well-informed community health councillors and their secretaries may help to keep up the standards of the National Health Service and eliminate such tragic happenings as occurred at the Darlington Memorial Hospital when five unnatural deaths took place? Is he aware that at the beginning the Regional Health Authorities did organise these courses but, with the changeover of the new district councillors that has just happened, many new, green members have come on to Community Health Councils? Perhaps he may agree that further training is necessary.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is a continuing process. It has never been suggested that these seminars should be held for a specific period. My Department sees this as a continuing process, and I would think that the Regional Health Authorities do also, because out of the 14 Regional Health Authorities, 12 have certainly got this going and are continuing with it. This means that of the 207 Community Health Councils in the country a substantial percentage, bearing in mind it is 12 regions out of 14, are engaged in this sort of work at the present moment.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the smaller groups which were originally envisaged within the Community Health Councils will now be put into operation? As he will probably be aware, there is some disquiet at the size of the area which the Community Health Council has to cover in comparison with the old hospital management boards.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think that I can go further than say that guidance has been issued for the training of Community Health Council members. This is what we are considering at the present moment. It has certainly, as I say, been accepted in principle by all the Regions and 12 of them are engaged in it at the present moment.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, could the Minister say whether members of Community Health Councils are required to take a check list with them when they visit various institutions? If not, would he encourage this?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lady means

265
by a " check list ". Perhaps we could have a word afterwards about this, but it is rather wide of the Question.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, this is a very important Question. Would it be possible for the Minister to let us know the different schemes which have been put into operation by the Regional Health Authorities, so that it may then be decided whether one local authority has some ideas which have not yet been put into operation by other Regional Health Authorities? The need is to get a general, good scheme which would be really helpful in this important matter.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I take the point the noble Baroness has made. My first reaction to it is that it would involve a fairly substantial amount of administrative work to collect from something like 207 Community Health Councils the kind of programme and content of the programme that they are following. Perhaps I could answer the noble Baroness by saying that when my Department gave guidance on what these seminars should contain it was suggested to them that they should consider local health services in which they are currently involved; statistical and other data available and how to interpret it; the management structure of the National Health Service, particularly within districts and areas; financial and manpower constraints; the arrangement for planning services; and the procedure for making and dealing with suggestions and complaints by users of the Health Service. So this is really the programme, and this is the sort of programme that we have asked each Community Health Council to follow.

DATA PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Lord GARDINER Lord GARDINER had given Notice of his intention:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is holding up the appointment of the Data Protection Committee which, in their White Paper on Computers and Privacy of December 1975, they said they would appoint " at once ".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in view of the sad death, since I put down this Question, of the chairman designate of this Committee, Sir Kenneth Younger, I do not now propose to ask for leave to put the Question today.

NORTHERN IRELAND: LAW REFORM
2.46 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the office of Director of Law Reform in Northern Ireland has been abolished and who, if anyone, is now responsible for law reform in Northern Ireland.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, the Director of Law Reform, whose post was created by administrative action in 1965, retired in 1973. Law reform subsequently became the responsibility of the head of the Office of Law Reform in the Northern Ireland Executive. Since the resignation of the Executive there has been a further change and law reform in the field of transferred legislation is now the responsibility of the Department of Finance, and in the reserved field is one for the Northern Ireland Office. A former first Parliamentary draftsman in Northern Ireland acts as a law reform consultant in the Department of Finance.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Would he agree that the former Director of Law Reform, whose name and address was known to everyone in Northern Ireland, discharged his office to everybody's general satisfaction? Is there any real reason why the name and address of the present official discharging his duties should not be known and publicised?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I certainly agree with the first part of my noble and learned friend's statement and with the question. I see no reason whatever why it should not be known and publicised.

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: JUNE BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, a Statement is being made in another place today about business to be taken in the EEC Council of Ministers in June. I will, as usual, arrange for the Statement to be made available in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement:
" With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community during June. The monthly forecast for June was deposited yesterday.
" At present five meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for June. The Foreign Ministers' Meeting which begins on the 31st May will continue on the 1st June. Foreign Ministers will meet again on the 28th and 29th; Energy Ministers on the 10th; Agriculture Ministers on the 21st and 22nd and Social Affairs Ministers on the 29th and 30th June. There will also be a tripartite Conference on the 24th June of Finance and Employment Ministers, the Commission and European Employer and Trades Union organisations.
" As part of the follow up to the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers on the 14th and 15th May, Ministers at the Foreign Affairs Council on the 1st June are likely to resume consideration of the Tindemans Report and direct elections to the European Assembly. They are also likely to discuss Passport Union. On the 31st May, Ministers will sign the Commercial Co-operation Agreement concluded in March 1976 between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the EEC. There will also probably be consideration of Commission proposals for an agreement with Iran; the Community's external financial commitments; financial aid internal regulations in relation to the Maghreb and Malta; discussion on Spain and Cyprus sherry. Ministers will also consider the siting of JET and preparations for Association Councils with Greece and Turkey. At the Council on the 28th and 29th June, Ministers will resume discussion of the overall Mediterranean approach and relations with the CMEA. Ministers at both Council meetings will consider the problems posed by the prospect of 200 mile fishery limits and the current state of work in the four Commissions set up following the Conference on International Economic Co-operation.
" Ministers at the Energy Council will resume consideration of the energy policy guidelines adopted by the European Council on the 1st and 2nd December 1975 and measures to be taken in the event of oil supply difficulties.
" In June agricultural Ministers will resume their discussions of imports of New Zealand butter in the period 1978/80 and will also probably consider amended arrangements for beef imports.
" At the Social Affairs Council, Ministers are expected to have before them draft directives on the safeguarding of employees' rights in the case of mergers and on the education of migrant workers' children. They will also consider uniform payment of family benefits and may
268
consider the outcome of the tripartite economic and social conference to be held on the 24th June.
" The tripartite Conference on the 24th June is expected to focus on the employment situation in the Community. The outcome of the Conference is likely to be considered at the Social Affairs Council."

THE WATER INDUSTRY IN ENGLAND AND WALES
2.48 p.m.
Baroness WHITE Baroness WHITE rose to call attention to the Consultative Document Review of the Water Industry in England and Wales; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the outset may I say how delighted I am that my noble friend Lord Wilson of High Wray has chosen the occasion of this debate to make his maiden speech. He has quite outstanding experience and qualifications in certain aspects of this matter, and I am sure that we all look forward with the closest interest to what he is about to say to us. I will say frankly that I had rather hoped that the debate on the Consultative Document, Review of the Water Industry in England and Wales, might perhaps have come a little later than today because interested parties have until 31st July to make their views known to Her Majesty's Government. However, the exigencies of the Parliamentary timetable made it quite clear to me that it was better to take today when offered than wait to a little later on for a day which might never come.
I confess that the Green Paper which is the subject of the debate is not perhaps the easiest or most helpful of these documents to have come our way. It seems to lack precision in a number of essential particulars. A Consultative Document should to my mind set out alternatives with the arguments for and against various options so that those concerned have a fair opportunity to reach considered conclusions. This is not always done in this appropriately coloured green document. Propositions are made without being adequately argued so that one cannot follow the lines of thought behind the conclusions. One is left to guess at them and certain essential factors have been left, perhaps inevitably, for subsequent consultation.
How could one comment intelligently, for example, on paragraphs 26 to 29, without any indication of Departmental thinking on how a new national navigation authority is to be financed, which anybody who knows anything about the subject will realise is absolutely of the essence of the problem? I cannot give the Paper as high marks as I would wish, which I regret because coming as it does only three years after the substantive legislation, the Water Act 1973, and only two years since the consequent reorganisation took effect, one requires some very cogent argument for pulling things up by the roots quite so soon. Apart from the problem of water charges, to which I shall refer later, the main justification for change lies of course in the deficiencies of the Water Act 1973. The central point on which everyone whom I have consulted is agreed is that we need a National Water Authority as proposed in the Green Paper for strategic planning and that such an authority must have powers of initiative and the ultimate sanctions which are clearly described in paragraph 25.
When I was responsible for leading for the then Opposition on the 1973 legislation, my voice was one of very many, regardless of Party, which urged that such duties should be given to the Water Resources Board, which had the knowledge, experience and prestige needed for the job. With an obstinacy which I have never been able to understand, the then Government turned a deaf ear to friend and foe alike and refused to budge; the Water Resources Board was disbanded, its ablest members left the public service and its dismembered parts were redistributed, so that in this most important respect—that of central and national strategic planning—early reappraisal was essential and is very much to be welcomed.
Ministers are of course ultimately responsible, but the proposed National Water Authority will be able to take a broad synoptic view and, where necessary, it will also have the powers to oblige regional water authorities to comply with the requirements of the national strategy, subject to a right of appeal by a regional authority to the appropriate Minister if it feels dissatisfied with the requirements of the national authority. I assume that it is intended that the plans will he made
270
public and that any representations under paragraph 18 of the Document will also be public. In Wales of course they will be subject to discussion in the proposed Welsh Assembly, though its jurisdiction will not extend to matters which cannot be decided in a context limited to Wales alone. If the matter goes beyond the boundaries of the Principality, then it is only right and proper that other authorities should be concerned, too. So this part of the Consultative Document seems to be very sensible and entirely acceptable.
Situations can arise where interventions in the national interest may be needed: the great Craig Goch Scheme in the Upper Elan Valley is one instance. It has caused some stress between the Welsh National Water Development Authority and the Severn Trent Authority, but this I believe has been largely resolved. However, there is still room for argument as to whether one should proceed at once to build for the longer future, or whether one should wait for a second stage when the water will actually be needed. This involves third, possibly fourth and even fifth parties among the regional water authorities and, in the event, a national umpire could be required. I give this as one example of the full justification to my mind of this part of the report which, so far as I know, is non-controversial.
Similarly, there is general agreement that the organisation of water authorities on a catchment area basis has proved its worth and should remain undisturbed. If adjustments in area are later to be made then this principle should still certainly be maintained. But when we come to some of the other proposals in the Document, I confess that I find them rather less convincing. Having given the National Water Authority some semblance of power on long-term strategic planning in two of the sub-paragraphs, the first and second of paragraph 18, the balance of authority is then sharply shifted in the next sub-paragraph, which deals with medium-term plans, with the five-year rolling programmes so dear to the Civil Service, and, again, in paragraph 24, which is concerned with the capital investment programmes for the water industry. Here the National Water Authority is to have no powers, as I understand it; it becomes advisory only.
The regional water authorities are to submit their plans and programmes and

271
investment proposals simultaneously, on the one hand to the National Water Authority and on the other to the Department. What is to be the relationship between the two sets of boffins, one in the National Water Authority and the other in the Department? The Green Paper conjures up in my mind a depressing vista of an endless interchange of memoranda, of more and more time spent in conferences, of water authorities having to make their case both to the National Water Authority and to the Department, possibly with an annual grilling by both, and with two sets of officials all going over the same ground, or perhaps I should say through the same water.
In Wales of course the situation will be further complicated, and with the Welsh Assembly responsible for matters within the Principality, with the Secretary of State for Wales I presume responsible for inter-territorial problems, in concert I suppose with the Department of the Environment, the possibilities of proliferating bureaucracy seem rather daunting. One can surmise some of the reasons for the attitude taken in the Green Paper, but they are not frankly and openly argued in the way they should be. No justification is adduced for this particular form of parallelism and one should therefore ask whether this is the best form of administration: is it the best way to employ highly skilled and experienced manpower? I can only say that I am not entirely convinced that it is. Therefore I have some queries about part at least of the proposed major structural alterations.
When we come to the next section, paragraphs 19 to 22, on research and data collection, we reach an area of relatively much less magnitude, but I find that this is causing considerable anxiety among those most closely concerned. I am not happy about this section. I have been to considerable pains to try to find a common mind among the scientists, the customers—which include of course industrialists, consultants, engineers and the like—and the people responsible for administration. I find that they are confused and uncertain about the validity of the proposal made that the present Water Research Centre should be " absorbed ", as the Green Paper describes it, by the new National Water Authority.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Water Research Centre is a recent amalga
272
mation, since the 1973 legislation, of the former research association and what used to be Government sponsored research facilities. It has hardly settled down after a traumatic reorganisation. Further changes in the near future would, I am sure, be strongly resented by scientific and operating staff, who would have to be given very good reasons for any further disturbance in their conditions of work and service. Of course, it may be said, though it is not said in terms in the Green Paper, that all that is intended is a change in the control structure at the top. At present, I must confess, to an outsider the Water Research Centre seems to be somewhat overgoverned, and that there are elements of a power struggle is obvious. But these factors in themselves are not sufficient to justify the bland proposal that the National Water Authority should forthwith absorb this newly reorganised research centre on the ground that planning and research are closely connected.
Of course this arrangement would look nice and tidy on paper, but research linked with water is extremely diverse and complex. It touches a multiplicity of interests among the users of water, not just the suppliers. The 10 water authorities are the main subscribers by a long way to the current organisation and they, or the National Water Authority on their behalf, will continue to be the major source of finance and, consequently, of direction. But no one concerned both with our broad national interests, including the needs of manufacturing industry, which contributes between a third and a half of the total revenue of the water authorities, and with the need to sustain the interests of our revenue-earning plant manufacturers, water engineering consultants, and contractors overseas, can read paragraph 21 of the Green Paper without misgiving. The indications seem to be that the new set-up is likely to be introverted and under the thumb of the more powerful water authorities, with inadequate regard for the wider interests of water users or those who provide water-connected services of many kinds. Nor is there any hint of work beyond the United Kingdom which can, and should, become increasingly important. I am not suggesting that a membership organisation, as at present, is necessarily the best form of organisation. What I do say is that far more profound thought is needed than seems to be indicated in this

273
scrappy paragraph before one disturbs the newly-formed research organisation yet again.
Until the National Water Authority knows just what its need will he surely we can pause. The National Water Authority will meanwhile have in the existing Water Research Centre research capacity to its hand, which can be extended or modified as required. The Water Resources Board (now defunct, but which had a very considerable reputation in its time) was able to deal successfully with the main functions proposed for the new National Water Authority, in particular with strategic planning, without relying on in-house research. It contracted for it in the most appropriate quarters where it could be found. This seems to me a much more satisfactory pattern for operation. I feel that one is on solid ground in proposing that this transfer or " absorption " should not be consummated forthwith, but that the status quo should be maintained, at least for some time to come. I am sure that this would be the wiser course.
If, later, in the light of experience a change of relationship is really needed, very careful safeguards must be included to ensure that the organisation is outward-looking, not introverted, and with full recognition of the fact that research is at least as important to the multifarious users of water as to those who supply it. The paucity of argument in the Green Paper has, I know, caused considerable uneasiness, and I believe that this proposal should be very carefully reconsidered and not rushed. Beyond administrative tidy-mindedness there is no need for urgent change, and damage could be done to the national interest if we were overhasty.
These difficulties which I have described in relation to research do not seem to apply to the Central Planning Unit: that is simply to return where it belongs, and I should suppose that to be entirely acceptable. On data collection, which is covered in the next paragraph, paragraph 22, it is not clear to me why two separate collection systems are required, as is suggested—one run by the Department of the Environment, as at present, and the other by the proposed National Water Authority. But the dangers of duplication are at least recognised and
274
should be capable of solution, provided that there is a genuinely open-minded approach to the matter.
I now come to the section covered in paragraphs 26 to 29 where I am, I must confess, in some difficulty because I am a member of the British Waterways Board, which is the subject of these paragraphs, and I am therefore inhibited from any detailed discussion of the matter. I revere the memory of Lord Addison, but his rules are sometimes excessively inconvenient. I can perhaps permit myself to point out a factual error in paragraph 26. Of the 2,000 or so miles of waterway managed by the British Waterways Board, nearly 1,600 miles—a much larger proportion—are navigable, rather than the 1,000 miles indicated. This is a rather surprising error by the responsible Department, which also fails even to mention the commercial use of canals for freight. When we discussed the Board's position in 1973, it was agreed that the canal system, which cuts right across river catchment areas and is quite different in nature and character, does not fit in with the pattern for river administration. This is just as true today as it was then, and I was delighted that the Minister, Mr. Denis Howell, reaffirmed this in another place as recently as last night. So that debate, I trust, is closed.
Uniform registration and a national navigation code can be achieved perfectly well without fragmenting the canal administration. But without proper financial arrangements, not least for the vast areas of maintenance work which have accumulated, no viable integration can be achieved: so the Government should cherish no illusions on that point. On the further matter of keeping two advisory bodies—the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council and the Water Space Amenity Commission—referred to in paragraph 29, I cannot, of course, speak for the board. But I have other connections with waterways' users and the consensus of view appears to be that one at least of these bodies should disappear. There is some concern, however, that if both are to go, and the Sports Councils are substituted, they would not adequately cover conservation, wildlife and amenity interests, nor, possibly, those of the commercial providers of leisure services connected with the waterways.
No doubt other noble Lords will wish to discuss the proposed membership of the national and regional water authorities. I have found no one who is happy with the notion that some chairmen of regional water authorities should serve on the National Water Authority in rotation. This seems to me to find favour nowhere. Everyone, I think, feels that it should be either all or none. But, my Lords, ought there to be any at all as full members? Surely one could argue that the National Water Authority, as conceived in the Green Paper, should be and should be seen to be above any regional battles, and concerned always with the overriding national interest. How can its advice to Ministers be unbiased if among its own members are protagonists, including some pretty forceful characters, pressing the needs of their particular authorities?
That the chairmen of the regional water authorities should have the fullest access to the National Water Authority of course goes absolutely without saying, but paragraph 35 seems to me to exemplify the ambivalence of thought which characterises the different subsections of paragraph 18. Perhaps I am being obtuse, but it is not plain to me, other than in the sphere of strategic planning, that in establishing a National Water Authority the Government are clear themselves as to what sort of animal they really want. I look forward very much to enlightenment from my noble friend.
This uncertainty brings me to another point which worries me, and that is the existing dual function of the water authorities in relation to pollution. They are the guardians of water quality, and at the same time, as sewerage authorities and handlers of industrial and agricultural waste, they are also polluters, sometimes on a quite considerable scale. They cannot prosecute themselves except on some very special occasions, when 1 understand they might be able to do so through a complex process with the aid or consent of the Law Officers of the Crown. The state of the sewage works taken over by the regional water authorities on reorganisation, in certain areas at least, was quite horrifying, and no one can blame them for not having caught up. I am told that in some places, at any rate, the retreating councils who were being deprived of this function were so indignant that records were destroyed and even
276
some machinery was removed—so intense was the feeling. Nevertheless, the water authorities are now in a position of being judge and jury in their own cause, and the temptation to be lenient with oneself when one is judge in one's own cause is ever present.
In the new multi-disciplinary divisional set-up being adopted by many water authorities, the same man at the top of the divisional administration can be responsible both for guardianship and for the polluting offence. There could also conceivably be connivance widi some industrial undertaking, too difficult perhaps for the district council environmental health officer to tackle. The Green Paper is silent on this problem, which exercises the minds of a number of people. Is the National Water Authority to have any duty of surveillance or of inspection? if not, and more desirably, are the Government going to adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and establish a comprehensive national inspectorate for pollution—HMPI (Her Majesty's Pollution Inspectorate)— which would cover water as well as atmospheric and other pollution areas? Something is certainly needed, and it would be extremely helpful if we could be told what the Government thinking on this may be.
Finally, my Lords, there is the whole matter of water charges. I have left this matter to the last although I believe it is probably the major reason for the appearance of the Green Paper, and I have done so for two reasons. First, I am sure that many noble Lords who wish to speak in this debate are far more expert than I am in this field. Secondly, I am Welsh, and therefore I could not speak on this matter of water charges without emotion and partiality. It is a subject which concerns us too closely. Even with the proposed and very welcome changes in the treatment of historic debt and the like, for which we are grateful, I understand that Wales will still be left paying more for the water it produces than will be paid by most of those who receive it from us. My Lords, need I say more? I will leave it to others, who perhaps are less biased than I may be in this direction, to analyse the proposals, the very extensive proposals, the very important and very

277
interesting proposals, contained in the Green Paper.
A further reason for my hesitation at entering into the financial field is that I have only very recently received an extremely interesting study, prepared by the present National Water Council, entitled Paying for Water. I do not pretend to have digested it fully, and that is a further reason for leaving this matter in hands more capable than mine. But I hope I have said enough to indicate how very important the consultations on this Green Paper are, and how glad I am that we in this House have this opportunity to make our contribution to the debate and to probe in areas where we feel, as I have indicated 1 myself feel, we are not satisfied with the arguments put forward. If my noble friend Lady Birk does not attempt to give all the answers, I am sure we shall entirely understand. This is an early stage in the consultations. As I have said, the 31st July is the closing date for receiving memoranda or other representations from interested parties. So I think it would be inappropriate for my noble friend even to attempt to answer everything that I or other noble Lords may have raised. Nevertheless, she may be able to throw some further light on Government thinking, for which I am sure we shall all be extremely grateful. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for introducing this debate. I do not believe she should apologise at all about its timing. I think that in a process of consultation ending at the end of July it is entirely appropriate that this House should be debating the subject. But that is not to say that I think the Document itself is appropriate or timely. I share very much with the noble Baroness, and with almost all the correspondents with whom I have been in touch in preparation for this debate, a feeling of perplexity as to why we are having this upheaval at all. If there are reasons for it, they are not in this review. My correspondents seem to be as perplexed as I am. That is not to say that the regional water authorities and the National Water Council have not got problems. These new authorities are
278
still grappling with immense teething troubles. The 10 regional water authorities have been formed out of 1,400 separate fragmented bodies dealing with all these problems, and it is no wonder that they are still in the throes of reorganisation.
On top of that, and unforeseen when we enacted the Water Bill, they are operating at a time of one of the most acute financial and economic difficulties that this country has encountered for many a day. As I have said, they are taking over an immensely mixed heritage, and some of the sewage works which they now have in their hands are, or have been, in an appalling condition. Fourthly, they are now dealing with the worst drought we have had for years. So certainly. there are problems; but that any of them arise in any serious degree from the structure with which this document deals is not brought out, either in the correspondence that I have had or in this Consultative Document. One would have thought that Her Majesty's Government could have spared the industry from these furl her tribulations. One would have thought that it could have been left to settle down, complete the reorganisation and deal with the very serious practical problems that face it. However, I think there is comfort to be had from the fact that the main units which the Water Act 1973 introduced—the regional water authorities—have been left virtually unchanged.
I should like to follow that criticism with a very warm welcome to the attitude that that shows in the Government. It is reassuring to know that Her Majesty's Government recognise the basic values and virtues of the main new units established by the Water Act 1973, the regional water authorities. It is comforting to know that they share our view that it has been right to base the design of the industry upon the river basins, that the national geography of the rivers must govern the size and shape of the water regions. In their own Consultative Document, this green document, from which I quote, they put this quite emphatically:
"The management of the water services must be organised on the basis of hydrological areas."
It is therefore welcome to know that Her Majesty's Government accept the implications of that, namely:
" There are very strong arguments against any further radical changes either in the authorities' powers or in their areas."

279
I very much welcome that and strongly endorse it. The regional water authorities are here to stay and we must build on the foundations there laid and strengthen them.
In that connection, I must record disagreement with the noble Baroness and say that it is because these are so important and must be strengthened that I would not hesitate in having the regional water authorities' chairmen as members of the National Water Authority. We are dealing with the multi-purpose management of the water in the river basins. Your Lordships will recollect the main reason for the 1973 Act and the 1974 changes; namely, that the management of all the different water services—water conservation, water supply, river regulations, land drainage, sewage disposal, pollution control and so on—was hopelessly fragmented among 1,400 separate bodies of various kinds and very variable calibre. This was to be rectified by bringing the management of all those different aspects together under the single management of one body in river basins. If change there has to be—and the Govern- ment are clearly set upon it—then I am not one to complain of a few further steps that Her Majesty's Government seem to be taking to complete one or two pieces of unfinished business in the direction of strengthening the regional water authorities and to put a few more functions into their hands, the management of certain other services which were left out in 1973.
In that connection I should like to stress that navigation is clearly one of those aspects, one of those services. The management of navigation on all inland waterways should fall mainly to the regional water authorities where it is not already in their hands, rather than to be moved, as Her Majesty's Government seem to be considering, towards the centre. This is not to say that I do not recognise that there are some matters to do, for instance, with navigation, like the licensing and registering of vessels, their inspection and a common code of navigation, which might be better—in fact, should be—handled centrally. But if you look at the highways by way of analogy, we have a single national Highway Code; we have a common set of road signs and a centralised form of vehicle licensing. But that does not mean that the roads are not best vested in, managed by and maintained by,
280
40 county highway authorities; and the fact that they are so owned, managed and maintained does not stand in the way of road users regarding and using the roads as a national network. So, I believe, it should be with all the inland waterways.
The present proposal as set out in paragraph 26 and in the following paragraphs (which the noble Baroness also dealt with) for a national navigation authority, seems to me to need modification in the sense that I have just described. Incidentally, if the British Waterways Board and their navigation functions are now to come into the fold of the water service industry. I think we have to remember something about the origin of the BWB; namely, that it has freight and transport in its pedigree; and those functions are nothing to do with the water industry and the water services and should be left behind in some other part of the Department of the Environment with transport, ports and docks. They are no part of the water service.
My Lords, I turn now to the centre. If it is right, as we all seem to be agreed, to concentrate so much of the main management of water upon the multipurpose river basin bodies, I believe that the corollary is clear. It is to move to the centre, to be settled there, only those issues which cannot for some reason be handled in the regions by the main bodies—merely those issues which need to be settled centrally if the regional water authorities are to function efficiently and effectively in the national interest. It seems to me that there is no virtue in this business of water, in centralisation for its own sake—and the Government give no other reason for a number of the steps they are proposing to take. We are all agreed that the river basin of the hydrological cycle prescribes where the main function should be. Let us consider against that philosophy the issues for which Her Majesty's Government are now proposing a single central water authority.
I am not arguing against that proposal; I am arguing for a rather different balance of powers from that at present proposed by Her Majesty's Government. Let us take the functions in turn. First, planning, the one to which the noble Baroness first referred. I well remember explaining to your Lordships three years ago how

281
the establishment of ten major multipurpose authorities had greatly reduced and also greatly modified what planning needed to be done centrally—and so, indeed, it has. We no longer need anything as extensive as the Water Resources Board; but there is a job of central planning to be done involving less planning of water resources but wider planning over all sorts of other fields with which the Water Resources Board never dealt. That is mainly a matter, now, of co-ordinating the plans already formulated by the regional water authorities. In my view, it is important to be careful to avoid any overlap in the planning done by the regions for the programmes they are to execute and the planning done by the centre covering only such matters as exchanges of water between the regions, going outside the responsibilities of the individual authorities.
In paragraph 17, I read (and very much share the misgivings of the noble Baroness) about what is going to happen. We read that the National Water Authority will prepare a long-term national water strategy. That will be a corporate plan for the industry for 20 years ahead. Yet, a little further down the page, we read that these proposals form the foundation of the framework within which Ministers of the Department of the Environment would in future discharge their duty to promote a national policy for water. Reading those words without further explanation, I can see, as can the noble Baroness, that we have two separate groups of people all busying themselves in the same area. All may be well, but the words as they exist on that page at the moment fill me with a good deal of misgiving. I can see the source there of a good deal of confusion.
However, if that means that somewhere at the centre the long-term plans of the 10 regional water authorities are put together and harmonised and then presented to Ministers for their approval, that is fine. But it wants to be spelt out more concisely and precisely. What is important is that the initiative in drawing up the main components of any overall strategy must remain with the regional water authorities and therefore they must retain the main planning capability. The case for a research capability at the centre needs no arguing by me or anybody-else;
282
there is plenty of work to be done of general application which is better done for all and for several regional water authorities at a time than by each one separately. But in as much as the greater part of all that research is, as the noble Baroness said, to be done to support and to develop the day-to-day operational work of the regional' water lauthorities, there is indeed a very strong case for the Water Research Centre having the measure of detachment that it enjoys at present.
The noble Baroness put the arguments far better than I could; but when you add all her arguments, which I have only summarised, to the work that the Water Research Centre does for agencies outside the 10 English and Welsh regions, the work it does for Scotland, Northern Ireland and for other countries abroad, the case for integration of the Water Research Centre with the proposed National Water Authority seems to me to be insubstantial and unconvincing, resting entirely, as it does, on the need for some research capability to support strategic planning. Of course that is needed, but whatever the National Water Authority requires, it can arrange with the Water Research Centre constituted and placed as it is. There is no need for it to put the Water Research Centre under its wing.
However, I agree that there are plenty of other matters for which either a National Water Council or National Water Authority are required. There is the training policy for the industry, the testing of water fittings, the promoting of efficiency in the regional water authorities, possibly an inspectorate role, developing a charging policy. That is a matter on which, as the noble Baroness says, the National Water Council has just issued a paper. It is a complex subject which is probably extensive enough for a debate on its own, but one on which I am not going to say any more because my noble friend Lord Ridley is going to deal with it. There is the collecting and disseminating of information and data; there is the advising of Ministers about the regional water authorities. There is the capital investment programme and the recommending of exchanges of water between regions. There is plenty to be done. I am not clear on what evidence Her Majesty's Government are basing the proposals here, or what evidence they have that the National Water Council

283
is failing in any of these respects. Perhaps the Minister can cite some examples when she joins in the debate, of the failures or difficulties that have arisen from the structure. If changes are really shown to be necessary and desirable, by all means let us have them reasonably quickly and let the industry then get on with the job that it has been appointed to do.
3.34 p.m.
Lord De RAMSEY: My Lords, last time I spoke on the subject of water I got into some trouble with a number of noble Lords, noble Baronesses and right reverend Prelates. The trouble was navigation. However, your Lordships decided to allow the Anglian Water Authority Bill to proceed. I hope that when I refer presently to navigation in the Green Paper I shall be less controversial.
I must frankly admit that when I saw a copy of the Green Paper my first reaction was, " What! not another water reorganisation! " No doubt others in the industry, who are trying to cope with testing conditions in parts of the country, felt the same. Having glanced at it, I petulantly exclaimed that this should be entitled, " Nanny says ". The noble Baroness put it much more diplomatically when she said, " Administrative tidy-mindedness ". Now, having studied it more carefully, together with a plethora of briefs, and listened to Lady White's expert opening of the debate. I will try to be more objective. I find myself, not for the first time, in entire agreement with the noble Baroness. I particularly support her remarks about the disbanding of the Water Resources Board which in the water world was a tragedy.
The noble Baroness has covered so impressively the huge field of this "unique resource " involving so many interests, each one convinced it is the most important. I find therefore I can restrict myself to one interest only; namely, land drainage and flood protection. In fundamental importance—with due respect to the Water Board with which the noble Baroness is connected—in this industrial island it takes second place only to the provision of water for all purposes. That is the main object of the Green Paper, I presume, and rightly. Nevertheless, now is the moment to draw
284
attention to a number of matters that affect agriculture and food production.
I should like, however, to refer to paragraph 86 of the Green Paper where the Government ask whether it would be fair to seek a contribution from a developer who builds in the flood plane and then demands flood protection. This has been an abuse to common sense all my life; the Dutch refer picturesquely to the summer and winter bed of a river. It is the development in the winter bed which needs discouraging statutorily unless the developer is prepared to pay for his own flood protection—not only the developer in the flood plane. but also the developer in the upland who causes flooding problems (and probably pollution ones as well) lower down. He, too, should have a statutory obligation to contribute to the expenses which he causes the authority to undertake.
The Green Paper does not invite further comment on land drainage arrangements; in fact it states in paragraphs 46 and 47 that they appear to be working satisfactorily, which I believe to be true. I presume from this that representation on the proposed National Water Authority for Agriculture—namely, one—would remain the same. Obviously, every interest would like to increase its representation. but clearly agriculture's cannot be diminished. It is difficult or impossible to alter one water function without affecting others. Take, for instance, the paragraphs covering navigation; there is much to commend a central navigation authority but provided only there is proper decentralisation to water authorities. However, whatever form of administration is finally decided on, it is necessary for the principle of river basin management at regional level to be kept. The vital needs of local control of water levels in the interests of land drainage and flood protection—I must repeat, flood protection—must remain a local responsibility.
Other matters occur to me, but perhaps not all of them are wholly appropriate. It has been suggested that if nine out of 10 riparian owners are willing to improve the water course at their own expense, the tenth should not be allowed to prevent the benefit to the other nine. I am not sure whether this should be a matter for statutory legislation or whether there are

285
other ways of dealing with the problem, but I certainly think this should be looked at.
Also, I assume, I hope rightly, that paragraph 24 on capital expenditure would not apply to land drainage. There would seem to be no useful purpose for land drainage expenditure to be submitted and re-submitted, first to the Ministry of Agriculture where the National Agricultural Advisory Service fixes the expenditure for the total land drainage requirements, and then to the Department of the Environment. The latter Department can scarcely wish to scrutinise the expenditure, for instance, of laying tile drains for agricultural purposes which another Ministry has already approved. hope these matters may be taken into account by the Government when a White Paper is prepared.
3.42 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER -SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I also am very grateful to my noble friend Lady White for creating this opportunity for what is obviously going to be a very full debate on the Consultative Document. In fact, by this evening I think we shall all he well marinated, but in water. The colour of the document is unmistakably Green—green not for " go", but for consultation. Decisions will not be taken until after the consultation period expires at the end of July. Meanwhile, the Government are anxious that there should be the widest discussion and this debate, I am sure, will provide constructive comment on the points the Government will be considering in coming weeks.
The Document is not entirely open-ended, as I think my noble friend recognised. The Government have firm views on how the problem should be approached. I am intervening early in the debate to give an indication of those views in order to put the rest of the debate in context. With the leave of the House, I shall hope to reply briefly at the end, dealing with the points which have been raised and giving some words of explanation.
Most people expect an efficient water supply and sewerage system. As long as clean, wholesome water emerges from
286
their taps and sewage discreetly vanishes, they are largely content. Probably few people ever pause to contemplate the enormous and complex back-up service required to get water to the tap and to deal with sewage. It is the misfortune of the water industry to be taken for granted except when things go wrong or charges rise. Yet clean and wholesome water supply and an efficient sewerage system are basic human needs —an essential part of the infrastructure; and social development can, indeed, be charted very accurately by the develop, ment of water services. A small rural population, living in wattle huts, had no need for a complex water supply and sewerage system. A large urban population has. As more and more people have bathrooms, washing machines and dishwashers, the greater becomes the demand for water services. And as the water supply expands, so does the sewerage system. In 1926 the average per capita consumption of water per day was 26 gallons; in 1951 it was 40 gallons; and in 1975 it was 70 gallons.
Therefore, we are talking about a vast industry, which provides for the basic human needs of Britain's population and underpins the whole of industry and agriculture; this it does at concomitant cost. This industry has an annual revenue requirement of some £1,000 million. It spends about £500 million a year on capital investment. The water authorities are vast users of financial resources. In relation to the natural resources at their disposal they have extensive responsibilities. Within their areas they are responsible for the whole hydrological cycle, which includes water conservation, water supply, sewage treatment and disposal, pollution control, water-based recreation including some river navigation, land drainage, and salmon and freshwater fisheries. The problems of this industry need to be tackled in two stages. There are national problems and regional problems, as has been mentioned. Our first priority is to get the structure right at the centre. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady White agrees with the concept of the National Water Authority, which is our first proposed major change. although I am sorry that she does not give very high marks to the whole document.
The first major change is to establish the new National Water Authority, a body

287
with teeth. I find it amazing that the Tories could have established a structure for the water industry which made it impossible to produce any real strategy for the industry. It is for this reason that there is the need for the upheaval, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, described it. One of the features of the Water Act 1973 was that it failed to provide the strong, cohesive centre essential for the organisation and control. Instead, responsibilities were divided between the National Water Council, the Water Research Centre, the Central Water Planning Unit and three Government Departments. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the machinery to manage and finance these national resources is hopelessly inadequate. All this was in fact foreseeable—and foreseen by this Government when in Opposition—when the 1973 Act (led in this House by my noble friend Lady White) was unfortunately passed. The passage of time has made the gravity of the situation more apparent. To remedy this will be the function of the new National Water Authority.
The new National Water Authority will be empowered and equipped to undertake national planning, and charged with the specific duty of producing a national strategy for water services. But that strategy will have to be endorsed by Ministers. I see no contradiction in this, because it will provide the framework for the plans of the regional water authorities: and those plans will be required to conform to it. For the first time, there will be a fully integrated corporate plan. One of the aims of strategic planning is to ensure an adequate and even distribution of resources throughout the country. While water is generally plentiful in these islands, it is far more abundant in the West than the East. Therefore, the National Water Authority must not only consider the scope for inter-regional transfers to correct the balance, but must also have powers to set in train the implementation of transfers. We propose to give the National Water Authority those powers, subject, of course, to the endorsement of Ministers and the normal controls on development.
This year has already been an exceptional one for water. We have had the dryest winter since records began, followed by a dry spring. We do not yet know whether the summer will prove equally
288
dry. but already certain areas of the country are experiencing shortages calling for special measures, and contingency plans are in hand should the situation deteriorate. A drought, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, stated, even if it occurs rarely, re-emphasises the need for a strategic approach to the conservation, development and redeployment of resources. This will be one of the key tasks of the National Water Authority.
The second major change at national level is the proposal to merge the British Waterways Board into the new National Water Authority. I must here apologise to my noble friend about the error in paragraph 6. This was a typing error and it occurred in answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place last week. My noble friend is quite correct. The figures should read 1,600 miles and not 1,000 miles.
I know that inland waterways is a subject dear to your Lordships' corporate heart; and this is the third time in a little over a year that I have taken part in debates touching on them. Many people feel that we could make better use of our inland waterways. The Government agree, and we propose to provide the organisational framework by which the canal system can be utilised most effectively.
In reality, I do not think the waterways can now be of tremendous significance for freight traffic. Unfortunately, compared with many of the inland waterways in Europe, they are too narrow and shallow to be economic and they have been overtaken by road and rail. Nevertheless, while their commercial use has declined, a new recreational interest in canals has grown up resulting in a tremendous increase in their leisure use, particularly for boating and fishing. The 1968 Transport Act gave the first formal recognition to this need by imposing on the British Waterways Board specific obligations to maintain large sections of the waterways to standards appropriate for cruising. But the British Waterways Board are responsible for only a part of the waterways and, as the Consultative Document says, the present arrangements are highly fragmented. Control is divided between the British Waterways Board and a variety of other bodies. Some water authorities are navigation authorities for

289
the rivers in their regions—for example, the Thames Water Authority for the Thames—and some rivers are controlled by local authorities, charitable trusts or other ad hoc bodies. The Green Paper stresses the Government's view that there is a strong case for placing the management of most of these navigations in a new national authority.
In the 200 or so years of their existence, the waterways have also come to form an integral part of the country's water supply system; they have their spoke in the hydrological cycle. They serve as channels for land drainage, for flood prevention, for the transport of water for supply and for the disposal of effluents. Even if all navigation stopped tomorrow, a good deal of the system would still be essential. So the Government's proposals to bring the British Waterways Board into the water system, and to constitute the National Water Authority as a national navigation authority, ensures that both objectives are achieved. I am aware that there are difficulties which must be resolved before we can bring about this merger, and we are now in the process of studying all aspects of these problems, which of course is part of the reason for this consultative process.
The third major change is the proposal to integrate the 28 privately owned water companies into the water authorities. The preservation of the companies by the 1973 Water Act was illogical and, to many of us, absolutely contrary to principle. The previous Government's Act effectively took away all their independence. They now act simply as agents of the water authorities, while at the same time inhibiting the authorities from organising their activities on a rational basis throughout their regions. Anyhow, as demands on their resources rose they would become increasingly dependent on the rest of a publicly owned industry. On these grounds alone they constitute an anomaly—an anomaly which the Government intend to end.
The second stage of the operation, as I said earlier, concerns the regional water authorities which manage the whole hydrological cycle in their areas, because they are based on one or more entire river basins. This means that some have a wide geographical spread and, consequent-
290
ly, their size and remoteness are criticised. Nevertheless, we are convinced that water management must be based on river basins, though there could be some re-arrangement of areas within this principle. However, I think we must all agree that the proper context for considering this must be within the future debate on English regions and local government.
But membership of the authorities at regional level is a most pressing issue. This is a difficult one, which raises some blood pressures. What the Government have done is to set out the various factors which must be taken into account. In a nutshell, the problem is that of reconciling adequate democratic representation, which was referred to by my noble friend Lady White, with the large size of some of the river basins. I suspect that this is one of the thorniest consultative problems, on which the response to the Government's proposals will be especially helpful, and no doubt we shall hear more about this in the debate.
The least attractive aspect of the water industry, like everything else, is paying for it. No one likes paying charges, particularly when they go up. The 1973 Water Act is quite clear and unambiguous about the financial position of the water authorities. Each water authority must set its charges at such a level as to ensure that it breaks even, taking one year with another. Bluntly, this means that if costs go up so must charges. The Government have no intention of departing from this principle. Water authorities 'will be expected to continue to pay their way. There can be no question of subsidies to the water industry. Our policy is to phase out subsidies to the nationalised industries, not to introduce new ones—especially in the context of contemporary public expenditure.
However, the Government accept that it is wrong that there should be gross disparities in the average water supply bills paid in different water authority areas. That is why, as an interim measure, we are proposing a limited degree of equalisation of unmeasured water supply charges. The equalisation scheme will be confined to historic debt incurred up to 31st March 1976 in respect of unmeasured water supply. It is the best scheme the Government have been able to devise on the basis of available information, without

291
running the risk of distorting water authorities' incentives to manage their affairs in an efficient and economical fashion. It would be dangerous to attempt a great hop into the unknown, but it is important to take action to reduce gross disparities in the charges made by different authorities. I think we have the balance about right, but I must stress that the scheme is not intended to be permanent. This means that the National Water Authority will look at the possibility of a replacement scheme.
Obviously, the Government's approach to a debate about a Consultative Document during the period of consultation must confine itself largely to explanation. I shall now listen with great interest to the other speakers who participate in the debate, particularly to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Wilson of High Wray, and when I speak later, by leave of the House, will attempt to deal briefly with the points raised both by my noble friend Lady White and by other speakers.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question before she sits down, and I speak as one who does not intend to take up the time of the House by making a speech. If we are getting a national policy for the supply of water why have we included Wales and not Scotland? I believe that for an island like this to develop a national plan for water, Scotland has to be included. God recognises watersheds, but not national differences across rivers or watersheds.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has leapfrogged the debate a little and, as my noble friend Lady White trod so carefully and explained about the question of Wales, I do not intend to take up that point now. But if my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek will be patient and wait until the end of the debate, I will then deal with his point together with other points which I am sure will he contingent upon it.
Lord WOLVERTON: My Lords, in her interesting speech the noble Baroness said that the new National Water Authority will be given teeth. Will it have powers to connect one region with another? As the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, there is much more water in the West than there is in the East, and will it be able to do that work?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have set out the propositions and I believe I covered that point in my speech. I feel it would be most unfair to other speakers who have put down their names on a long list—and I know that a number of them have to get away—if I entered into a discussion now. So I am afraid that I shall leave that point until the end of the debate, although I note what the noble Lord has said.
3.59 p.m.
Lord FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to join those who have gone before me in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady White, on raising this topic today. The interest in the debate is considerable, and it is mirrored in the number of speakers who have put down their names on the list to speak. In connection with that, I am afraid that I have an engagement this evening of long standing which I cannot avoid. Therefore I should like to apologise now if I have to leave before the end of the debate, although I shall, of course, follow most carefully what has been said in Hansard.
This Consultative Document which we are considering today embraces a wide technical subject. It is rather difficult to know where to begin. Indeed, I approach the matter in its entirety with a certain amount of diffidence, knowing that I am completely unqualified to lend much in the way of erudition to the important topic of sewage disposal, particularly as there are other noble Lords here who know what they are doing when it comes to sewage disposal. I am told that there are no votes in sewage and I think that it would be a waste of an opportunity if we were not this afternoon to lend every encouragement to the sewage disposal experts: to wish them all the power in the world to their elbows, so to speak, on this important and unpopular subject.
I feel that I ought to declare an interest in the matter, in that 1 am connected to what I call a septic tank—or, as the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food prefer to call it, with their usual picturesque command of the English language, " a cesspit Paragraph 64 of the Consultative Document is concerned with whether equalisation of charges should be applied to the

293
supply of water only or to the general services of the water industry, including the disposal of sewage. The hearts of those of us who are not connected to the sewage mains beat a little faster when we came to the last sentence of that paragraph, which says:
" It is clear that the case for equalising general service charges is less strong than that for equalising water supply."
But I think we have here a championship prizewinner of a warning to all ordinary mortals who allow the magic words from Whitehall to accelerate the blood through their veins, because by paragraph 80, and only the really determined individual will reach paragraph 80, we find that—and I quote:
" The Government recognise, however, that the sewerage and sewage disposal services provided by a water authority themselves confer a substantial benefit to the community as a whole in terms of public health and an improved environment. It has been argued that this benefit is enjoyed by all members of the community regardless of whether their properties are connected to mains drainage and that all properties should make some contribution towards the cost of these services. This question clearly cannot be divorced from the question of responsibility for emptying cesspits … for it would not be acceptable for people to have to pay both a proportion of the water authorities' sewerage charge and a substantial charge for having their cesspit emptied. The Government have therefore undertaken to consider as part of the review whether the Water Act 1973 should be amended to permit some part of the cost of sewerage and sewage disposal to he levied on unconnected properties, and would welcome views on this question."
Well, I am no expert but as a humble—I am trying to avoid the word " consumer "—as a humble user perhaps I might be allowed to offer a few general observations. First of all, let us consider this matter of emptying cesspits. There is a view taken in my family, and it has been handed down through the generations, along with the title, that under no circumstances should one ever tamper in any way with the processes of nature which take place under the concrete slab at the end of the garden. I am not sure of the facts but rumour has it that the third baron suffered a heart attack and died on being told that bog myrtle had appeared to the left of the mulberry tree and that the cesspit might have to be emptied. We take the view in my family that the cesspit is rather like a bottle of vintage port and that the crust should be allowed to form without disturbance unless, of course, the cork
294
blows. And that is a view I shall continue to take, no matter what happens in the way of legislation—statutory controls, visits from Her Majesty's Inspector of Cesspits, Orders in Council, or anything else that the machinery of the State is planning to throw at me.
However, if the owner of a cesspit is to contribute to a general sewage rate and should he be ill-advised enough to consider emptying his cesspit, I do not see why he should have to pay even a proportion of the cost of emptying it. Nor, for that matter, do I think that lie should have to bear any of the considerable financial burden of installing it in the first place. The installation arid emptying of cesspits may be a very expensive form of sewage disposal, but we are talking about equalisation and I do not think we should produce a situation where some are more equal than others. The cost of installing and emptying cesspits should be shared out among all those paying a general sewage rate, and if a majority of those are connected to the mains—well, that is just tough luck. That is just the way the cookie crumbles in the equalisation stakes.
What we have here is one of those matters of simple justice so beloved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. and I take great heart from the fact that this Government will go down in history for tackling that other matter of simple justice concerning the adquate recompense for authors whose books are borrowed by the general public from our libraries. Let us be charitable towards this generous and equitable Government and give them the benefit of the doubt on paragraph 80 in this Consultative Document. I am quite sure that it is not their intention in any way to use this paragraph to circumnavigate or somehow to alter the basic principles of justice behind this issue, so admirably defended in this House a short while ago. I am referring, of course, to the Daymond judgment.
In fact, while I am on the subject of cesspits, it seems to me that paragraph 80 is framed in such a way as to provoke the very faintest suspicion that owners of cesspits form in some way a privileged class of person holding a serious advantage over other mortals who are connected to the main drains. It seems to me that this is quite ludicrous and only goes to show

295
the absurd lengths to which we are going in this country at the present time in the hunting out of and stamping upon privilege, almost to the dangerous point where the fact that a person is different in any way from the rest of the flock—whether through choice or not—is to attract a hint of an accusation that such a person is privileged: that this person, in short, should have his fingernails extracted one by one with red hot pincers.
The fact of the matter is that the cesspit owner is underprivileged, in that he does not have the privilege of being connected to the main drains. Not only is he underprivileged, but he may well be living in some danger. He may well be entitled to danger money in the fair and just society of tomorrow. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, if I may, to that admirable book on the subject published in 1883, " Dangers to Health: A Pictorial Guide to Sanitary Defects ", which I have no doubt will be familiar to many of your Lordships. The author of this important work was Pridgin Teale, M.A., whom I dare say a number of the more senior Members of this House will recall was surgeon to the Leeds General Infirmary. Do you also recall, my Lords, the ghastly, true story contained in this volume, graphically illustrated, of the tragic end which befell the butler of a celebrated Harley Street physician, who was despatched to the cellar to fetch another bottle of port? The wretched man accomplished the route down the difficult, steep and winding staircase to the cellar. He negotiated the route across the cellar to the bins of vintage port without mishap. He selected with great care the required bottle and managed to lift it from its cradle without dropping it. He was half way back across the cellar when the paving stones parted beneath his feet and he descended into the murky depths of an uncharted cesspit. Unfortunately, it was some time before the company gathered in the dining room noticed his failure to return. I am afraid that he drowned.
I have no doubt that these wonderful new organisations we have, called the Regional Water Authorities, will tell your Lordships today that they have this sort of thing licked—that there is no such thing today as an uncharted cesspit—but I suspect that there are stately homes, which are still inhabited, with some difficulty, by the descendants of the men
296
who built them, where even today, with all the wonders of modern hydraulic engineering, nobody knows exactly what happens once the plug has been pulled. It is likely that today the noble Duke himself will make the trip to the cellar. I do not suppose that the public would lament the loss of the odd Duke down the drains these days, but I think we should take a look at the future. When these mansions become rest homes for retired trade union officials, as I expect they soon will, then the danger surrounding the misfortune of not being connected to the public sewer will be promoted more effectively and will become a matter of greater importance for the general public.
I did not come here today to talk about cesspits. I came here to talk about navigation on our waterways, a subject dear not only to my heart but to the hearts of those millions of enthusiasts who have saved and who enjoy nagivation on our inland waterways: that splendid bunch of volunteers who make up the waterways lobby. However, I have had two good innings in the last year or so on navigation and I hope today to make a very brief contribution on this subject, other wise I suspect that noble Lords will begin to make what the Clerk of the Parliaments described as " the right noises when he addressed the Cross-Bench Peers on the subject of procedure in the House last week.
Perhaps I could begin by drawing your Lordships' attention to the excellent contribution to the recent debate on the Second Reading of the Anglian Water Authority Bill that was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. The right reverend Prelate, as a member of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Sport and Leisure, quoted in his speech the following extract from the Report of that Committee:
" At a time when navigation for pleasure on inland waterways has overtaken commercial carriage the rights of navigation cannot be allowed to rest on an antiquated basis which is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The Committee consider that the legal status of rights of way and rights of navigation over water should be reviewed and that the Government should investigate whether the de facto right of navigation enjoyed on cruising waterways can be converted into a right de jure—they note that in August 1972 according to the Consultation Paper issued by the Department of the Environment it was the Government's intention to set out in legislation clear rights for the public, in suitable craft and in a suitable manner, to navigate all commercial and cruising waterways."—[Official Report; 23/3/76, col. 605.]

297
The first thing which occurs to me in connection with the proposals concerning navigation which have been advanced in the Consultative Document is that here is an opportunity to bring up to date the whole question of the navigation rights of the public upon our waterways.I wish today to support the Government in their proposals to look at this whole question of navigation and to encourage them in their endeavour to make some real progress, quite possibly for the first time this century, upon this issue. I have no doubt that the Government have undertaken a difficult task. I have no doubt that they will be confronted by a downpour of conflicting advice from a variety of bodies with a stake in this field. It is not my intention, therefore, to add materially to the troubles which lie ahead. At this stage I would prefer to make one or two general observations in an endeavour to over-simplify a thoroughly complex situation in the hope of clearing rather than cluttering the decks.
There are two purposes for wishing to navigate upon the waterways. There are boats which carry cargo—thus, incidentally keeping it off the roads—and there are boats which provide a popular and attractive form of relaxation for their owners or their hirers, and I should like to take issue for a moment with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, when she expressed the view that today there was no future for commercial operation on our waterways. Not all our waterways are narrow waterways. For instance, in the North-East we have some broad waterways. I know it is a small part of the network of canals and waterways that we have, but nevertheless there is a future for commercial carrying craft on waterways.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way, as I think he said that he would not be here later. I was speaking about it on a large scale, and I said that we could not look to it for a tremendous increase in freight carriage. I did not mean to imply that there was no possibility.
Lord FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the assurance that there is some possibility of commercial freight-carrying
298
on waterways. In this country we have failed so far to grasp the possibilities of developing our waterways for the carrying of freight, and in this respect we lag far behind all the other countries of the European Economic Community. I suspect that our attitude towards the commercial- use of our waterways stems from the days when the canals fell into the hands of the railway companies, who naturally were keen on eliminating any competition to their own freight-carrying activities afforded by our canal system.
The first point I should like to make, therefore, is that any new approach to our inland waterways should aim for a more constructive policy towards developing the commercial use of our waterways. The question which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, raised was this: should the freight-carrying activities of the waterways be the responsibility of a National Water Authority, or would they be more properly located under the umbrella of the national transport policy? My own view is that they should be dealt with as part of the national transport policy, for until such time as water transport is treated as a transport matter we shall not see any progress in this area.
I do not agree with those noble Lords who say that, broadly speaking, they like the idea of a national navigation authority, provided this means that navigation management will pass to regional water authorities. I do pot agree with that at all, largely because the regional water authorities are based on river basins. Canals, for instance, operate on a totally different principle of engineering. I think it would be absurd for the Leeds and Liverpool Canal to be maintained by two separate water authorities, one on either side of the Pennines. Who would own the reservoirs on top which feed the canal itself? It is a completely different principle of engineering.
What I should like to see is a situation where we had a national navigation authority, and to all intents and purposes I think that should be the British Waterways Board, who of course have their own regional divisions: so they are regional organisations, but they know what they are doing when it comes to navigation. I should like to see them as a national navigation authority responsible to, and possibly funded by, a National Water

299
Authority so far as the maintenance and planning of navigation upon leisure waterways is concerned, and responsible to and funded by a commercial waterways division—it need not be very big—in a similar position to the commercial highways division in the Department of the Environment so far as development and planning of the commercial waterways is concerned.
Now, of course, we are into the realms of finance and, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said, this Consultative Document does not really tackle the financial aspects of creating a national navigation authority. I suspect that that is because, as usual, the Government are embarrassed at the thought of having to finance the navigable waterways at all. I will admit that these are difficult times for the economy. However, we are talking about constructing a new administrative system, and I think that we should not be put off from the task of creating a good and efficient administrative system because of immediate financial difficulties. What is required is a system which will work to the advantage of the waterways when the economic situation improves—as well as in the current economic situation.
The crucial point to be made today so far as finance is concerned is this. During the financial difficulties of the past a great deal of progress has been achieved upon our inland waterways through the voluntary efforts and fund-raising of the waterways lobby, and in the immediate future this situation is likely to continue. suggest therefore that it would be prudent for all those interested in the development of our waterways, including the Government, to ensure that everything possible is done to encourage continued and (hopefully) improved support in this area. That means allowing the voice of the volunteers to be heard at every level in the new administrative system—a matter of democracy rather than bureaucracy. In this respect may I suggest that the system of allowing navigation restoration societies to restore navigation where it has become derelict works extremely well, and that this should be encouraged. Once a navigation has been restored I suggest that the people who have restored it should have the option of continuing to manage it themselves, or of handing over its management under an agreed procedure to the national navigation authority.
300
I do not wish to say anything further at this point, other than to encourage all those interested in developing our waterways to approach the Government's proposals in a constructive way—and to encourage the Government not to lose sight of their objective of creating an efficient administrative structure for our waterways in the light of the constructive approaches which they are now receiving from all quarters. Let us get rid of all this hocus-pocus and the humbuggery which have surrounded navigation upon our inland waterways in this country this century. Above all, let us achieve the impossible, if we can, and create a new administrative system which does not kill the spirit of enthusiastic voluntary effort contained in the English character and illustrated so clearly in the history of our waterways, because nothing would pollute our drinking water so much as a dead volunteer.
4.18 p.m.
Lord WILSON of HIGH WRAY: My Lords, as many of your Lordships will appreciate, I rise to address you this afternoon with considerable trepidation. My mouth. I regret to say, has much in common with the problems of the Anglian and the Wessex Water Authorities and I can only hope that the Almighty will come to my help before he conics to theirs. The reason why I venture to address your Lordships today is that throughout my business career I have had considerable association with the water industry. I am not of the industry but I might perhaps consider myself in the light of first cousin. I have the greatest possible admiration for those who are responsible not only for supplying us with an adequate amount of fresh water but also for disposing of what I might describe as the contaminated water, dealt with to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham.
I propose—briefly, your Lordships will be glad to know—to deal rather more with people than with policies. I have attended a number of official openings of water schemes of one kind and another, the most interesting, I think, being the opening of the Llynceulyn reservoir scheme in Central Wales, when I had the rather unusual experience of being stoned by a number of young ladies and gentlemen drawn, I believe, very largely from the

301
universities of the Principality who had some animus against those sitting on the platform. It so happened that I was sitting next to Sir Frank Gibbard, the architect of the buildings concerned with this particular scheme. I suggested to him that perhaps in the circumstances we should draw danger money. He said rather tersely that he would prefer to have a steel helmet. However, the ceremony was not without its compensations, because the young ladies and gentlemen sang to us very beautifully in Welsh, and extremely loudly. The volume was such that it completely drowned the rather pompous sentences of the official opener, and it meant we were able to proceed with our lunch some time earlier than we had expected.
My Lords, the water industry was in effect—and I say " in effect ", not " effectively "—nationalised by the Water Resources Act 1963 and the Water Act 1973. But I have always held that the water industry differs materially from the electricity, gas, and coal mining industries in that although the water engineer can predict with reasonable accuracy what the demand for his products is going to be, he has some difficulty in predicting the source of supply. The coal mining, electrical and gas engineers can forecast for a long time ahead where their essential raw materials will come from. I might add that, unless we have a change in our climatic conditions—and it need only be a very slight change of I per cent. in temperature, humidity, either average, maximum or minimum—the water engineer can predict over the long term.
Throughout England and Wales, leaving out Scotland which, as has already been pointed out, is not mentioned in the document, the total amount of water falling in this country is very substantially greater than the amount of water we shall require in the foreseeable future. As one eminent water engineer put it to me some time ago, there is any amount of water available; the trouble is finding holes to put it in. What the water engineer does not know is how regional precipitation may vary in the short-term, by which I mean a period of from one to five years. The fact that many parts of this country are faced this summer with an extreme water supply problem is going to bring home forcibly and in an unpleasant manner to
302
millions of our citizens the importance of having a really soundly based water industry.
We must be certain that in future legislation is going to be an improvement and not a retrograde step. We admit there is a danger of over-centralisation, and I think that this applies very much to the team of engineers responsible for our water industry. Their problems vary enormously throughout the country. The problems of Cumbria and Kent are entirely different. The water engineers are strong individualists. Only two weeks ago I listened to a very eminent water engineer delivering a lecture on dams for the storage of water in this country. He apologised for the fact that some of the slides which illustrated this talk were rather bad, but he said that unfortunately they were taken in driving rain and a howling gale. This very senior water engineer had himself gone out to examine the dam and to decide what should be done to make it safe. I think this typified the attitude of the water engineers in this country. They do not like sitting on their backsides in plushy, deep carpeted offices, examining statistics produced by an anonymous computer; they like to be on the job, and doing the job themselves.
I was rather concerned when I read in The Times of 7th May that proposals had been made by a certain county council suggesting that if a new central water authority were instituted, it should be largely made up of elected representatives of local authorities. Would your Lordships contemplate putting the electricity industry, the gas industry or the coal mining industry into the hands of people who had been elected by perhaps between 25 per cent. and 35 per cent. of the electorate, drawn from Northumberland, Gwent, the Greater London Water Authority, Cornwall and Devonshire? Would your Lordships put such a team in charge of the water authority of this country, with the power to decide whether £500 million should be spent on purifying the waters of the Trent—it would, I believe, go a long way towards solving the problems of Anglia and the South-Eastor whether to meet the cost of two nuclear submarines to recharge the aquifers underneath London?
I consider that this review is a well thought-out document, intelligently presented. T, and many of your Lordships

303
in this House, may not agree with every suggestion put forward, but at least it will serve as a good basis for the consideration in detail of the future of this great and vitally important industry of water supply and disposal
4.28 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, it is for me a very pleasant duty to offer the congratulations of this House to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of High Wray, who has just made a very fine and interesting maiden speech. I am sure the whole House will hope that it will not be long before we hear him speak again, and often. We can assure him he will not be stoned even by the Welsh in this Chamber, and he will never need a steel helmet, either. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady White. Not long ago I made the first speech I have ever made in Wales under her benevolent chairmanship, and she said to me, " If you go on for more than five minutes, I will bring you to a halt ". I hope I shall not speak too long today. I then realised what a very valuable grasp the noble Baroness has on all environmental affairs, particularly Welsh ones.
My Lords, I did not think this was a particularly exciting subject, until the debate began. I do not pretend to be an expert in the stuff, nor do I drink more of it than necessary. My own knowledge of the new set-up is not in fact very detailed. But it has long been my view that water is one of the essential things which should have been nationalised long ago, perhaps the first thing that should have been nationalised in this country. I remember sitting next to a previous Labour Minister in a previous Government, and at the end of the dinner party I had persuaded him to introduce a Bill to nationalise water. Unfortunately, I woke up the next morning to find that this Minister had been sacked, and the Bill never saw the light of day. I have resisted the temptation to invite the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to dinner, but I shall be delighted to buy her a glass of water afterwards. I apologise to both noble Baronesses if I am not here at the end of the debate, owing to a previous engagement.
It fell to a Conservative Government to nationalise water in all but name in
304
1973. This Green Paper is not surprisingly the completion of the nationalised process, prophesied by quite a number of us at that time. First, I would refer to the strengthening of the central control by the National Water Authority. I shall not cover this in great detail, because other noble Lords have spoken about it at some length. I do think, however. that we should welcome for one reason the strengthening of the National Water Authority. The need must be now for a strengthened overall strategy, and it is long overdue. An Authority which has teeth, which can say where water should be impounded and where it should be used and transferred, and not allow a proliferation of schemes, must he essential in the national interest. I think we should have moved long ago to a national water grid, just as we have a national electrical grid, and I am certain that Scotland should be included, even if we have to face up to the highly exorbitant price they charge for the stuff there.
I would turn to the 28 water companies which are going to be nationalised—I think the word used is " integrated ". One must be honest and say that one hears it said that this is done purely to satisfy Labour philosophy. No other reason is given. Although the noble Baroness has mentioned it in her speech, it is not stated in the Paper that they have been inefficient or that they have failed the nation, but they must go for the sake of Labour philosophy. I accept in my own mind that this is probably essential, and the inevitability of this was in fact written on the wall by the 1973 Act. But I wonder if the Government can be a little more explicit about the phrase they use, due regard to fair compensation ". I hope there will be no equivocation about compensation. Secondly, I think we should ask if it is really necessary to do this at this moment, when the need is not for more expenditure from the public purse, but less, and not for more nationalisation, but for less. Why do we have to do this now?
I am also glad to know that the Green Paper does not propose any alteration in the 10 regional water authorities. It would be much too soon to do this. But in view of the very vociferous cries, to be heard mostly I think in Labour circles in the provinces, that water should be brought back into local government—I am not quite sure what that means—

305
in the context of the regional devolution proposed for England, I shall be very interested to hear how this can be done. If we ever get a White Paper on devolution for England —and I am beginning to wonder if it exists—it will be interesting to see how the water authorities can be brought into this. I hope we shall not make the regions of England, for other government purposes, comply entirely with the hydrological ones, because it would he a nonsense.
I would turn to part ll of the Paper, the policy of water charging. This is extremely difficult and interesting subject Again I offer no possibility of knowledge on this subject. I would just like to ask a few questions about it. There is a great and essential dilemma about equalisation of water charges, which I think is acknowledged in the Paper. If you make everything equal then there is no incentive to economy. If, on the other hand you do nothing, then some regions will suffer. I would first of all question the conclusion that inter-regional transfer schemes should be on a no profit and no loss basis. I wonder why this is absolutely essential. If the real purpose behind the whole of the Green Paper—and some people think this—is to tackle the problems of the enormous cost of water in Wales, then there is a very strong argument for letting Wales charge for the water it produces and sends to " the cities of the plain " and letting them recoup their costs in a commercial way. I see the noble Baroness, Lady White, is not entirely in disagreement with what I am saying.
I think it is a matter of fact that all the high rainfall areas in this country, including Scotland, the North of England, Wales and the South-West of England, are in fact those areas which are now development areas and which are badly in need of natural resources. I wonder why it has not been considered that they should sell their only natural resource to the thirsty cities in the lowland and Eastern half of Britain, and that would perhaps be some answer to the eternal problem of the deprivation and the regional imbalance in those parts of the Kingdom.
Secondly, I would ask why is it essential that only non-metered water should be equalised? Again in the regional context it k very much our experience in the North
306
that the cost of water to incoming industry is an extremely important factor. Indeed, it can be decisive in many cases. If unmetered water is going to cost a great deal more through the rates, then I think it is wrong that the development areas should be penalised in this respect. It is interesting that the Government have suggested that water should be equalised on a temporary basis, although what that quite means I am not sure, on the historic costs to 31st March 1976. I have been trying unsuccessfully to find out what that means for the North since this was proposed. It is not easy to find out exactly what it does mean, except that I think it is fair to say that in the far North of England we have some very heavy capital expenditure on reservoir and sewerage schemes et cetera which have not yet started. It, therefore, seems unfair that the cut-off date should be quite so rigid as 31st March, although paragraph 73 seems to contradict this and talks about future equalisation schemes. I am afraid I am not clear what this means, and I hope the Government will in due course let us know. I think it would be worth suggesting that equalisation should include not only costs incurred up to 31st March but also committed costs in all the regions, in other words, commitments which are inescapably entered into at that date. In the interests of fairness, I would suggest this seriously to the Government.
Furthermore, the proposed equalization is undoubtedly unfair to the development areas in yet another way. Parliament has decided that they should be given assistance in one form or another, grants from the public purse, including some from the EEC. But equalisation as suggested here in fact takes no account of those; being based only on outstanding debt, it ignores the substantial sums which have been received in grants, and reverses in effect that policy. This historic costs argument should take account of this; otherwise the rest of the country will be clawing back some of the grants it has given and the whole theory will be negated. Furthermore, I do not think it is perfectly clear what paragraph 70 means when it talks about the proposed equalisation scheme in terms of water supply, or is it including water resources. I have found considerable uncertainty in the experts on this matter, and I hope we can have some clarification in due course.

307
Finally, I do welcome the statement in paragraph 58 that the industry must stand on its own financial feet. This is a breath of realism in an increasingly unrealistic world, and I am very glad, as I am sure we all are, to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, repeat this statement today, even if we start paying a lot more for our water. The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred briefly to the Paper entitled Paying for Water. Like her, I have not had time to absorb it, which I think is more appropriate than digesting it. It does at some point reach the fairly inescapable conclusion that we have not been paying anything like enough for the water we are consuming. Depreciation, it says, has not been anything like high enough to replace the assets of the water industry which are wearing out. At the very best, to say the least, or at the very worst, not taking any account of inflation, at least a 20 per cent. increase in 'water charges seems likely. I hope with this in mind the gloom which I have wished to spread will not spoil the rest of this debate.
4.38 p.m.
The Earl of SHANNON: My Lords, 1, too, should like to add my congratulations to those of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on the excellent maiden speech of Lord Wilson of High Wray. All your Lordships will agree he made his contribution from a wealth of knowledge and experience, which I am sure has made this debate, and will make future debates in your Lordships' House, the richer for his contributions. I myself, in speaking in this debate, must declare my usual interest. For eight years I have been concerned intimately with the work and activities of the industrial research associations in this country. But I make that declaration of interest in no form of apology. From my experience in your Lordships' House, when a speaker declares an interest it usually means that he does have some considerable knowledge of the subject, and I hope I shall be able to follow that excellent example. I ought also perhaps to declare another interest as a Vice-President of the Inland Waterways Association, but in that capacity 1 do not intend to try to compete with the excellent speech made by the noble, Lord, Lord Feversham, earlier this afternoon.
308
We in your Lordships' House are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White for giving us a chance to discuss this Consultative Document, this Green Paper. Others have referred, and no doubt will refer, to other aspects of the document and the varying degress of excellence of its various parts. But, at the risk of repeating some of what has already been said by previous speakers, I wish to confine my activities to one particular aspect: namely, the issue of Her Majesty's Government's proposal that the Water Research Centre should be absorbed into the National Water Authority. This proposal is enlarged upon in paragraphs 19 to 22 of the document, and although this grouping of paragraph is, I would submit, given the correct heading, in that somebody has appreciated the difference between research and data collection they then, in the subsequent paragraphs, fog the whole issue by muddling it up.
If one says to a political person the word " research ", of course it can only mean one thing; it means gathering information, probably by means of a research assistant. It is done in the hope that that politician's future pronouncements, he hopes, will make some sense and be related to the facts of the case. Perhaps it is understandable that the Minister, being a politician, fortunately or unfortunately, thinks of research in that light. Hence, if I may quote from the Green Paper, we have the sentence:
" The National Water Authority will therefore need its own research facilities in connection with the planning duties it is to assume."
In this sentence alone I think we have the evidence, if not the complete proof, of this muddled thinking. In such a context no doubt it is sensible to absorb the Water Research Centre, but it also shows what little thought has been given to what the Water Research Centre actually does. It does technological research: it does not do solely data collection for planning purposes.
I am not sure; perhaps I may be being a little unjust, and perhaps there were lingering doubts in the minds of the authors of this Green Paper that they are making a nonsense. Hence they add a little sentence:
"… indeed the borderline between planning and research is often artificial."
Who is trying to kid who over this? Is the Minister trying to convince the Depart-

309
ment, or vice versa? Or is the Minister trying to convince himself? It was only three years ago, as we have heard, that your Lordships' House debated in detail this subject during the passage of the then Water Act. During the passage of that Act the Department of the Environment issued an Explanatory Paper in which they gave detailed and reasoned arguments for what they intended to do at that time. These were detailed, carefully prepared, and very explicit; they utterly blow apart the sketchy little paragraphs which we get, 19, 20, and 21, in the present document.
Although most of this Departmental Explanatory Paper, to which I have referred, is directly relevant to this, I shall read, if I may, only three short extracts to your Lordships. In paragraph 14 of the Paper to which I have referred, it says:
" The general debate about the central planning function has by concentrating upon that relatively small part of research which is directly relevant to planning obscured both the real scope of research and the need to co-ordinate more efficiently the present fragmented research activities."
This was the Departmental Explanatory Paper, so it rather looks as though they are perhaps the intended victims of this new campaign for convincement. Further on it continues:
" The Water Research Association was created to serve the public water supply industry not only I in England and Wales but in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Its membership includes manufacturers of plant, industrialists with water problems, consultant engineers and overseas organisations."
Then, finally, in referring to the various bodies which were to be merged to make the Water Research Centre, the document says:
— although much of the work of these bodies will be for the Council and the regional water authorities some of the existing bodies have a much wider range of customers—customers with a right to have a voice in determining policy. These other customers have moreover contributed to the assets of the bodies and it would not be equitable to deprive them of these assets."
My Lords, try to reconcile those detailed, careful statements with the very sketchy little paragraphs and paltry statements we get in the present Green Paper. The water authorities of Scotland and Wales have already said, " Please leave the Water Research Centre as it is ". That would also be echoed by the 230 other members of the Centre, to say nothing of those on the waiting list who wish to
310
join the Centre. Research in the water industry is not just confined to planning a supply of clean water and treating dirty water. It has far wider interests. It has the involvement of manufacturing industries, consulting firms, universities, and others at home and abroad, all of whom are concerned with water as a vital component of our total environment. In like manner, the Water Research Centre is not only concerned with the very narrow segment of the water cycle which the National Water Authority concerned itself with, although we hear now it is to undertake boating and fishing. It goes further and deeper: it covers water as a vital component of every industrial process, and the relation of water to our quality of living generally.
Why are we suddenly crying change now, after only just over two years? Small children are dissuaded from pulling out seeds and small plants to see how they are growing, and probably plant elsewhere. Can we not have some national " Nanny " to dissuade Ministers and Departments from doing the same sort of thing? Is the Centre unsatisfactory in its organisation? I shall be interested to hear any evidence which can be put out to support that view.
Again, let us look at the end of paragraph 20 where it says:
"…almost all contracts are placed by the Government."
Why, therefore, am I making this fuss? Perhaps the Centre already belongs body and soul to Government. The outside interests are negligible. I am making a fuss because I think that that little statement is the cleverest piece of subjective insinuation that I have met fot a very long time. I appreciate that about three lines before there is inserted the small word " revenue ", referring to the subscriptions that are paid by the authorities to the Centre, and also to the other areas from which it obtains its revenue. If one is to take revenue terms absolutely, then there could be some substance in making such a statement. And, obviously, if you get a Government contract it tends to he a very big one. It will tend to swamp other, smaller industrial contracts in revenue only.
Such contracts placed by Government tend to involve many tens of thousands of pounds in civil engineering works before

311
any research is done—getting at the water, digging holes. I suggest that to estimate the usage of a Centre, it is better to consider the number of contracts and not just the sum total of revenue alone. If we are to consider the more normal research contract received by the Centre —say, of between £2,000 and £10,000—the Government are outnumbered at least two to one. Even the revenue from Scotland and the Northern Irish authorities amounts to over 10 per cent. of the authorities subscriptions, anyway. Is that not rather a different picture from the one which states that almost all contracts are placed by Government?
The Government may ask: why has this Centre not done even better? On the other hand, it ill becomes those who live in ceramic edifices to play with projectiles. It was only two years ago that the Centre was established and the senior management effort has been for a long time on internal organisation, not research. In fact, over half the staff of the Centre has been on the pay-roll for less than a year. So please, not again—please do not start tearing the whole lot up and waste a tremendous amount of valuable effort on internal re-organisation and not on research just to please some little whim. I wonder whether some of the disadvantages of what they were intending did not become apparent to the authors of the Green Paper, who perhaps rushed to repair the intended damage. There is an announcement that members may continue to contract with the National Water Authority in respect of such research work as they may require doing, but can we really think that such contracts will be accepted on anything other than sufferance and when convenient to the main body? Is it to appease, as has been suggested, some misplaced idea of apparent administrative tidiness that one destroys the existing organisation after all the trouble on setting it up; a structure in which there is an obvious declared wish for involvement by industry and the other members? Are we to destroy all this for the sake of some misconceived idea and a complete disregard of the nonsenses that it will beget in its wake?
It may be that it is a genuine lack of appreciation between technological and statistical research. if it is necessary, no doubt it is quite easy to strengthen the existing strong links that already exist,
312
and the liaison that exists, between the Centre and the Planning Unit. But please, let us not destroy one and its equally valuable links to achieve these other links. The present membership organisation is a highly flexible method of organisation; it is adaptable and it can evolve easily to meet new needs. Do we consider that a monolithic gargantuan National Water Authority will be so well placed?
We all know how little attention is paid even to statutory consultative committees, let alone any others, and I am sure that that is all the members will get in return for their present rights, where they have a vote in council on how the Centre and its work is financed, executed and controlled. This facet of its organisation makes the Centre unique in Europe and the Centre has not been slow in recognising this. It is fast gathering members from overseas, members who appreciate the chance of involvement in such a Centre of excellence. The Commission of the European Communities is also very interested in such a Centre and I have with me the results of but one of the contracts from Directorate-General 13 placed with the Centre. Do noble Lords think that they will be as interested in just another pseudo-Government laboratory which does not have the same wide base of membership from industry as is at present enjoyed by the Centre?
Probably it is a lack of appreciation in the Department of the two different types of research and is not perhaps just an administrative whim. However, I strongly suspect that once this decision was taken, a search was made to fabricate good subjective evidence in an attempt to support and pretend that it led to what was in fact a prejudged decision. To me, this section of the Green Paper, with its complete lack of factual support, is a classic of this type of approach. I believe that Her Majesty's Government have failed miserably to make their case. I suggest that they drop it now and not waste everyone's time in attempting to defend the indefensible, and, reading between the lines, I am not sure whether they have even convinced themselves of their own case.
4.56 p.m.
Lord SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I too wish to add my congratulations on

313
the fine maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of High Wray. I wish at the outset to declare my interest in that 1 am a director of a water company, the East Anglian Water Company, whose area covers about 500 square miles within the boundaries of the Anglian Water Authority, which stretches from the Humber to the Thames and as far West as Northamptonshire. My company has been operating for over 120 years and has never restricted the supply of water, and its water rates and charges to trade and industrial consumers are considerably less than those levied by the neighbouring divisions of the Anglian Water Authority. Despite this—it would be churlish to say " because of this "— it is proposed by the Government that my company and all the other water companies in the country should be integrated into one or more of the regional water authorities.
The reason advanced in the Green Paper is:
"…the need to correct the obvious anomaly created by the Water Act 1973 in leaving substantially untouched the 28 water companies still operating in England and Wales."
The 28 water companies, incidentally, supply nearly one-quarter of the country with its water, and, because they are autonomous statutory bodies operating through small boards of directors with wide experience in the water industry and in business generally, they are able to make immediate and direct decisions on all matters affecting their organisation, their consumers and their employees, being particularly sensitive to local needs. The fact that they are statutory companies obliges them to provide a public water supply for a strictly controlled financial return and requires them to ensure that any surplus from water charges is applied for the reduction of future charges. The same such limitations are not imposed on the water authorities.
When the reorganisation of the water industry took place some two years ago it was specifically enacted that the water companies should continue to operate as in the past, but in order to fit them into the new situation they had to enter into agency arrangements with the various water authorities in whose areas they found themselves. Since then there has been established a close working relation
314
ship with the National Water Council and with the water authorities, and a growing fund of good will has materialised. Members of the staffs of the companies serve on committees and Working Parties concerned with all aspects of the industry both locally and nationally, and I have heard of no complaints from the authorities as to their efficiency or co-operation.
It is the opinion of many, and I share it, that two years is far too short a time to review a countrywide industry which was, and is, faced with so many difficult problems of reorganisation, rationalisation and integration. Indeed, it has hardly had time to get its feet wet. Be that as it may, now that the review is being undertaken I feel most strongly that to increase public expenditure at a time when most people are agreed that this should in fact be decreased, is wholly unacceptable. The present capital expenditure of the water companies is about £350 million, and this has been raised over the years on the Market at the going rate. Some £15 million to £25 million is now raised annually from the private sector at interest rates which compare more than favourably with those paid by the water authorities on money borrowed from the public loan funds or provided by Government stock.
My Lords, while the Green Paper speaks of fair compensation for the proposed integration—and this would mean the transfer of a huge new debt from the private to the public sector—it also means that every penny spent on capital works in the future must come from public funds. Is this really necessary? Surely it would be preferable from every point of view—other, of course, than that of political persuasion—to leave the water companies as they are, serving as loyal and co-operative agents of the water authorities, with no extra burden whatsoever on public expenditure.
A heavy majority of the employees—I emphasise " employees "—of all the water companies is against the Government's proposals. Indeed, my own cornpany's employees are wholly against them, and there is a general acceptance by all but the most dogmatic of the value of a mixed economy. If the water companies were to be integrated with the water authorities, there would remain no yardstick by which the efficiency or,

315
indeed, the charges made for the public water supply could be measured, and it is possible that before long a general water service charge might emerge which could include the cost of sewerage, water supply, fishing and even recreation. Certainly the poor, long-suffering consumer would not know just what he was paying for, except that it was probably far too much.
My Lords, when the Conservative Government's White Paper on the reorganisation of the water industry was published in 1971 it stated that water company undertakings were viable and efficient, and it saw for them a continuing role. Nothing since that time appears to merit a change of view, and it is 'strongly to be hoped that there will be a great and successful opposition to the nationalisation of the companies which have served the country and their local communities so well over the past hundred years.
5.3 p.m.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of High Wray, and I am very pleased to see him here. In Cumbria we are very well supplied with water—we even export it—but we are not well supplied with noble Lords. They are thin on the ground there, and so I am pleased to see this addition to our number. I welcome the setting up of the National Water Authority. I was one of those in 1973 who, like my noble friend Lord De Ramsey, supported the noble Baroness in her regrets at the demise of the old Water Resources Board. Here we have what appears to be a new Water Resources Board; but this time it has teeth, and indeed the power to develop and implement a 20-year strategy for water. Evidently the regional water authorities are seen to have failed in this regard. Nevertheless, the proposal raises questions of great significance for the numerous interests outside the water industry, such as conservation and agriculture; and frequently these interests are conflicting. Your Lordships will all remember the passionate environmental debates over reservoirs at Cow Green, Meldon, Swincombe, and those showed how much people care about these things.
The concentration of expertise and authority in a single national agency must make for efficiency and for an
316
altogether more rational set-up so far as technical and management judgment go, but this very increase in efficiency makes for difficulties for people who care about conservation.
There is a real danger that there will be a muffling of debate over those crucial value judgments and assumptions which must underlie any long term strategy. Those value judgments and assumptions belong very much in the public arena. They involve decisions about visual amenity. They involve such ideas as social accounting, and all these belong outside the technical efficiency of bodies like the NWA and indeed like the old Central Electricity Generating Board, which rather appears to be the pattern for the new water authority. There are safeguards. There is the proposal for a five-yearly publication of the strategy report for 20 years ahead, rather like the old Water Resources Board's report which came out just before its demise. There is a range of options within the policy field. And this would be putting the water industry well ahead of many other industries, nationalised and others, in displaying their strategic thinking to public view.
Another safeguard, one presumes, will be the insertion of an amenity section within the new Act which will emerge from this. Statutory amenity sections are rather like the statutory woman on a statutory undertaking: one sometimes wonders whether they are there only for ornament rather than for use. Since I suspect that the Central Electricity Generating Board is the pattern we will be looking to in the new National Water Authority, I fear that it has not always followed there that the statutory injunction to have regard to amenity has been obeyed. I know that complaints have been made, and indeed ignored on this score, and I am advised that the courts would be quite unable and probably unwilling to enforce an amenity section of the Act.
Hitherto a combination of Departmental review of Ministerial responsibility and Parliamentary debate has been supposed to guarantee the public acceptance for these value judgments and assumptions on which the priorities of an industry are to be based. But we all know that Parliament is often unable to do this. Success depends very much on public

317
confidence in Parliament's capacity to reflect changing attitudes. One cannot help thinking that that confidence is wearing thin. The noble Baroness will recall what happened at Shipley the other day. I strongly disapproved of that; nevertheless it was a manifestation of the fact that people have lost confidence in Parliament's ability to scrutinise the type of question we have in mind. Indeed, Parliament is ill-equipped for this kind of scrutiny, and a very good example is the complexities of traffic forecasting. Indeed, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has said as much.
I wonder whether some new form of public inquiry procedure could not be devised —designed, indeed—to help Parliament evaluate these sort of things. I think that a public inquiry along the lines of the " examination-in-public procedure which is used for structure plans, producing an official report, which would provide a basis for both Parliament and the Department of the Environment to review the options, might be helpful. It is the difficulty of getting hold of these options which makes me put this suggestion before your Lordships. For example, 1 have had difficulty in trying to get out of the Central Electricity Generating Board what options are available when they are making up their long-term strategy. They are very unwilling to make their long-term strategy known. They say it is too difficult. too complex. But surely they base their finances, phased over a period of 20 years, upon a long-term strategy in which there must be different options. I think that amenity societies have great difficulty in extracting those options from them. How can Parliament or the public have confidence in the value judgments and assumptions, which as I say underly these long-term strategies, unless they have been properly scrutinised? I hope the Government will look very closely at this to see if something can be devised to achieve what I suggest is not being achieved in bodies such as the CEGB, which is going to be the pattern for the new NWA.
5.12 p.m.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, I am delighted to join in the universal congratulations to my noble friend Lord Wilson of High Wray, and I am certain
318
the House appreciated the pleasant and non-controversial comments that he had to make. I hope we shall hear more of him in the future; and on those occasions, I am quite sure, judging from his reputation, he will be a little more controversial than he was during his speech today. Perhaps I may also congratulate my noble friend Lady White on giving us the opportunity to discuss this exceedingly important matter. She has already expressed quite a number of the criticisms of the Green Paper that I would have made, but which it is quite unnecessary for me to make now, and has done it in far more vivid language than I could command. But I join with her in expressing the fundamental criticism of the Green Paper that inadequate arguments are put forward to support a case for what are really revolutionary changes within the industry. I share her fears that there is a possibility, as she graphically described it, of opening up a vista of a flood of memoranda between bureaucrats. I agree. There is every possibility that damage could be done by over-hasty decisions merely in the interests of administrative tidiness.
I share those sentiments, my Lords; but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the matter. Personally, I have no objection to the scrutiny at any time of a nationalised industry. There is an indication here, however, of further upheaval in an industry which has not yet settled down after changes that took place about two years ago, and therefore it demands very close questioning on the part of this House and another place. I suppose that at this stage I should declare a personal interest in that I have for some years been a member of the board of a water company, but I can assure your Lordships that my attitude towards the Green Paper itself is not occasioned by that fact. I would say, rather, that my fairly long experience and involvement in large-scale administration, and my knowledge of nationalised industries through my association with the old Prices and Incomes Board and current activities with POUNC, indicate that what is needed today is not the development of more monolithic organisations but the encouragement of conditions which would make for greater public accountability on the part of nationalised industry and would permit of greater responsibility to users. Those two factors are of paramount importance, and I see

319
little or nothing in this document—indeed, nothing—that would indicate that they are recognised as problems.
I have the great fear that in the anxiety to achieve administrative tidiness, the planners' dream, it can, if we are not careful, turn out to be the users' nightmare, because I see very few checks in the organisation that is envisaged which would permit of what I feel is desperately necessary in all nationalised industries, and that is to ensure that you have the development of comparative standards by which you can judge efficiency and also a greater degree of public accountability. I think a good case could be made out for a single National Authority. That may be; but it is certainly not well argued in this document. I would emphasise that there is no single authority which would cover such a wide span of activities as that which is envisaged in the case of this National Authority. Although we were told by my noble friend on the Front Bench that this is not a Green Paper which indicates a green light, the " go-ahead ", but is an opportunity for discussion, the tragedy of it is that my noble friend went on to indicate clearly and convincingly that there were one or two points which were beyond any consideration at all the Government had made up their mind. That is not the way to approach the matter. If we are having a Green Paper for discussion, let us have the whole lot under discussion and not have areas which are reserved solely for Government decision alone.
We notice, too, that in their determination to build up this single National Authority they are eliminating any authorities that would provide a basis of comparison, as in the case of the research organisations which are in existence now; and also the water companies. It is only two years since the basic reorganisation of the water industry took place, and that was a traumatic experience, as everybody within the industry would confirm. Yet, there is now the suggestion of pulling up the plant to see how the roots are getting on. I am no gardener, but I doubt whether that is an effective way to make sure one has a good garden.
I would draw the attention of the House to paragraph 12 of this Document, which is rather interesting. It states:
320
" The Government regard it as essential that if the best use is to be made of both natural and financial resources within the water industry as a whole the industry must be provided with a strong national authority … ".
As I said previously, there may be a case for that. Then it goes on to say:
" No less important, however, is the need to correct the obvious anomaly created by the Water Act 1973 in leaving substantially untouched the twenty-eight water companies still operating in England and Wales…"
They are entitled to that opinion. But they state, as I will repeat:
" No less important, however, is the need to correct the obvious anomaly…".
In other words, the absorption of 28 water companies is just as important—and that is what the Government say—as the suggestion that to make the best use of natural and financial resources, they set up a strong National Authority. That to my mind seems to be utterly incredible.
I hate to think so, but I wonder whether it is based on some ideological objection to the word " company ". As everyone knows, the water company is not a normal profit-making organisation. It has statutory obligations that it has to fulfil and its objectives of public service are as well-defined as in any nationalised industry. That should be borne in mind because no argument is advanced, none whatsoever, that they should be absorbed. There have been no complaints from the water authorities of the efficiency of the water companies. There has been a close working relationship built up and during this present drought, if you examine the record of the water companies you will find little or no justification for criticism of their actions. At the same time to take over the water companies would increase the burden of public expenditure not only in compensation but in relation to the continuing need for capital.
May I point to another important factor not merely bearing on water but on something I hold very dear in my consideration of nationalised undertakings. In paragraph 39 one reads the fair and honest statement:
"Some of the water authorities are responsible for very large areas, and there have been criticisms of their remoteness."
It goes on:
"…not all these reorganisations are yet complete."

321
The Document states that one of the disabilities is the remoteness of the organisation from the user. We should seek in every one of our nationalised industries to ensure that the user has a more effective voice. The actions of the nationalised industries should be more responsive to their wishes. Yet what do we find? In spite of that remoteness, we have in the water companies a clear indication of their close and continuing contact with the user. Nobody denies that. Therefore, what is the point? I will go along with any continuing consideration of the water industry. But at the same time do not let us be foisted off with suggestions based on the need for tidiness.
There is a further point: the equalisation of charges—which is dear to most people's hearts and certainly dear to the hearts of those who have the interests of the user in mind. There is a not very convincing argument here. I think that to some extent we are not being given all the facts. Much of the Document deals with this aspect. I agree that it may be desirable as an objective, but it does not point out how minimal would be the effect of the proposals that have been made. I refer your Lordships to paragraph 66. There it is made clear that equalisation of charges can be a disincentive to more efficient organisation and, in my opinion, can often act as a cloak or cover for inefficiency. Therefore, one should go very carefully before dashing in for political reasons with any system of equalisation. What does it mean in fact? There are only about two areas: Wales, which gains a slight benefit and the Thames that will lose.
I have in my possession information relating to inquiries made and estimates made as to the effect if this came into being. I would ask my noble friend who will be replying for the Government to give us some indication of the extent of the change that will take place with this policy of equalisation. We are entitled to know that; because if equalisation is one of the factors which justify these considerable changes we are entitled to know what we are buying and what will be the extent of this equalisation. I think that is very important indeed.
In short, I would accept in principle that it is a good thing to work towards
322
but let us make sure that it is not once again employed in such a manner as to restrain initiative and efficiency. Above all, we have got to seek, not only in our nationalised industries but in the private sector too, constantly to improve our efficiency. If, I think, we spent as much time in dealing with the nuts and bolts of operational efficiency as we do in creating new administrative structures, this country would get out of its economic difficulties a great deal more quickly than if this sort of practice is maintained. That is my message to this House.
My Lords, I have no objection at all to changes in the constant scrutiny; but I hope the Government do not really mean what is said from the Front Benches: that we can have a look at it and we can pass our comments but that the Government have made up their mind on the matter. The whole thing should be thrown open to complete consideration because there are many anomalies. There is not the time to deal with those anomalies, but there is an indication that merely for tidiness they must absorb the water companies. Yet there is no proposal for the discontinuance of arrangements under Section 15 of the 1973 Act whereby district councils discharge sewage functions. There is no change there. Why are the companies pulled in? Why is this allowed to continue? I think we are entitled to know that, too.
In short, I say that I share the view of my noble friend Lady White that there are inadequate arguments to sustain the point of view expressed in this document. There is too little evidence given to the public in this document. I would hope, even though one accepts the need for continuing scrutiny, that the dominant feature would be the proper economic provision of services to the user and the building up of some administration—not if it is monolithic, but one whereby you can check, counter check and test whether the organisation is efficient or not. This is the structure that we ought to be thinking about. I hope as a result of this debate that the Government will have second thoughts about some of the points expressed here.
5.30 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady

323
White, for initiating this debate on the one mineral for which no substitute exists. In the very helpful Consultative Document, Appendix I shows the water authorities of England and Wales without any reference to the physical geography of the country which determines or is said to determine their boundaries. Schedule 2 to the Water Act 1973 requires every water authority to keep and provide facilities for consultation of maps of their respective area. Nowhere in the Consultative Document is there available a consolidated physical map which shows all the water authorities which would immediately disclose that the canal and inland navigation system crosses these boundaries again and again. While obviously numerous factors are involved, it is the fact of physical geography that commends a National Water Authority.
The British Waterways Board, a nationalised industry, controls already some two-thirds of the navigable waterways, and it seems wholly illogical that another third should be controlled by the other water authorities. If ever there was a strong case for integration, for a national water authority, there is one here. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there are three quite separate functions involved. The first is the provision of water for industrial and domestic use. and for this end the proposal for a 20-year plan for the whole industry seems commendable. I wonder, however, whether anyone can truly say that they can see ahead for 20 years, and for this reason a five year review seems sensible.
The second function is the control of inland navigation. While arguing for an integrated system, I would say that we must not lose the knowledge and expertise that the British Waterways Board has already acquired with regard to navigation and to the provision of recreational facilities. It would seem more logical if while constituting a National Water Authority that the British Waterways Board should remain as a distinct administrative part of it, autonomous within its particular sphere. This, I gather, is the view of the British Waterways Board itself and it seems to be the most prudent one.
I regretted not to see in the Consultative Document any mention of commercial freight at a time when the state of our
324
national economy makes it prudent to use every natural resource that we have. Surely we should do all we can to encourage the transport of commercial freight by water. The Transport on Water Association, of whose General Council I am a Member, is very aware that the water authorities have no interest at all in the transport of freight and they therefore consider it totally unsuited to promote transport on water. If there is to be a National Water Authority, I consider that commercial users should be strongly represented on the Board. The remaining function is that of research which at present is carried out by the Water Research Centre. This is constituted as a research association. Its governing Committee, some 29 members, represent the water authorities and those bodies responsible for water supplies in Scotland and Northern Ireland, water companies, consulting engineers, manufacturers and major industrial users. It also includes universities and other bodies at home and abroad. There are no fewer than 40 examples of other research associations of industry in this country. I do not see any advantage in not leaving research independent, nor do I know of any reason to suggest that the present system is not working well. If something is working well, I should have thought it is best left alone.
There is one other matter that I should mention briefly. It is the staff of the British Waterways Board. This was chartered in 1968. Only three years later, in 1971, it was proposed that the Board's work should be divided among the seven regional water authorities. This idea was abandoned in 1973 because it proved impracticable. Now in 1976 their future is again in the balance. My Lords, of course this would be upsetting to any staff whatever their work. May I beg the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to ensure that the Government think of them sympathetically and try to find a; solution soon.
5.34 p.m.
The Earl of KINTORE: My Lords, my first pleasure is to add my words of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of High Wray, on a line maiden speech; and my second pleasure is to thank the noble Baroness for bringing this matter before your Lordships today. Thirdly, I apologise to her, as a mere

325
Scot, for trespassing in the realms of England and Wales. But, my Lords, I should like to suggest that as this concerns us in parts fairly vitally, how else do you get in if the Green Paper which covers your future does not say so?
I am going to confine myself to three paragraphs, Nos. 19, 20 and 21. I must declare an interest, being the chairman of the regional water services department of the Grampian Region which is an area of some 4,000 square miles. Therefore I am in fairly close contact with the problems of water and sewage more or less every day. Having said that, we are well satisfied with the service we get from the Water Research Council. They meet our requirements admirably. They are very good people to work with, and we should not like to see that situation upset. That is largely due to their structure, which works in the same way as an industrial research association. It should he preserved at all costs. Many other speakers have said that, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, said words to that effect. I should like to add my voice to hers. There are many aspects of this type of organisation which make it ideal for water research work connected with the practical field.
I will enlarge a little on the membership of the Council because this is a very relevant point. My figures are from the report of the Water Research Council for 1974–75. At that time, 9 water authorities from England and Wales, 10 from Scotland and one from Northern Ireland were members. There were 26 water undertakings in England and Wales and 13 foreign and European undertakings which were members. That is very significant. There were 38 consultants from the United Kingdom and 6 from overseas who were members. There were 50 United Kingdom industrial firms and 4 Commonwealth and overseas members, There were 45 educational research establishments from the United Kingdom, 9 from the Commonwealth and 12 from overseas. Incidentally, the manufacturing industry contributed about 50 per cent. of the W.R.C. income. This should be emphasised.
I think a " bull " point in considering the Water Research Council is that if it
326
is sufficiently independent for the European countries and institutions to use it, that might prevent some of the higher flights of fancy of the Directives that we get out of the European Economic Community at the moment. Some of these are just not practicable. If we had the same research association sufficiently independent and not due to be a Government Department, this would help on all scores. The Grampian Region are also members of the Council. We use the research centre and have a right to have carried out any research we require. We have a voice in its running and we are well satisfied; we all get along well together. The work done is excellent and helps us very much indeed. We are very much indebted to the centre.
Somewhere this Document vaguely mentions Scotland, and I have experience of the kind of representation we might expect in a body such as the one that may be set up, because on the Industry Training Board —and I hasten to say that I have nothing against their courses. which are excellent—I represent not only my own region but also a neighbouring region. That means that one chap is representing something like one-fifth or one-quarter of Scotland. I do not think that kind of representation, if it was to be foisted upon us, is good enough. We do not object to that as regards the ITB, because there arc cogent reasons for it, but we should be objecting to it in a new set-up.
Members of the Water Research Council's staff and our own engineers work together extremely well and harmoniously. Our relations with the engineers of the Scottish Development Department are also excellent, but very much in the nature of " boss and employee ", which is not at all the same thing. About two years ago, the experience of 50 years and 40 major industries led to the then Government thinking that the Industrial Research Association principle was a fine one, and this was duly set up. I do not know of anything in the Green Paper which points out why they should have changed their views on that. If there are reasons, they certainly are not stated in the Green Paper, and therefore 1 would hope that they would tell us about these, because we do not know what they are. Before that, the water industry had had good results for

327
20 years, working with the Research Association. I can see nothing against it and everything for it.
A large number of problems, though not by any means all the problems involved, are common to large areas of England, Scotland and Wales, so that it is possible—and indeed quite a lot has been done—to pool research, because we all take advantage of the research that has been done. Since the " trade secret" aspect is largely absent from the water industry, this helps the Research Association, especially when dealing with foreigners, because most of the secrets are not secret anyway. I certainly think that this aspect should be preserved.
Another very important aspect, the human element, was touched upon by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. I have seen a great deal of this. I was a founder member of the East of Scotland Water Board when it was set up some seven years ago. Everybody was stirred up; no one knew what was happening, and the staff were busy sorting out anomalies and pacifying the irate people who felt insecure because their jobs were in danger and could not quite understand what was happening. There was, in any case, so much uncertainty that the position was very difficult. Three or four years after this, when the dust had begun to settle down, we had regional re-organisation. The dust still has not settled following that, and here we are again about to be plunged into uncertainty. The operatives and many of the engineers are fed up, and I thoroughly sympathise with them. Unless there is a really good reason why this should be inflicted on working people, engineers, technical people and so on, for some darned Departmental whim, I think it is scandalous. Therefore, my Lords, I put in as earnest a plea as I can for this matter to be looked at again.
I should also like to say that, as this matter clearly contains a large Scottish element, we in Scotland should be given a Green Paper so that we can discuss our own problems. I would ask: are we merely to be told that this is for England and so we must just follow on? We have our own particular problems in Scotland. There, of course, our river purification boards have a different identity and at this moment I am, perhaps with tongue in cheek, as a member of the
328
river purification board, egging them on as hard as I can to sue me as the chief polluter, being chairman of the committee responsible for water services, because we are producing effluents which are not up to the Royal Commission standard. The reason why that is so is that we are not allowed to borrow the money needed to make the improvements which are required by the SDD. We tried to get out a five-year programme, which would be thought to be normal planning. We were told: " That is fine, lovely; but there is no money, and as long as you pull the plug and it disappears, that is all right."
5.48 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, in paragraph 28 of the Green Paper, it is stated:
" In the Government's view, the most promising way ahead would be to merge the BWB into the National Water Authority, which would become a national navigation authority."
Although most people agree that some integration would be an advantage, there is also some anxiety over the future of the commercial freight division of the British Waterways Board. I can find nothing in the Green Paper about this section.
Owing to the great increase of interest in water transport, this is an area of vital importance; and here I must declare an interest. I am a trustee and a member of the General Council of the Transport-on Water Association. This is a voluntary body founded in 1975. It is a " grass roots organisation, springing from the lightermen of London; and its objective is to promote the transport of freight on inland and estuarial waters. The joint presidents are the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and Mr. Jack Jones; and it draws its membership from all parts of the community. It includes 37 Members of another place and nine Members of your Lordships' House, drawn from all Parties.
The British Waterways Board's commercial freight division has led the way in the area of water transport, but it has had problems, such as those connected with the BACAT system, and it does need official support and encouragement. This could be done either by retaining it as a commercial water freight body—for example, as the British Waterways Transport Board—or by creating a new

329
body to which the British Waterways Board's freight operation could be transferred, along with their wharves, warehouses and other related assets. The water industry is monopolistic and uncompetitive. It has no interest whatsoever in the transport of goods and it is totally unsuited, therefore, to promote transport on water.
If the activities of the freight division of the British Waterways Board are allowed to fall within the water industry, it is the fear of many people that they will not receive the consideration and independent impetus which they most urgently require. What can be done to achieve closer cooperation between the transport organisations and the water industry? It has been suggested that closer co-operation might be obtained by the chairman of the former having a seat on the National Water Authority. I should like the Government's reactions to this suggestion.
I should now like to say a few words on the proposed national navigation authority. Here, again, opinion is divided. I agree that a national integrated system of waterways as water services is desirable, but I do not support the concept of a national navigation authority as such. The navigation function is quite distinct, and is related specifically to the needs of vessels and the purposes for which they navigate. As to a national licence, few boat owners see any need for this. The local nature of the many navigation authorities has proved in many cases to be an advantage reflecting, as it does, local navigation requirements, and to remove navigation powers to a new and possibly remote national authority would not, in my view, be for the benefit and best interests of boat owners.
5.52 p.m.
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, for me, at least, it would be illuminating to know the authors of this Document, because it is clearly not written by water engineers and hydrogeologists. For example, the Document repeatedly refers to, " national strategy ". One would imagine that we were at war with water, with barricades of paper and defences behind them, with fellow travellers reprocessing the paper pulp. But, more seriously, the Document tends to annihilate a very important and
330
treasured possession of this country, which is the background of over one and a half centuries of research in water overground, and particularly underground. We were the first country in the world to study underground water systematically, and the archives and experience that we have built up will be, at least, or at worst, sterilised, but certainly not properly used as they are at the moment. If your Lordships would like me to remind you of the importance of this type of research, you may recall the many instances in World War One when water supplies were crucial, and more particularly in World War Two, when the faster movement of troops made this matter vital.
I thought it would not bore your Lordships if I quoted something I wrote in Discovery in 1945, to illustrate the point which I wish to establish. I wrote:
" Wherever our armies operated, water supplies were of primary importance, and the geologists permanently attached to our armies were engaged almost solely on this task of finding water. In North Africa, in Italy, and even in France they were not fortunate enough to have at their disposal an accumulation of fly drogeological data comparable to that available for this country. Despite this, they were able to apply the principles established by our home researches, and a high measure of success was achieved. The provision of a water supply in the Fuka Basin for our troops operating between Tobruk and El Alamein illustrates the importance of this type of work in a military operation. From the Fuka Basin the nearest supply of any quantity of fresh water was 30 miles away at Matruh, which was supplied by the desert pipeline carrying purified Nile water from Alexandria—a distance of 110 miles.
Along this line there were only two military sources of supply, both of which were small; throughout the remainder of the area the water proved by boreholes was almost invariably saline. At Fuka, however, there were two Bedouin wells which yielded small quantities of fresh water. Geologists and water engineers examined this area in great detail as an extra water supply here would be of great strategic importance to our troops. About 60 boreholes, sunk in as many days, proved that the area contained fresh water above the main watertable which was almost entirely saline. It was also proved that the Bedouin wells were not situated in the place ideally suited to obtain the maximum yield of water without contaminating it with the underlying saline water.
These researches located the most advantageous sites, and estimates were made of the quantity of water that could be pumped per day without impairing the continuity of the supply of fresh water. Between September 1941 and March 1942 the Fuka boreholes averaged 50,000 gallons of water a day. Then, in the retreat from Tobruk to El Alamein, these important wells were completely demolished, but all records were carefully preserved; the wells afforded no assistance to the enemy. Among the places of high strategic

331
importance selected by Generals Alexander and Montgomery in their plans for the break-through westwards from El Alamein was the Fuka Basin, for it constituted the only supply of water that could be assured for the troops in this forward position. Thus engineers bearing boring tackle, piping and pumps followed hard on the heels of the ' Desert Rats ', and within 48 hours of the area falling into our hands a new borehole had been sunk and a water supply established."
I give that as an illustration of the kind of research that will be hampered. It also illustrates the position that we occupy in the world in this subject. We are leaders in the world in underground water supply researches. Why, therefore, play around with something that is good? Therefore, I appeal—along with others, 1 hope—that in this concept of an authority we shall in no way impair or endanger the health and stature of our existing research centres in this country.
5.58 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, obviously, I must join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady White, for raising this subject which has given us a chance to look at the Green Paper. Also it is a great honour to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of High Wray, on making such a notable maiden speech which I found quite fascinating. I look forward to hearing him again, as I am sure we all do.
Overall, this Document must be regarded as sensible. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said, one finds on going through it that it sets the problem but does not really argue out the case. This is a little frustrating in places. For instance, the water companies are described as being anomalous. That may be true, but it must be remembered that they do a very good job at the moment. They are not like an ordinary company; they work to a very strict set of rules. At the moment, they are providing an excellent service at very fair rates. I agree that at a later date it may be sensible to tidy up the situation and bring them into the whole show, but at the moment we seem to forget that we have a major economic problem in this country. To lash out £350 million at this stage is totally unnecessary.
The other point which the noble Lord, Lord Somerleyton, made was that at this stage the water companies raise between
332
£15 million and £25 million a year to cover capital charges. This is a feature of the whole industry. All the way down the line there is the problem of raising money, for it is a highly capital intensive industry. One of the aspects of this Consultative Document about which I am a little concerned—as are, I am sure, other noble Lords who have already spoken—is that this industry has been reorganised relatively recently. Obviously it was due for reorganisation and that reorganisation has been successful. Perhaps there are areas where the reorganisation could be improved hut, as many noble Lords have said, it would be quite wrong to stir up the whole situation now and start again. It would cause much more harm than the good which might be achieved.
This question relates not only to the question of the water companies but also to that of research. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, made a very notable speech in which he outlined the excellent job that the Research Centre has done so far. Like the water companies, it has done an excellent job, although it has been operating for only a short time. The Centre is growing. however, and there are many arguments for keeping it as it is. I object to the reference in the Document to the NWA absorbing the Water Research Centre. That would be totally wrong. If the Research Centre could be left as an autonomous organisation with a responsibility, that would be a much better solution. The Research Centre is doing a considerable amount of work overseas and it has a special role to play in Europe. Just for the NWA to absorb the Centre would result in cutting it short at a stage of its development which would do not only the water industry but this country as well much harm.
Now I should like to turn to the subject of drought, and again there seems to be a lot of interference. The noble Baroness referred to drought as a national problem. With all due respect to the noble Baroness, although she said that drought is a national problem, it is not. It is a regional problem. In five regions there is a problem but in the others there is no problem at this stage. Therefore, to get involved with Ministers now would result in too much organisation, for only in some areas is there too little water.

333
One aspect which the noble Baroness raised was the ever increasing demand for water. Obviously, this is true. We ought to consider the fact that only by metering will the average consumer be in a position to do anything about the charges which he has to bear. I know that this involves a large capital cost but, as the noble Baroness said, water consumption is going up by leaps and bounds and at some point it has to be controlled. The switch-off campaign is a point in question. If you have to pay for the water you consume, you do something about it. I hope that serious consideration will be given to this aspect. It is not mentioned a great deal in the Consultative Document, but it is a point which we have to think about.
This brings me to the question of the equalisation of charges. Overall these are probably fair, but what worries many of us is the thought that if charges were totally equalised—I agree that the Consultative Document does not set out a case for total equalisation but for some equalisation, although it does not say how much—then, as the Document itself states, we should lose out on accountability. I should be very sorry if overall charges were jacked up because of a lack of accountability. There is also the question of service. We expect the water coming out of the tap to be clean and in nearly every case it is; and all credit must be given to the industry for the service which they supply. This is mainly due to the fact that the industry is answerable. Equalisation could reduce this service very seriously, and I hope that every consideration will be given to this point before we embark upon too much equalisation.
I was fascinated to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, when he sailed us through the cesspits of the stately homes of England and straight on to navigation and the rights of navigation by everyday people. I feel that I am not in a position to comment too fully on this matter. However, the noble Baronesses mentioned the question of navigation and I agree very much with what they said.
There is one final area which we must think about: the question of the membership, not only of the National Water Authority but also of the regional water
334
authorities themselves. The problem is that this is yet another enormous body, with people to be appointed to it. This happens in all the other industries as well and they are becoming vastly powerful. The National Water Authority will be a very powerful organisation indeed, controlling many people's lives. If it is a totally appointed body, the area of democracy will be eroded still further. In the case of membership of both the NWA and RWAs, very serious consideration must be given to the provision of a democratically elected element within these organisations. A certain amount of discussion is given to this point in the Consultative Document, but it would be wrong of us to forget the power which these organisations have over our lives and it is essential that this element of democracy should be retained.
After such a long and wide-ranging debate, I do not wish to say any more because the noble Baroness has many questions to answer. I hope, however, that she will give consideration to the question of representation on these authorities.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what has proved, as I think we all suspected it would be, a penetrating and wide-ranging debate on this crucial topic. I think that practically every anecdote and local analogy relating to water has been made in the debate. All that I have to say is that few wells have been left undug in examining the issues which the Government have presented for public discussion. I hope that the interest which has been displayed here this afternoon will shortly find echoes among all the others whom the Government have invited to contribute to the consultation process. For that reason alone, I believe that this debate will have served a very useful purpose.
Everybody who has spoken has testified to the importance of the subject, although, quite naturally, there was a great deal of difference of view and approach. I emphasised earlier that while we are in the consultative stage it would be impossible and entirely wrong for me to say anything about the Government's problems. For the same reason, apart from delaying everybody very much longer.

335
it would he a not very useful exercise to argue every point that has been made. However, all of the points that have been made will be taken into account by the Government because this debate has now become a very important part of the consultative process, and noble Lords may rest assured that today's Hansard will be closely scrutinised.
There are a number of points that it is right I should mention, comment upon and emphasise. Perhaps I may start with the cornerstone of the present proposals, the new National Water Authority, of which many noble Lords have spoken. A number of speakers have questioned the need to have another review so soon after the last. But this Government made it absolutely clear, both when they were in opposition and when they came into power, from the time when the Conservatives passed their 1973 Water Act, that we thought it wrong in a number of essentials—not just on the periphery but on the essentials—and this still applies. If the Green Paper seems thin in places—as both the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Peddle, commented; I should have thought that was a tremendous asset—it reflects the view of the Government that the facts, the needs and the arguments have really not changed because one inadequate reorganisation has been carried through. So what this paper is doing is to keep what was good of the reorganisation and to inject into it the most important thing, the principle of a central, strong organisation.
Although we do not quarrel with the principle of river basin management, and indeed we have never quarrelled with it and there is ample evidence that the strengths this provides in terms of the comprehensive management of water resources at the regional level are necessary, and indeed are vital, it cannot make sense to ignore the functions that properly belong to the centre and upon which the adequate satisfaction of the needs of England and Wales depend. It is this which I think is the central point and which has basically called forth the most discussion.
To us on this side of the House, Section I of the Water Act 1973, which speaks of a national policy, is not merely ringing piety. Its implementation is an urgent necessity and we believe that it can be
336
ignored no longer. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that a national strategy will be published for comment and I have taken very careful note, but I w ill not at the moment go into detail over the other points that he made in regard to public participation and the question of the public inquiry. There is a point which I really must make in connection with the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the question of drought. I did not in fact say that drought was a national problem. It is still fortunately only regional and local, but what I said was that it emphasises the question—and this is the national question—of the need for adequate and efficient deployment of resources. I was using it as an example, and if the noble Lord will read Hansard tomorrow he will see what I actually said about that.
A certain amount of discussion, and some of it fairly strong discussion, has taken place round the whole question of research. But to strengthen the centre of the industry cannot be done without change. A number of bodies will quite naturally be disturbed by the proposals, notably the Water Research Centre. We have heard the view expressed from both sides of the House that the Water Research Centre w ill profoundly change in character if it is absorbed by the National Water Authority. This is, of course, true in a sense. This must happen when there is a change in a body and a change in the allocation of work. But the Government have said quite explicitly that they wish to preserve certain safeguards to members of the existing association, and that no final proposals will be formulated without discussion.
It is quite clear that we shall need two types of research: applied research and a research organisation built right into the National Water Authority, and if nothing is said about that I think many people will ask how an authority of this type can be set up without its own research division. We are aware of the sensitivity here and I can promise noble Lords that what has been said on research will be taken carefully into account. What the Government cannot accept is the view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, that the National Water Authority could get the research it needs without having full control over the research programme.

337
That is not the industry's rule, and although it may be his own opinion, to which obviously he is entitled, I really must reject his allegation that the proposal was based on ignorance. The proposal was not based on ignorance; it was based on a consideration of the industry's needs.
I have more sympathy with the anxiety and concern expressed by my noble friend Lady White, but when she referred to planning and research 1 seem to remember that when she was speaking on the 1973 Bill she herself accepted that there is often a rather thin dividing line between planning and research where in fact you need to hitch the research up to the planning policy in order to try to get that right. In any case, the tying up of research to planning was in fact a keystone of the Water Resources Board's argument. But this does not exclude other areas of research which will be done by other bodies outside, with which I not only entirely agree but think is absolutely essential.
Another highly controversial area, which was to be expected, was that concerned with the water companies. I accept the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Somerleyton, that the water companies are perfectly efficient at present, but nevertheless 1 have not heard an adequate refutation of the fact that as time goes by the companies must become increasingly dependent for adequate resources upon the water authorities.
I think that, unusually, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, was a little less than fair when he said that our case was entirely based on dogma and on theory, when in fact I spelt out quite clearly that a totally anomalous situation was being created and would be perpetuated unless we did something about it. This is quite apart from the question of principle, and I think there are two things involved here. Even if one does not like the argument of principle there is a solid pragmatic argument for it, because one cannot plan, develop and manage all the resources of a region around a self-contained little package which is interested in only half the business, preserved immutable like a sore thumb in those places where private enterprise just happened to be the suppliers in 1973. There can he no autonomous growth for
338
the companies and I think we are all aware that their existence has been an anomaly ever since the Conservatives, in the last piece of legislation, decided on a fully integrated hydrologically based structure. But I emphasise that the Government will take fully into account staff concerns, both in the companies and in the receiving authorities, and will look with much greater detail than could he expressed this afternoon when the point was raised, into fair compensation for the companies. I am sorry that at this stage I cannot be more precise about the method of compensation.
I am also not at all sure that the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Somerleyton, who said that his company's staff are against it, is necessarily generally true. The British Waterways Board and inland waterways generally have quite naturally figured prominently in this debate, and the Government see this method as being by far the best way of preserving and making the best of this valuable asset, which is not only a reminder of our industrial history but also a major recreational asset. I would point out again here that although many of us would like to see the inland waterways used far more for freight, there are tremendous difficulties. I think one noble Lord compared our situation with Europe. He omitted to point out that the waterways there are very much wider and more easily navigable for heavy freight, so that while we want to keep as much freight as we can, and increase it where we can, it would be totally unrealistic to imagine that we can build up an enormous freight industry on the inland waterways in this country without tremendous capital investment, and changes which would have to be made at very great expense. We want a national navigation authority with canals linked organisationally, as they are physically, with the rest of the water industry. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, expressed this as being the view of the Opposition.
My Lords, the very worrying and difficult question of equalisation again has been mentioned by several noble Lords. I must emphasise once more that this proposal is intended as a stop-gap to remove the worst discrepancy until the National Water Authority can devise its own permanent scheme. I agree it is of limited effect, but then, it has limited

339
objectives. There is the effect on Wales to which my noble friend Lady White drew attention. The Government—and do not expect my noble friend Lady White to agree with this—cannot accept the suggestion that the Welsh Authority or, indeed, any other authority, should be free to make a profit on water transferred to other authorities. I believe we can think of better ways of making each authority endeavour to become self-sufficient in resources. But this suggestion would lead to wasteful duplication.
The issues raised in Paying for Water, which is the recently published document of the National Water Council, are very sensitive, and Ministers will wish to consider the document very carefully before commenting on its recommendations. The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, both referred to different aspects of the Scottish situation. The Green Paper covers only England and Wales. because Scotland is separate for water purposes. The national boundary acts effectively as a watershed. The organisation of the water services in Scotland is also quite different as, indeed, are so many of the other Scottish services compared with England and Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, at the end of my first speech this afternoon, raised again the question of why there could not be more transfers between Scotland and England. The answer is that Scotland is hydrologically separate from England and Wales, apart from any theoretical view about it. As I said in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Kintore. to all intents and purposes the Border is the watershed. I know my noble friend feels that this probably could be overcome, but the expense involved would he absolutely enormous in terms of the mechanism and so on, as I think he will appreciate.
I was delighted to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of High Wray, who made such a very good contribution to this complicated debate and who was able to bring all his experience and wide knowledge of this subject to the speech he made. There were a number of other points raised. The noble Lord, Lord de Ramsey, spoke on land drainage, the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, on cesspits, and a number of points were raised by my noble friend Lord Peddie. If I attempted to reply to all the points he
340
raised, it would start up another debate. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, referred to freight on the waterways, which I have already dealt with to some extent. I do not want to raise all these points again, or to repeat what is in the Consultative Document. To do so would not be helpful and would only delay the House longer. As I have already said, all these points will be taken into account as part of the consultation process.
I would only say that my noble friend Lord Peddie, in what was a rather unfriendly contribution towards the Paper, raised the question of how it could be a Consultative Document and yet, at the same time, set down certain firm proposals that the Government wish to see implemented. I would point out to my noble friend. and I am sure that he is well aware of it, that there are two sorts of Consultation Document. There is, first, the Green Paper, which puts down proposals the Government would like to see implemented, and on which they have a firm view, so that they can ask for comments and consultation both on those and many other proposals in the Paper. Then there is the type of Paper we discussed a week ago, the Transport Policy Review, which was not a Green Paper, but had a tangerine-coloured cover. That Paper was much more wide open. It is quite wrong to attack the Government for putting down in a Green Paper, which is the usual procedure, a policy they want discussed and that it should not be completely open-ended.
Having said that, may I say that the whole debate was most stimulating. Considering the number of speakers, the debate has not been longer than was absolutely essential. I would end by saying how grateful I am to my noble friend Lady White for raising this matter. In opening, she said she would have liked the debate to have taken place rather later on, but nevertheless, by its taking place at this time, a great deal may have been gained because she has been able to hear the ccntributions of 18 people. all of whom have experience, special interest and special knowledge of the industry. I should have thought that this was a very valuable addition to the consultative process. I think that, on reflection, possibly my noble friend may feel that this was a very good time indeed to have a debate.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is she able to give the House any information as to the forecasts relating to the implementation of the proposals with regard to equalisation, as I requested?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I cannot give any forecast because the consultative process goes on until the end of July. Then, Ministers will have to consider all the various views that have come in and all that is being said and written about the matter. From then on, we hope there will be some sort of timetable; but at present, there is nothing firm that I can say about it.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I warmly thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I agree with my noble friend Lady Birk is perhaps better timed than I had originally apprehended. I should like to express my particular gratitude to her for her valiant replies which I am sure are greatly appreciated. I am sure she will not misunderstand me when I say that possibly from her attitude on one or two of these matters, this ought to have been a White Paper with green edges. It appears to me that the Government have perhaps gone a little further in closing their mind than I would have hoped. I tell my noble friend quite frankly that I was disturbed at her attitude about the research centre, which is worrying a great many of us. I would hope that the Government might listen more widely than perhaps to some of the louder voices in their immediate vicinity on this matter. This is something that is causing us great concern. Planning is primarily water supply and sewerage in broad terms, but there are so many other aspects of research which could well be not exactly pushed out but disadvantaged unless we are very careful indeed of the way in which any change in this matter is carried out.
My Lords, I do not want to reply to the debate; it is not customary so to do on these occasions. I mentioned that matter because it is one about which I am particularly concerned. I call only repeat my very great appreciation to all Members of the House who have taken part in the debate. I hope that what my noble friend Lady Birk said is true,
342
that Hansard will be carefully studied. I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SCOTTISH AMICABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILLM SUFFOLK COASTAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL TEES TUNNEL BILL
Brought from the Commons, read la, and referred to the Examiners.
SCOTTISH AMICABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILLM SUFFOLK COASTAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL TEES TUNNEL BILL
  SAMUEL MONTAGU & CO. LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  SEYCHELLES BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  IDENTIFICATION IN CRIMINAL CASES: DEVLIN REPORT
  IDENTIFICATION IN CRIMINAL CASES: DEVLIN REPORT
  LAW OF CITIZENSHIP
  LAW OF CITIZENSHIP
  INSURANCE COMPANIES: UNFIT MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL
  INSURANCE COMPANIES: UNFIT MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL