Sitting of 27 January 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Sterling Balances
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a further statement on the position of sterling balances.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): The main features of the new facility for official sterling balances are as described in my statement on 11th January. But many details, relating in particular to the operation and administration of the facility, remain to be settled. These are being worked out at present and I hope to be able to make further information available by about the middle of next month. Details of the terms and other aspects of the foreign currency bonds that are to be offered to official holders will also be made available at a later stage.
    Mr. Roberts: I am grateful for that reply. In view of the wide disparity between interest rates here and elsewhere in the world and the present inflow of hot money, is the Chancellor concerned about the situation, and what does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Healey: It is fair to remind the House that a great deal of the inflow—and it is not possible at this stage to identify it—is an unwinding of leads and lags and the return to Britain of money which has been involved in the financing of third countries' trade which is now terminated. There is a Question on interest rates from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) later on the Order Paper,
    1676
    so I shall confine myself to saying that the disparity is reducing week by week.
    Mr. Watkinson: Would the Chancellor accept that having achieved this very welcome safety net for sterling it would be ludicrous for the Government to fall into the trap of attracting vast sums from overseas which we would be forced to repay in the event of a downturn in the economy? Is it not correct that we should pursue a policy to prevent that occurrence, which is the whole reason for the safety net precautions?
    Mr. Healey: With respect, my hon. Friend is mixing the two things. The purpose of the safety net is to protect sterling against the possibility of a further run-down of official balances—a run-down which we want to encourage, and to which foreign currency bonds will contribute. On the question of the increase in private sterling balances, it is not possible at this moment to identify the proportion of sterling coming in recently which belongs to British residents and that which belongs to foreigners. But if it is necessary to take further action to discourage these inflows we shall take it. We have made clear that we have no intention of using such inflows as a means of financing our current account deficit. The best evidence of that is the impressive loan which I announced on Monday.
    Mr. Hordern: But surely the Chancellor must know that present sterling balances held by private holders have very little to do with leads and lags, and a great deal to do with foreign buying of gilt-edged securities. This is because of the interest level which the Government are allowing. What is Government policy towards private holders of sterling balances? Is it to encourage or discourage them? Is it Government policy to allow interest rates to be as high as they are—that is, far higher than those of other countries? It just does not make sense.
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Member thinks that he knows more about the composition of the recent inflows than does the Bank of England. Of course he may well be right, but his record gives little ground for confidence. On the question of interest rates, I was told by Conservatives many times in the recent past that there was no

    1677
    possibility wheatsoever of the rates coming down within a time-scale that would ensure that the increase in October did not have a damaging effect on private industry in Britain. We all know that since October the short-term interest rates have already come down by 1¾ per cent., and no doubt the hon. Member has read newspaper accounts of what may happen later this week.
    Sir G. Howe: I forbear from comment on the Chancellor's record, but I want to know a little more about interest rates. Can the Chancellor assure us that he is still fully aware of the necessity of getting public borrowing down in order to reduce interest rates and of the dangers of maintaining a competitively high interest rate with the damage that that could do to investment in this country? The Chancellor has said before that he would be anxious to discourage any excessive inflow of private capital. Will he bear in mind our anxiety that the worst thing for this country would be a barrier of exchange controls against incoming money alongside a barrier of exchange controls to stop money going out? Is he aware that we should welcome any movement towards the liberalisation of exchange control?
    Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has mixed up five or six different matters there, but I shall try to disentangle them. We have already taken steps to reduce the amount of money the Government require to borrow, and the extent of the reduction has been welcomed by foreign markets. The recent strengthening of sterling, the inflow of money into this country, and the reduction of interest rates all reflect the success of measures I announced last December, measures which were denigrated at the time by the Opposition Front Bench.
    On the exchange control point, I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, but he must make up his mind whether he wants to keep money supply under control, as the Government have done, or whether he wants things to happen as they happened when he was last in office and let the money supply go hang. I hope, however, that at least we shall have congratulations from him on that, contrary to the expectation of many of his hon. and right hon. Friends, there is now no doubt that we shall
    1678
    achieve the domestic credit expansion and money supply targets to which we committed ourselves for the current year.

    Governor of the Bank of England
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he next proposes to meet the Governor of the Bank of England.
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to see the Governor of the Bank of England.
    Mr. Healey: I maintain close contact with the Governor of the Bank of England, meeting him on a regular basis and also as and when circumstances require.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Chancellor reprimand the Governor of the Bank of England for the remarks he made recently at the dinner in Scotland of the Institute of Bankers in which he was critical of the Government's devolution policies? Can he confirm that the Governor of the Bank of England should maintain a nonpolitical line?
    Mr. Healey: I have the impression that a good deal of the criticism of the Government's devolution policies has been expressed in recent days by the hon. Member himself. I do not believe that the Governor said anything at the dinner of the Institute of Bankers in Scotland which I would regard as inconsistent with his relationship with me.
    Mr. Hoyle: When my right hon. Friend is next having discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England will he perhaps discuss with him a policy by which a percentage of bank deposit funds and insurance and pension funds might be secured to get enough money behind the National Enterprise Board in order to make it the positive instrument for the reform of and investment in British industry that we promised the nation at our last election campaign?
    Mr. Healey: I shall take special care to draw my hon. Friend's views to the attention of the Governor of the Bank of England the next time I meet him.
    Mr. Baker: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Government, will he clarify with him the position of future inflows of official rather than private

    1679
    funds? Do these official funds also qualify for and benefit from the arrangements announced for the safety net some weeks ago? If so, there is an enormous continuing obligation under the safety net for any official funds that come into the country.
    Mr. Healey: I made clear in my statement about the safety net that it involves an obligation by the other participants to replace by medium-term borrowing any further reduction in official funds from the present level. An increase in official funds would not count for substitution if those official funds were later withdrawn. However, we have done our best to discourage a further inflow of official funds, and that is a matter that we shall pursue through diplomatic channels since it is a matter for foreign Governments.
    Mr. David Howell: When the Chancellor meets the Governor will he clarify one point concerning the Government's many borrowing activities? In December the Chancellor spoke of a $500 million facility from the United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve which he said was entirely new. Subsequently the Financial Secretary said that it was not entirely new, that $250 million was part of the $3 billion borrowed back in the summer as a standby facility. Recently we have seen another Press release saying that this $500 million is now to be a standby and not a swap. May we know who is right in all this saga, because I am sure that the Chancellor would not wish to mislead the House about the nature of these borrowing facilities?
    Mr. Healey: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to confuse himself on this matter, although I do not have great confidence that I can secure his understanding of it. There is no inconsistency between what I said and what my right hon. Friend said. The standby facility which was negotiated in June terminated and was fully repaid on 9th December last year. A further credit of $500 million, which the United States Administration and the Federal Reserve Board made available at the time of the IMF borrowing, has now been converted into a standby. That is because, in the light of the strengthing of sterling in recent weeks and the negotiation of the $1·5 billion new borrowing, we certainly
    1680
    do not need to draw the additional United States credit at this time, and it is not certain that we shall wish to do so during the period of its currency.

    £ Sterling (Value)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the highest rate reached by the £ sterling against the United States $, after the 1967 devaluation reduced the rate from $2·80 to $2·40; and on what date this rate was reached.
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current exchange rate for the £ sterling against the United States $; and what was the equivalent figure on the day on which he assumed office in March 1974.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): The highest rate reached against the United States dollar since 1967 was $2·6515 on 9th March 1972. On 5th March 1974 the opening rate was $2·2775, and at noon today the rate was $1·7179.
    Mr. Adley: I thank the Financial Secretary for showing the House that the pound is always strong under a Conservative Government. Will he confirm, however, that the real fall through the devaluation of the pound since February 1974 under this Government has exceeded even the devaluation of Stafford Cripps? Will he say why Labour Governments always cause a devaluation of our currency?
    Mr. Sheldon: I do not think that anyone can be particularly proud of the Smithsonian Agreement on exchange levels as it was fixed for Britain. The subsequent reaction was that it was clearly far too high. The exchange rate is affected by the level of inflation appertaining in this country at present, and unquestionably the Opposition share a great measure of responsibility for that. The exchange rate must ultimately reflect what those abroad think of our current inflation difficulties and the steps that we are taking to overcome them.
    Mr. Latham: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, however much he tries to get out of it, that the figures represent an eloquent comment on the record of the Government? Is it currently the Government's policy to hold the exchange rate down?
    Mr. Sheldon: The Government's current policy must be to reflect the view that outside holders of sterling have of our economic prospects. In the past few weeks we have seen an improvement in the prospects for the country, and that is reflected in the movement of the exchange rate itself.
    Mr. Gould: Does my right hon. Friend recall the disastrous effects on our competitiveness in exports and on our balance of trade after the Bank of England's action in 1972 of pushing up the exchange rate when our costs were rising faster than those of our competitors? Should we not take that lesson to heart in the present situation?
    Mr. Sheldon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the unrealistic exchange rate pursued by the previous Conservative Government, a rate which was reversed following the reassessment that they eventually made. These are factors which obviously have to be taken into account, although the main decision both about our competitiveness and the levels of our inflation are inevitably made by our overseas partners. It is they who determine principally the exchange rate of the pound against other currencies.
    Mr. Powell: Is there ever any necessary relationship between the well-being, prosperity and economic progress of a country and the number of units of its currency which exchange for US $1?
    Mr. Sheldon: Most people would agree that if the country is progressing satisfactorily and is expanding production and productivity, that would be reflected in its exchange rate. The rate is a reflection of these attitudes over a sufficiently long period.

    Wealth Tax
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures available for the yield of a 1 per cent. wealth tax on £100,000 plus accumulated wealth; and what plans he has to introduce a wealth tax.
    Mr. Clemitsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on what progress has been made towards the devising and introduction of a wealth tax.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): The estimated yield of a 1 per cent. tax would be about £100 million from individuals, together with a further amount, not readily quantifiable, from certain kinds of trusts. A considerable amount of preparatory work has already been done. This, together with other studies, will ensure that we shall be ready with a suitable form of wealth tax at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Roberts: Would not some indication from the Government that at long last they are going to go ahead in this direction be helpful in negotiating the next stage of the wages agreement? Would the Minister agree that in terms of the wealth of small firms with new ideas some movement from taxation of income to taxation of wealth is necessary?
    Mr. Barnett: I am happy to confirm that the Government are fully committed to the wealth tax. There is no question about that.
    Mr. Cormack: Will the Minister define wealth?
    Mr. Barnett: If the hon. Member puts down a Question.
    Mr. Jay: Will the Government introduce such a tax at the appropriate time?
    Mr. Barnett: I am happy to assure my right hon. Friend of that. I congratulate him on his excellent chairmanship of the Select Committee. The things that happened within that Committee were not his fault. When the time is appropriate, the Government will come forward with the tax.
    Mr. David Howell: Is not the Minister taking the matter frivously? Is not one of the major threats to jobs and to small businesses today the possibility of a wealth tax, as well as threats of industrial democracy and so on? Can the Government reassure British business that there will be no wealth tax introduced in the foreseeable future and certainly not during this Parliament?
    Mr. Barnett: I would rather be accused of being frivolous than of being as miserable as the hon. Gentleman. He has wholly misunderstood, and frivolously, mischievously and grossly exaggerated the effect of capital transfer tax and of

    1683
    wealth tax, certainly in the shape or form that we have in mind, on small businesses.

    Mentally Handicapped Children (Special Care Allowance)
    Mr. Hannamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Inland Revenue's decision to tax the special care allowance paid to foster parents of mentally handicapped children.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Payments made to foster parents by certain local authorities may, in some cases, be taxable as the receipts of a profession or vocation. In these circumstances, tax is charged only on the excess of the payments over expenses incurred in looking after the foster child.
    Mr. Hannam: Is it not highly desirable on social and financial grounds that severely handicapped children should be taken into family life by foster parents rather than remain in expensive institutions? Should not the foster parents, therefore receive the same attendance allowance as would be given if the child were being cared for by its own parents?
    Mr. Sheldon: I fully accept the point, but the only instances in which tax is chargeable concern those foster parents who are professionally engaged. They are charged tax, but they can obtain their personal allowances as an offset.
    Mr. George Cunningham: If the special care allowance is taxed, why is not tax also payable on the special care allowances given to members of another place in the form of attendance allowances? Are not those allowances completely contrary to all normal tax rules since they are paid tax free?
    Mr. Sheldon: I understand the similarity that my hon. Friend feels exists between the two kinds of attendance allowances. The allowances originally referred to in the Question are not taxable. It is only those who bring professional expertise to bear—for which other allowances are made—against whom extra charges are made. We are not dealing here with ordinary foster parents, but with a limited special category.
    Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister agree that any method of taxing such allowances
    1684
    will be regarded as being similar to the taxation of widows? Have not the cutbacks in public expenditure badly affected needy sections of the community? Can we have an assurance that there is some humanity in the Treasury?
    Mr. Sheldon: I am aware that a number of local authorities take a lenient view of this matter, and perhaps the hon. Lady also knows of them. I have attempted to state the position in law. I offer the hon. Lady what assurances I am able to offer on the last part of her question.

    CBI
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet the CBI; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Healey: I am in constant touch with representatives of the CBI at the NEDC and on other occasions. They have many opportunities of making their views known to me, and meetings are arranged as necessary.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister remind CBI leaders at his next meeting with them that the CBI can have no reason to complain about the way in which the Government have reacted towards it in the past two and half years? Will he tell the CBI that it has had about £8,000 million of the taxpayers' money through various forms of tax and incentives since the Government came to power, and that it is not paying much corporation tax? Will the Chancellor add that the CBI has a damned cheek to propose after workers have had a cut of £10 in their real wages, that they should be subject this year to a 3 per cent. flat wages increase? Will the Minister tell CBI leaders that that is preposterous and that he will have nothing to do with it?
    Mr. Healey: I shall draw my hon. Friend's views to the attention of CBI leaders next time I meet them. I know that the views that my hon. Friend has expressed about the assistance that the CBI members have received from the Government will be reassuring to them.
    As to future pay policy, all sections of the community are expressing views as to whether such a policy is desirable and, if there is to be one, the level at which it should be fixed. I shall take all representations into account.
    Mr. Costain: Will the Chancellor go one better and take the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with him to the meeting in order to show the CBI what the right hon. Gentleman has to put up with daily—the tail trying to wag the dog? Would not the Chancellor receive much more sympathy from the CBI if he did that?
    Mr. Healey: I shall reflect on that interesting suggestion. I hope that there will be no objections if I also take with me one or two of the hon. Member's right hon. Friends from the Opposition Front Bench so that the CBI will also be able to see what I have to put up with from that quarter.
    Mr. James Lamond: Will the Chancellor also tell the CBI that many people in this country share its concern about the majority view of the Bullock Committee, but for different reasons? Will he tell the CBI that some of us think that it is wrong to enmesh workers in a scheme that is an attempt only to arrest the long-term decline of the capitalist system in this country?
    Mr. Healey: I see that I am going to be the bearer of many messages from many quarters to many persons as a result of Question Time this afternoon. As to the Bullock Report, there has been a tendency for people and institutions in many parts of the country to react without due reflection on a most interesting and comprehensive report that fully carries out the purpose that the Government had in mind when the Committee was set up. Some people have overreacted. I hope that everybody concerned will take the opportunity of the consultations offered by the Government to see whether we cannot, as the Government desire, reach a lasting settlement of this problem on the basis of the maximum degree of agreement.
    Sir G. Howe: While there is widespread agreement on the legitimacy of the involvement of workers in the management and understanding of the affairs of their companies, will the right hon. Gentleman understand and discuss with the CBI the widespread anxiety lest if legislation along the lines of the Bullock Committee's majority report continues to be discussed, grave damage is done to the confidence of those who would otherwise
    1686
    be investing in this country? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to remove that threat?
    Mr. Healey: I have had the opportunity on a number of occasions in the past year or two to discuss with investors in countries such as Norway and Germany their views on worker representation at board level. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be surprised to hear—though he should know it already—that they take a very different view of these matters from that of the Conservative Party. I hope that the period of consultation that the Government have in mind will enable hon. Members opposite to acquaint themselves with the views of many people in industry and finance overseas who, unlike the Conservative Party are not scared stiff by the thought of board representation of working people.

    Credit Unions
    Miss Fookesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to encourage the growth of credit unions and to regulate their working.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: There have been recent discussions between my Department and the credit union representative organisations. I hope to make the Government's views on legislation known shortly.
    Miss Fookes: Can the right hon. Gentleman define "shortly"?
    Mr. Sheldon: As soon as possible. I understand the hon. Lady's interest in these matters and it is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) and myself. The ability of such credit unions to arrange loans among themselves at finer rates of interest than are generally available commercially is something to which we should be sympathetic. I shall be pressing ahead at the earliest possible moment, but I cannot give any more precise assurance on timing.

    Pay Policy
    Mr. Newtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he expects to complete consultations on future pay policy before making his next Budget Statement.
    Mr. Healey: As I made clear to the House on 15th December 1976, I hope that this will be possible.
    Mr. Newton: In the light of the growing problem of the poverty trap and disincentives at every level arising from the interaction of the pay policy and taxation, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that his next Budget Statement, unlike the last, should allow the House to judge these matters together? Will this not be even more important if, as has been reported, it is his intention to abandon the inflation-proofing of short-term social security benefits and to make them part of a package deal on pay and tax?
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman must not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. I have made clear on many occasions that I hope to be able to reduce the burden of income tax in my next Budget. It is always open to the House to consider tax questions in relation to benefits and in most previous Budget debates these comparisons have been made.
    Mr. Molloy: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in the interests of all sections of the community a sensible and fair pay policy is vital for the economy? Would he make a particular point of ignoring the ridiculous reaction of the Chairman of the CBI and some right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench to the Bullock Report? They have hardly had time to study it, yet, because it tries, rightly or wrongly, to give working men an interest in their industries, the Opposition condemn it out of hand. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that such an attitude will not help him in his consultations for a future pay policy?
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend's views on the need for a pay policy has overwhelming support among the British people and I wish that they had the same sort of support in the Conservative Party. I have indicated that the reactions of some CBI spokesmen to the proposals in the Bullock Report were far too speedy and ill-considered in some respects. I hope that the opportunity will be taken to consider the matter at leisure and in a calmer mood. I commend to all concerned the tone of today's leading article in The Guardian, which says that this is
    1688
    a matter of immense importance in which pondering is more important than shouting.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind in his review of the impact of income tax that the most needed change in the tax structure is a substantial raising of the income tax threshold and that for it to be really effective and to remove the liability to tax of families on subsistence incomes he will have to think in terms of £2,000 million?
    Mr. Healey: I agree that raising the income tax threshold should be a major element in any reduction of the burden of income tax, but the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on the figure mentioned in his question.
    Sir G. Howe: Will the right hon. Gentleman not bear in mind that, in considering reactions to the Bullock Report, it is beside the point to talk about experience in Germany and other countries because they have had 30 years' experience of similar approaches although, even now, they do not go anything like as far as the suggestions in the Bullock Committee's majority report would take us in one leap in the trade union domination of industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is widespread concern about the proposals and that he should give that concern proper thought instead of brushing it aside?
    Mr. Healey: I am deeply grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for suggesting that I should not bear in mind any of his remarks. I shall not bear them in mind because they bear no relation to reality.

    Inflation
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current inflation rate.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: The retail price index rose by 15·1 per cent. over the 12 months to December 1976.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what special factors he attributes the present level of inflation? Will he hazard a new guess about when single-figure inflation will be reached?
    Mr. Barnett: The answer to the latter question is "No". A whole range of matters has affected our level of inflation, including the depreciation of sterling and our general level of industrial performance in comparison with other countries.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the rate of inflation is related to exchange rates? Does he agree with the Financial Secretary that the exchange rate is being dictated by the level of overseas demand or otherwise for sterling rather than by the policy of the Bank of England? Will he ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state clearly to the Governor of the Bank of England at their next meeting the Government's priorities? Are they to keep down the exchange rate to fund the borrowing requirement, to encourage the inflow of funds, which is against the Chancellor's expressed intention to run down the private balances, or to allow the British people some alleviation of inflation in the coming months?
    Mr. Barnett: As anyone who was present will recognise, the hon. Gentleman has totally distorted the views of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. It is our intention to bring down the rate of inflation as fast as possible and we have a better chance of doing that and of getting a sensible pay round in our negotiations with the TUC than we should if we pursued the policies proposed by the Opposition.
    Mr. Gould: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the United States Treasury's strongly held views that the depreciation of currency is a consequence of and not a cause of inflation? Has he any comment on the statement by the Under-Secretary for Economic Affairs in the new Carter administration that the fall in value of the pound last year was probably not enough to take account of our comparative inflation rates?
    Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend is right on two counts in regard to the views of the United States Treasury. The exchange rate has an effect on inflation and inflation affects the exchange rate; we have a sort of vicious circle. The way in which our economy is now moving gives us every confidence that we shall be able to achieve a stable exchange rate and a lower rate of inflation.

    Gilt-Edged Stock
    Mr. Viggersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the Government's ability to sell gilt-edged stock.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Viggers: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has clearly indicated that interest rates will fall, yet the Government are selling mountains of gilt-edged stock at crippling interest rates. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on this situation which sounds like a cross between "Catch-22" and incompetence?
    Mr. Sheldon: I am not sure about that. All I am aware of is that it was not so long ago that many Conservative Members were talking about the difficulty of financing the deficit in this country. I do not think that many people are saying that today.

    Exports (Price Competitiveness)
    Mr. Gouldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he uses to establish the price competitiveness of United Kingdom exports of manufactures.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Measures of competitiveness include relative prices and relative profitability and a method of calculating these was explained in the reply given to my hon. Friend's question on 15th November.
    Mr. Gould: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the 9 per cent. revaluation of the pound against the dollar over the past three months, at a time when our export prices have been rising fast, has seriously damaged the competitiveness of our exports of manufactures, which are probably less competitive now than at any time since 1972?
    Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend's Question reflects some of the over-valuation of the exchange rate as it existed prior to last year. I do not think that anyone can seriously suggest that the present-level of the exchange rate does not provide a considerable competitive advantage for British industry. The latest figures suggest that it is taking advantage of it.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that major factors in overseas markets are industrial capacity and reliability of delivery and that price competitiveness is not the only factor? Does he agree that industrial capacity will be hindered if we keep interest rates at their present level?
    Mr. Sheldon: These are all factors that have to be taken into account. The most important aspect is not necessarily the level of interest rates but the ability to invest profitably in particular areas where we can be sure of a long and continuing demand. Possibly that sort of confidence is the most important factor in terms of my hon. Friend's question.

    Economic Forecasting
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with Treasury forecasting.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: I am always looking for improvements in forecasts, both inside and outside the Treasury.
    Mr. Renton: I must thank the right hon. Gentleman for his honesty. But are Treasury economists now definitely converted to control of the economy through domestic credit expansion control rather than through demand management, or will they revert to their old ways once the restraints of the IMF are lifted?
    Mr. Barnett: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mixing up his first question. The fact is that we are talking about forecasts and forecasters. All forecasters have made errors, both inside and outside the Treasury. If we look over the years of forecasts, we find that in the early 1970s the errors were very large. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman restrained himself from criticising his own Government in that respect, because he would have been quite wrong to do so. I can assure him that economists and Ministers within the Treasury take due consideration of all forecasts that are made, as well as many other judgments, in coming to conclusions about DCE and many other matters affecting the economy.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that economic forecasting is an uncertain business? Does he accept that all the recent statistical tests carried out show that as a whole
    1692
    the Treasury forecasts in many leading areas are far better than most of the other forecasts?
    Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend is right. Forecasting is an uncertain business. One has to take account of great magnitudes of figures affecting countries around the world as well as this country. I do not wish to be complacent about anybody's forecasts, but I am surprised that some seem to believe that it is only Treasury forecasters who from time to time do not get it absolutely right.
    Mr. David Howell: The Chief Secretary is right to be shy of forecasts, although he should not be surprised by people's reactions. Will he at least reassure us that in the forthcoming public expenditure White Paper, which I believe is to be published very shortly, full account will be taken of the relative price effect and the impact of inflation on projections of public expenditure for the coming year and the year after that? It would be misleading if such matters were left out of a public expenditure White Paper.
    Mr. Barnett: I have no wish to make any comments about the White Paper, the first volume of which was published today. We take account of all these matters in deciding on the White Paper and, indeed, on our public expenditure plans and control of public expenditure, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree is now under much greater control than it has been for many years.

    Food Imports (Levies)
    Mr. Bodyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what items of food were not subject to an import levy at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: This information is available in the Customs and Excise Tariff, which indicates whether particular foodstuffs are subject to import levy. In addition to those items not subject to levy, certain items are subject to levy at a nil rate.
    Mr. Body: Is not the true answer that every sort of foodstuff imported into this country and available to our housewives is now subject to an import levy? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the system of import levies is invoked only when food from

    1693
    outside the Community is cheaper than food grown within the Community?
    Mr. Sheldon: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that he is mistaken. There is a wide range of foodstuffs not subject to levy, including vegetables, fruit, fish and lamb. He may care to examine those commodities.

    TUC
    Mr. Robinsonasked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.
    Mr. Gouldasked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 7th December.
    Mr. Robinson: At that meeting did my right hon. Friend discuss with the TUC how many jobs would be lost and how many industries would face collapse, especially in the West Midlands, if the Tory proposal that is quite explicit in the so-called "The Right Approach"—namely, to scrap the NEB—were ever to come to fruition?
    The Prime Minister: It is clear that the National Enterprise Board is performing a valuable function. Having had some serious discussions with members of the NEB during the past fortnight, I think that the idea of instant opposition, in which it is supposed to be abolished, will need further reflection by the Opposition. At present the NEB is responsible for about 300,000 workers. I believe that the total output of the companies for which it is responsible is about £3 billion. I ask the House to accept that this institution, which started off in a certain wave of criticism, is performing a valuable function. I believe that it will be of great use in supporting the industrial strategy.
    Mr. Gould: Has the Tory Opposition offered any support for the industrial strategy? Was the progress of that strategy discussed with the TUC when my right hon. Friend last met its leaders?
    The Prime Minister: Whatever the views of the Opposition, or their ignorance,
    1694
    both the CBI and the TUC take the industrial strategy very seriously. The 39 or 40 sector working parties have produced reports that would repay careful study and debate in the House if that were possible. I do not know what view the Opposition take, but I suspect that it is no industrial strategy, no industrial democracy, no incomes poicy, and no social contract. I am not sure that they can even agree on what they do not want.
    Mrs. Thatcher: When the Prime Minister talks to the TUC will he bear in mind the actual record of his Government, which is a loss of 750,000 jobs and an increase of 1 million in the number brought into paying tax? Will he also bear in mind that there are many trade unionists as well as a majority of others, who would prefer the Tories' actual record of more jobs and lower taxes?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly raise these matters with the TUC, but I wonder what answer the right hon. Lady received from the leaders of the TUC when she met them recently and asked them whether they would prefer a Government led by her. My understanding is that they were not wholly convinced, despite her lures and wiles.
    Mr. Madden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition confirmed in the House only last Friday that if they were returned to power they would scrap the NEB? Does he not agree that the 300,000 jobs that are dependent upon the National Enterprise Board would be put in jeopardy if the Opposition were returned to power?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that there is no doubt about that. The Opposition were totally opposed to the funding of Leylands. If Leylands went, that would in itself destroy a couple of hundred thousand jobs. The Opposition cannot escape from their responsibility. I trust that they will become a little more responsible about the maintenance of jobs in the West Midlands in this important enterprise and about the National Enterprise Board itself.
    Mr. Pardoe: When he next meets the TUC, will the Prime Minister care to ask its leaders why trade union leaders are so determined to maintain control

    1695
    over industrial democracy instead of relying on real democratic participation? Will he care to comment on the fact that the other side of industry, the CBI, would get far more thanks and sympathy from the rest of the community in its criticisms of the Bullodck Report if it had ever shown any encouragement of industrial participation in its whole lifetime?
    The Prime Minister: There are many differences of view. For example, when I hear the Tory Party and Mr. Arthur Scargill condemning the same report, I begin to wonder what kind of holy alliances we are seeing growing up.
    The plain truth is that this is a most important proposition that will not go away. It has to be solved. The Government intend to embark upon consultations with the TUC based on the majority report and its analysis of the situation in the hope that we can get some agreement so that we may legislate. It is our intention to legislate, because in this matter we have now fallen behind some of the advanced countries in Europe, including those which, on other matters, are approvingly referred to by the Opposition. Therefore, we intend to find a solution to this problem.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that endemic in the thinking of some sections of the Tory Party is the belief that there should always be a measure of unemployment, but that it has certainly never been within the orbit of Socialist thinking? Is not the growing rate of unemployment far too high and should we not set about sharing the work available?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the level of unemployment. I take no pleasure from standing at this Dispatch Box facing questions on this matter every week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] The reason that I do not resign on this matter is that, if the Tories came to power, they would double the numbers of unemployed. Their proposals for cutting public expenditure by several billion pounds would undoubtedly have that effect. We must stick at this present policy under which we are attempting to get rid of inflation, under which inflation is in fact going down, and under which we hope to get another agreement with the trade union movement on pay for another 12 months. That, combined
    1696
    with the emphasis which is being placed on the industrial strategy and exports, is the only way to see this country through.
    Mr. Prior: Does not the fact that the Prime Minister has to stand at that Dispatch Box every Tuesday and Thursday and try to defend his record on unemployment destroy completely any industrial strategy that the Government put forward? Does not the fact that when he says that unemployment would be 300,000 higher if it were not for the NEB and 200,000 higher if it were not for other measures which the Government have taken mean that the true unemployment figure is nearly 2 million? What kind of unemployment policy and industrial strategy is that?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that because those who are actively engaged in industry take a rather more realistic view of the situation the industrial strategy has not been destroyed. The series of reports that have been produced are the result of the combined work of trade unionists, employers and managers. They are setting for themselves new targets for exports and new targets for productivity. They deserve to be encouraged, not constantly disparaged, by this House.

    POVERTY AND HOMELESSNESS
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint a Minister with particular responsibility for poverty and homelessness.
    The Prime Minister: The questions of poverty and homelessness are clearly related and I have accordingly considered the hon. Member's proposal. I reach the conclusion that the appointment of a single Minister would cut across the functions of other Ministers and would not improve matters.
    Mr. Bottomley: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. May I continue to tempt him away from the divisiveness and confrontation which he has seen earlier and ask whether he will support the move in this House to set up a Select Committee to examine housing problems and the link between social security and the tax system and the incomes policy so that, as far as possible, a bi-partisan

    1697
    approach can be brought forward, which would be more successful than the policy we have seen in the medium and long-term past?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly look into that series of propositions. I know that the Chancellor is considering one of the propositions to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    There is one other development that I commend to the House, having looked into the question. I hope that the Bill that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) will shortly be producing will receive serious consideration by the House. As I have not studied the Bill, I cannot say whether it should be totally supported. It is an attempt to deal with homelessness, and the Government would like to see the Bill proceed.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some Labour Members are getting anxious about the non-publication of the report on housing finance? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see whether it can be published rapidly?
    The Prime Minister: The matter is being considered in the Cabinet at the moment. I shall certainly have a word with my right hon. Friend to see how quickly the report can be published.
    Mr. Hannam: Does the Prime Minister agree that the one way not to cure homelessness is to destroy the construction industry? Is he aware that his policies are resulting in unemployment in the construction industry in the South-West in excess of 30 per cent.? What action will he take to avoid destruction of the industry and to create homes for people in that region?
    The Prime Minister: The construction industry should undoubtedly be doing more than it is at present. I have been looking into the numbers of housing starts. For the year 1976 it looks as though they will be the highest since 1969 in the public sector. Private starts—I have only the figures up to the end of November—will almost certainly be higher than in 1974 and 1975. This morning I was glad to see references to the effect that private starts look as though they, too, are about to move upwards.

HOUSE OF LORDS
Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Prime Minister what progress he has made in his consideration of the position of the House of Lords.
The Prime Minister: The Government are continuing to keep the position of the House of Lords under review.
Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the removal of the House of Lords in anything like its existing form is a necessary advance towards democracy? Does he accept that this matter must be tackled by the next Labour Government if not by this one?
The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that the House of Lords is not the epitome of the democratic system, but I think that we had better undertake one constitutional change at a time.
Mr. David Steel: Does the Prime Minister recall that one of his predecessors said that the reform of the House of Lords would brook no delay? As that was Mr. Asquith in 1910, does he agree that there has been quite a lot of brooking since then? As long as the House of Lords goes unreformed, will the Prime Minister give it some constructive work to do and get it started on the Bill for European elections?
The Prime Minister: I am happy to give their Lordships some constructive work to do. It might turn their idle hands from the mischief they have done to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. The Liberal Party has had many opportunities since the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman to tackle this particular problem. If he can promise me the full support of his party on this matter without wavering or quavering, I might be tempted to look in his direction.
Mr. Michael Stewart: In the course of the Government's review of this subject will the Prime Minister study a valuable Fabian pamphlet on it written some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy?
The Prime Minister: I always study the writings of my right hon. Friend with the greatest care.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is it the policy of the Government to go for a one-chamber system of government, or is it merely the policy of the Labour Party?
The Prime Minister: Yesterday morning the National Executive decided that it should go on record as being in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords. I cannot see why anybody should defend it in its present form. But, as I have said, a number of issues have to be settled and a number of hurdles have to be jumped before that legislation actually appears.
Mr. Kinnock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could more profitably advance democracy by spending this year abolishing the House of Lords and reforming the House of Commons than multiplying bureaucracy in the form of devolution?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend was not a Member of this House when I had some experience of this matter. I should want a full guarantee of his total support and that of a great many others before I embarked on it again.

UNION OF POST OFFICE WORKERS (RELATOR PROCEEDINGS)
Sir M. Havers (by Private Notice)asked the Attorney-General if he will state his reasons for refusing his consent to the application of Mr. Gouriet to bring relator proceedings for an injunction against the Union of Post Office Workers.
The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin)rose—
Mr. Cormack: Resign.
Mr. Ashton: Let them have it, Sam.
The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir. This morning the Court of Appeal gave judgment in the case of Gouriet against the Union of Post Office Workers and Others, and it also gave leave for me to appeal to the House of Lords on a constitutional issue of great importance. That being so, as I understand the position, the case is not now sub judice, and I am, therefore, free to explain to the House my reasons for refusing Mr. Gouriet's application for consent to bring relator proceedings against the UPW. In order to do so, I must explain to the
1700
House the relevant facts so far as they were within my knowledge when I made that decision.
On Tuesday 11th January the union issued a circular to its branches. The circular stated that the TUC, in support of the international trade union movement, had called for a week of action in protest against the increasingly repressive measures taken by the South African authorities against trade unions and unionists. It instanced the suppression of black trade unions, the banning of black trade unionists and the crippling of education and training schemes established with TUC assistance to increase trade union knowledge among black workers. It said that strong protests by the trade union movement here and abroad had failed to stop these repressive measures and that a week of international action had been called for to demonstrate that movement's solidarity with South African trade unionists and give them encouragement and protection.
The circular stated the union's support for the week of action. It instructed its members working in offices where mail was received directly from, or for despatch directly to, South Africa to "black" that mail as from midnight on the Sunday following. It instructed its members not working in those offices to continue normal working.
Telephone calls to South Africa are mostly made via STD. The circular gave instructions that calls routed through an operator and not through STD, which remained available, should be dealt with in accordance with the normal Christmas period provision—that is, that only life-and-death calls should be connected. Cables and telegrams were to be similarly dealt with.
A copy of the circular came to my Department on the afternoon of Thursday 13th January. I learned that the Post Office Board intended displaying notices warning its employees that to obey the instructions would be a criminal offence. I learned also that the Post Office Chairman had written to the union strongly urging it to reconsider its proposed action.
As I informed the House on 13th December last year, it is for the Post Office to take action if it considers this to be necessary and proper under the Post Office Act 1953. Only in the most exceptional circumstances would it be right for

1701
the Attorney-General to intervene. I knew of no such exceptional circumstances. I had no reason to believe that my intervention was necessary, nor had it been asked for. In case, however, I should be asked by the Post Office to intervene, I took the opportunity of considering the law with my advisers and also of obtaining such information as I could about the likely consequences of intervention by myself.
On the afternoon of Friday 14th January, I was informed that the solicitor for a Mr. Gouriet, who was unknown to my Department, had made application for my consent to the bringing by him of relator proceedings for an injunction against the union to restrain it from maintaining its instructions, and that he was pressing for a very speedy decision on the ground that he intended to go to the court that same afternoon. His solicitor was asked and stated that he had no special interest beyond that of any other member of the public, and I considered his application on that footing. Before reaching a decision, I asked for inquiries to be made as to whether there had been any fresh developments. Those inquiries produced a negative result.
I called for Treasury Counsel to advise me, and in the light of all the information available and on consideration of that information and of all the advice which I had received I declined to grant consent.
A relator action is one in which I agree to be the nominal plaintiff while the conduct of the action is in the relator's hands, subject to my general control. It had never been doubted that in two sets of circumstances no other way of obtaining an injunction existed in law. One was where the relator had no special interest beyond that of any other member of the public. The other was where the injunction required was to restrain the defendant from committing a criminal offence. Both circumstances were present in this case.
In his decision whether to grant such an application, the Attorney-General is not confined to considering the chances of success. It is his duty also to consider broader issues of public interest and to base his conclusion on where the balance of public interest lies. But if the Attorney-General grants the application,
1702
the courts will normally assume that the public interest is in favour of granting relief. That is particularly true where the relator wishes to restrain the commission of a criminal offence. In the ordinary way the criminal law is assumed to provide adequate deterrence, so that an injunction is not needed. Any member of the public, even without a special interest, can normally bring criminal proceedings without my consent.
For that reason the relator procedure had in the past very rarely been invoked, except to restrain the commission of criminal offences and in cases where the criminal law has already been successfully invoked, usually many times, but the penalties are found to be insufficient to deter the offender, or where the threatened injury would not be remediable.
The Solicitor-General in 1960, now Lord Simon of Glaisdale, explained this to the House following the Harris case. The present one was not such a case. The criminal law, which in this case gives an offender against Section 58 of the Post Office Act the safeguard of the right to trial by jury, had not been invoked.
Thus the grant of my consent would amount to a departure from well-established principles applied by all Law Officers of all parties. It would be a departure in favour of a member of the public who, if an offence had been or were to be committed, had the power to invoke the criminal law without my intervention. And as the week of action was not due to start until midnight on the Sunday following, it was not and could not yet be known whether Post Office workers would heed their employer's warning that they would be committing criminal offences if they followed the union's instructions. If on the Monday morning the Post Office took the view that offences were being committed, it would have various ways of bringing the matter before the courts and those methods would not necessarily need my consent.
On the face of information available to me, and in my judgment, the taking of injunction proceedings in my name had the inherent risk, at that early stage, of inflaming the situation before the need for it was demonstrated and might well result in breaches of the law and inconvenience to the public over a much wider

1703
area than two sections of Post Office employees affected by the circular.
That possible reaction to court proceedings based on a criminal offence was all the more real in the light of the fact that the Conservative Government, in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, had, for very good reasons which were fully stated by the Solicitor-General of the day, deliberately removed from the criminal law the principal existing provisions making industrial action a crime; and, whether for that reason or not, they had not taken action in the virtually identical circumstances prior to the French nuclear tests in 1973.
Whether the wording of Section 58, the origin of which was in the Act of 1710, was deliberately excluded from the 1971 amendment—and, if so, why—I do not know, but when originally enacted it was certainly not intended to deal with trade union activity in the sphere of industrial relations.
In these circumstances, after giving full weight to the importance of enforcing the law, I concluded—and I am confident that I was right—that the balance of public interest was against giving consent to Mr. Gouriet's application on the Friday to take in my name injunctive proceedings to enforce the criminal law.
Sir M. Havers: Is the Attorney-General aware that a number of the reasons he advanced are irrelevant and that nothing he said will allay suspicions about the political use of his discretion? To use the words of one of the Lords Justices, was it not as clear as a pikestaff that a breach of the criminal law was threatened? Are you aware, when taking your decision not to give your consent to relator decisions—
Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman merely wishes to draw my attention to the fact that I personally have been brought into this matter accidentally, I assure him that I want to get out of it.
Mr. Christopher Price: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to allege political bias against a Law Officer of the Crown who has taken an oath to apply the law impartially?
Mr. Speaker: This is the House of Commons. It is possible for people to
1704
make charges against each other as long as they are within the parliamentary rules—and what has been said is within the rules.
Sir M. Havers: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman refused his consent to relator proceedings by Mr. Gouriet, why did he not announce at the same time that, in his view, the proposed action by the Post Office workers was illegal? Why did he not, from the authority and weight of his office, take that course and so make any application to the courts unnecessary? The Attorney-General at all times failed, in this House and elsewhere, to express the view clearly expressed by three Lords Justices today—namely, that the intended action was a breach of the criminal law. It is that confusion and the lack of certainty that made this threatened breach of the law much more likely.
The Attorney-General: I cannot accept either the beginning of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks or his concluding comments. What happened was that the Post Office Board sought to make clear that in its view, and indeed in fact, there would be a breach of criminal law if its workers followed instructions. I was approached on the question of whether I would grant the application by Mr. Gouriet, and I decided not to do so. I have no power to deal with the other matter to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.
Mr. Jay: If, as appears, there is serious doubt about the legal powers of the Attorney-General in the courts, would it not be common sense for Parliament in due course to legislate to put the matter right?
The Attorney-General: That is not a matter for me, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that the boundaries are far from clear. One of my submissions to the Court of Appeal was aimed at establishing the practice as it existed throughout the time when the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) was Solicitor-General and when his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson) was Attorney-General. Throughout all that time the situation had been clearly understood, but the Court of Appeal has thrown the situation in doubt. That is a serious constitutional issue and one which,

1705
no doubt, will have to be considered. I wholly agree that it is quite wrong to change the law on the basis of one case instead of examining the situation as a whole.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Since, in the absence of specific statutory provisions to the contrary, which do not apply in this case, a private citizen can initiate a prosecution when an offence has been committed, would it not be in the public interest, and indeed sensible, to facilitate a move to restrain the commission of such an offence, especially when the commission of that criminal offence involved the consequence of the punishment of the perpetrators?
The Attorney-General: No, I cannot agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is only in the circumstances which I have mentioned that this action is taken. To use the power suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be a total departure and would not be a way in which the matter has proceeded for many hundreds of years.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Although the Court of Appeal said that there was a clear breach of the law, was not that issue argued before the Court as one to be tested in a relator action if and when brought? If the Court of Appeal is right in saying that where a clear breach of the law is established the Attorney-General's fiat should always be issued, what is the point of having a relator action at all?
The Attorney-General: On the question of a breach of the criminal law, that was not part of the case I wanted to put before the Court. I was concerned only with the declaration asked for against me, which was not upheld by the Court of Appeal—namely, that I had acted improperly in refusing consent. The answer to the second question is that there would remain little function indeed for the relator action in the circumstances suggested.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it not clear to the Attorney-General that there was no effective sanction against breach of the criminal law in this case except an injunction, because presumably the Post Office would not like to have prosecuted many thousands of its staff for complying with the
1706
union's instruction? In those circumstances, is it not clear that his decision was governed by his view that the union would retaliate if he lent his name to the relator action? Is it not a dangerous doctrine on which to apply the law to citizens in a free country—namely, that if people fight back one will not hit them?
The Attorney-General: These are important quesions of constitutional law, and, as I submitted to the Court of Appeal, I do not believe it is right that they should be answered in the context of a particular case. I believe that they should be answered in the context of the general administrative law on which the Law Commission recently published a report.
I do not accept that the only way in which the Post Office could act, if it thought right, would be to prosecute thousands of workers. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that many Attorneys-General in the past, whether Labour or Conservative, have taken the view that, even where it is absolutely clear that an offence has been committed, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute. That certainly was true of Sir Hartley Shawcross—Lord Shawcross as he now is. It is no doubt the foundation of the basis upon which the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) removed the criminal sanction from industrial relations generally in the 1971 Act. I could quote several cases—that of Leila Khaled for one, and the 1973 case—which were on all fours with this one except that no application was made.
The hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon nods, but he knows perfectly well that the Attorney-General can take proceedings ex officio without the intervention of a private citizen. I would need a great deal of convincing that the Law Officers of the Crown at that time had their heads so buried in the sand that they did not know what was going on around them.
Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it hardly lies in the mouth of a party which invoked the Official Solicitor to accuse him of political partiality in the exercise of his duties, and that the vast majority of citizens are behind him? Is he aware that the judgment of the Appeal Court

1707
goes right to the boundaries—the proper boundaries which should exist—between Parliament and the Judiciary? Did he hear Lord Denning today say that these lay in the breasts of the judges? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Labour supporters believe that the proper division between Parliament and the Judiciary should lie in the House of Commons, and will he bring forward legislation?
The Attorney-General: As to partiality, I prefer to say—I hope that I carry the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon with me—that there have been several cases in recent years, two of which I have instanced, in which the Law Officers from the Conservative Party did exactly as I did in this case, I hope with as much anxious consideration as I have given to this case.
It would not be right for me to criticise the judgment of Lord Denning or any other judgment. I have said that leave to appeal has been granted, and I believe that the House of Lords Judicial Committee is the right forum in which to make criticism.
Mr. Thorpe: As the Post Office Board has power either to initiate criminal prosecutions or, alternatively, to seek an injunction, did the Board consult the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a Law Officer of the Crown on what action it should take? Does the Attorney-General agree that it would have been a wise and proper action to have done so and that he had a duty to provide such advice? If he provided such advice, will he say what it was?
The Attorney-General: The Post Office did not come to me with any proposition either that I should advise it on what it should do or asking for my consent to relator proceedings. Whether it would have been proper for me to give advice to the Post Office as an independent corporation is a matter to which I would have to give great consideration if it arose, but it did not arise in this case.
Mr. George Cunningham: Is it not a serious matter, even on points not subject to statute law, for the courts to go completely contrary to what has previously been accepted by them as the law? Does not that infringe the proper making of law by Parliament? As there has been
1708
such confusion in the Press on this issue, will the Attorney-General confirm that there are scores of criminal offences on which no one has a right to get at the courts except with his consent, and that the courts do not say that that is a breach of the fundamental rights of the citizen?
The Attorney-General: The first issue raised by my hon. Friend is a matter for the House of Lords in due course. I must give the judgments a much more thorough reading than I have been able to up to now, but the Court of Appeal certainly appears to take the view that some part of the Attorney-General's function had gone—had become obsolete. How far it went is a matter to which I have to pay close regard.
There are a large number of criminal offences on which my consent is required. On some the requirement is obsolete, but in many where the same sort of public interest considerations exist as exist in a case of this kind my consent is required.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, when Parliament and the Justiciary appear to be in conflict, that is not good for any citizen's feeling of well-being? However difficult the decision is, is it not a dangerous precedent when the House of Commons appears to challenge the independence of the Justiciary, as the House of Commons can change the law if it does not like it? Is it not true that, although there may be sympathy with the motivation of someone who is about to commit a criminal offence, the House should not in any way endorse the actual offence?
The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that conflict between Parliament or the Executive and the courts—particularly Parliament and the courts—should be avoided as much as possible. I made that comment in the course of my observations to the Court of Appeal in this case. It must not be suggested—I hope that the hon. Lady was not suggesting it—that conflict can arise only through Parliament or the Executive taking action which the courts dislike. The independence of Parliament is as fundamental as is the independence of the courts. That is why I adhere to the position not merely that I would not but that I should not give my reasons to the court

1709
in this case but that I was perfectly prepared to give them to Parliament, as I have done.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a great deal of confusion in the minds of the public about this matter, arising from the legalese that blinds them to the issues? Does he agree that this is not an academic matter, although right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House put forward legal arguments? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in this nation, which believes in freedom—anti-apartheid freedom—if hon. Members had taken as great an interest in these matters in 1036, when the Hitler régime was running the Olympic Games in Berlin, many people would have supported the Government, just as Labour Members have absolute confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend in this instance?
The Attorney-General: Of course, I know that there are the strongest possible feelings on some of the subjects that my hon. Friend mentioned. But in terms of my function in this matter—that of granting consent or not granting it to an application for my name to be used to obtain an injunction—the very strong feelings are, of course, relevant to the public interest about what is likely to happen if consent is granted and whether it causes far more widespread damage to the community than if it is not granted. That is a matter of judgment. [HON. MEMBERS: "You were wrong."] I believe that I was right. That is not a matter to which, apart from that part of my consideration, any Attorney-General ought to have regard.
Where I agree 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend is that there is much confusion—it is not surprising—about the function of the relator action and also, much more important, that we have here a constitutional issue of the highest importance. That constitutional issue is whether the courts deliberately should change the law or whether Parliament should do so.
Mr. Edward Gardner: Whatever the legal niceties involved in this matter, does not the Attorney-General agree that, as a Law Officer of the Crown, he has a clear duty to do all in his power to
1710
uphold the law and to assist those who are taking action to support the law? Does he not agree that in this case he failed in that duty?
The Attorney-General: I agree entirely with the first part of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. I equally strongly disagree with the second part of what he said. The assumption behind the second part is that, once one is aware that there may have been or might in the future be a breach of the criminal law, come what may it is one's duty to take action in the courts. As the hon. and learned Gentleman very well knows, that has never been the attitude of Attorneys-General of any of the parties and certainly it was not the attitude of my predecessor.
Mr. Conlan: As a non-lawyer, Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful to be called. Is it not clear that the anachronistic provisions of the law require changing to allow the Union of Post Office Workers to engage in ordinary general industrial action?
The Attorney-General: That is not a matter for me to pronounce upon, although I hope that at some stage the House might in some way be told why, in 1971, when the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East was saying in so many words that the whole purpose of Clause 120 of the Industrial Relations Bill—which became Section 133 of the Act—was to reduce as far as possible the impact of the criminal law in industral relations, and when the then Conservative Government were amending other parts of the law to give effect to that, they did not do something about this Act.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not said whether he will appeal to the House of Lords. He has not said whether he has any locus standi in this case to appeal to the House of Lords or whether the Union of Post Office Workers is to appeal to the House of Lords. If there is any chance of that happening, is not all this discussion not only rather premature but rather unwise?
The Attorney-General: I have applied for and been granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords. If the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr.

1711
Fletcher-Cooke) were in my shoes, I am sure that he would wish to study the judgments before making a decision whether to appeal, and that I propose to do. As for the latter part of his question, I suppose that it might have been open to me to say "I make no statement to the House until after the decision of the House of Lords." I considered that. I thought that it would be totally wrong to take that line and that, if I did, there would be far stronger criticism in the House about my refusal to make a statement of my reasons than any opposition there has been.
Several Hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: We have been on this matter a long time. I propose to take two more questions from each side of the House.
Mr. Pavitt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that this case parallels very closely the one which affected my constituents at Grunwick Processing Laboratories, when the same national association sought an injunction against the Union of Post Office Workers? Is he aware that, after six months, the sweat-shop exploitation still exists there and that it appears to my constituents that law and order is used to protect one section and one political opinion by Right-wing organisations but that, when it comes to the rights of people in Africa or my constituents, law and order is trotted out with the request that it be upheld?
The Attorney-General: Undoubtedly there was a similar situation there. It was similar, but not identical. I was asked questions about it, especially by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I made it quite clear then that in my view the primary responsibility in relation to the Post Office Act was that of the Post Office Board itself, and that is precisely what I have said in my statement today.
Mr. Maudling: I have listened with great care to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's important statement. Am I right in deducing from it the following facts: first, that a clear breach of the criminal law was threatened; secondly, that an individual tried to get the courts to prevent it; thirdly, that he needed the support of the Attorney-General; and, fourthly, that that support was not forthcoming
1712
because the Attorney-General thought that if he gave it the damage wreaked by the Union of Post Office Workers upon the public would have been too severe?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for summarising my statement. I think that it goes a little wider than his four points, but certainly they are part of the essence of it.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Watkinson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, if the logic of this decision and the views of the Opposition are followed, our courts will be inundated at every level with cases as ordinary citizens pursue the rights which the Court of Appeal has very foolishly defined? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that all lawyers on the Government Benches accept that he was entirely correct in the course he pursued and that lawyers on the Opposition Benches know it as well? Does he agree that this matter ultimately must be decided by this place and not by the courts? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not ask a lawyer?"] I am a lawyer.
Mr. Skinner: This has been a lawyers' field-day.
The Attorney-General: It is perfectly correct to say that if the safeguard of the need for the Attorney-General's consent in these matters were simply dispensed with or if he was bound to give it when asked in the circumstances mentioned, it could well be that both he and the courts would be flooded with all kinds of attempts to obtain remedies in the courts. I accept that entirely. But I do not think that the question of administrative convenience is the cardinal factor in all this.
It is of great importance that the Attorney-General should take a view of the public interest in cases of this kind on facts which may not be available to others and which, indeed, in some cases he will not even be able to give to this House, though I hope that if challenged he will always be in that position; but certainly one cannot guarantee that that would always be so. That being the case, until Parliament has worked out—if it is placed before Parliament to do so—the right way in which this public interest sieve can operate without the

1713
present antiquated methods of the Attorney-General's fiat, it is right to follow the practice followed again and again by Attorneys-General of both parties.
Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I appeal to you to allow discussion of this matter to be extended so that people other than lawyers may give an opinion about what is happening?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not call hon. Members on the basis of their calling, vocation, sex or profession. [Interruption.] Order. I call them on the basis that they are hon. Members.
Mr. Clegg: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me despite the fact that I am a lawyer. The Attorney-General has made much play in the courts, and in this House, about the fact that he is responsible to Parliament. In that case, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why during the Grunwick debate, in spite of repeated requests, neither he nor the Solicitor-General appeared before the House to explain the legal situation arising out of that case? If the Attorney-General is to be responsible to Parliament, surely he ought to be here in his place to answer Questions which he is asked.
The Attorney-General: I am afraid that Law Officers cannot always anticipate when their help is likely to be asked for. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the Grunwick debate. I can only say that no such request reached me. I was, however, questioned by the hon. Member for Banbury in the form of both a Written Question and then an Oral Question. There were a number of supplementary questions during which I sought to establish the points that I have established in the course of my statement today.
Mr. Speaker: Business Question. Mrs. Thatcher.
Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House long, but I must raise this point of order because it follows directly from some of the answers that the Attorney-General has given. I wonder,
1714
Mr. Speaker, whether you would give a ruling on the fact that by making an application to the House of Lords the Attorney-General is doing so on behalf of the House of Commons. If, in fact, the Attorney-General is to make an application, surely, within the unwritten constitution of this arrangement, he is going there to represent Parliament.
Because many of us believe that to be the case, we would like the Attorney-General to reconsider the statement that he has made to go to the House of Lords before going to the House of Commons. We would prefer the Attorney-General to listen to the point of view, and possibly the judgment, of the House of Commons rather than go to the House of Lords first. Many of us believe that the House of Lords is not competent to deal with this matter.
Is it not the case that the effect of the judgment announced this afternoon is to convert the Judiciary into a political institution? Is it not also a fact that the judges, in saying what they have said, have made law instead of giving a judgment on existing law?
On the basis of your ruling on my point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Government to take cognisance of the widespread opinion of the incompetence of the House of Lords to come to a decision about this matter? It is therefore right that the House of Commons, as a democratic institution, should come to some understanding about what the Attorney-General called a constitutional issue of the highest order.
My appeal to the Attorney-General is not to make this application to the House of Lords but to come to the House of Commons and allow us to debate the matter and come to a decision on whether judges should be in a position to influence our democratic proceedings in this way.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised an important and serious matter. There are obviously wide issues involved. Equally, I would be very foolish to give a ruling off the cuff on a matter on which I need to tread as delicately as anyone else. Although the House has given me leave of absence for tomorrow, I will see that a statement is read to the House on my behalf.
Mr. Atkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If that statement is given on your behalf, could it be made known that——
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House on a point of order.
Mr. Atkinson: Could particular attention be paid in that statement to whether the Attorney-General, in making an application to the House of Lords, represents the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members are not going to ask me all sorts of difficult questions about the law.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has had three-quarters of an hour on this subject. I believe that it is ready to move on to the next issue. Business Question, Mrs. Thatcher.
Mr. Stokes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) confusing the House of Lords in its judicial capacity with the House of Lords in its legislative capacity? They are two quite separate things.
Mr. Speaker: All I know is that I am in danger of being confused myself.
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Rather than make your statement in absentia tomorrow, when you make a statement personally you can be cross-questioned upon it like anyone else, but if you give it in your absence you cannot. May I therefore offer you the thought that you might care to make your statement a little later in person?
Mr. Speaker: I shall say just one word to the hon. Gentleman. I hope he is not going home labouring under the misapprehension that every time I give a ruling I am open to cross-examination. If so, the hon. Gentleman is under a very mistaken impression. But I am quite prepared to delay any statement until Monday. Mrs. Thatcher, Business Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 31ST JANUARY—Second Reading of the International Finance, Trade and Aid Bill.
Motions on EEC Documents R/89/77 and R/70/77 on skimmed milk and skimmed milk products, and on R/1929/76 on immersion chilling of poultry.
TUESDAY 1ST FEBRUARY and WEDNESDAY 2ND FEBRUARY—Further proceedings on the Scotland and Wales Bill.
THURSDAY 3RD FEBRUARY—Supply [5th Allotted Day]: until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on unemployment in the North-West, and afterwards on the Child Benefit Scheme. Both will arise on a motion for the Adjournment.
Motions relating to Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations.
FRIDAY 4TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 7TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions until about 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, Second Reading of the Reduction of Redundancy Rebates Bill.
Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to put three questions to the Leader of the House. First, will he let the House know the Attorney-General's decision whether to exercise his right to appeal to the House of Lords, so that we may then know, after we have heard the decision and read the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement today, whether to ask for further time for debate?
Secondly, will he assure the House that it, too, will have plenty of time to debate the Bullock Report? He may remember that we have not yet debated the previous Bullock Report.
Thirdly, now that the position with Rhodesia is very serious, can the right hon. Gentleman find time for a general foreign affairs debate or a debate on Rhodesia?
Mr. Foot: I shall see about an appropriate way by which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General may convey to the House his decision whether to make the application. I am doubtful whether that should be done in a statement to the House. Presumably there

1717
would be another period of questions, and I am doubtful whether that is the normal method.
The right hon. Lady is accurate in saying that we have not had a debate on the previous Bullock Report. However, it appears that there is even wider public interest, if I may put it that way, in the second report than in the first. Before we come to the legislative proposals, which the Government made clear yesterday would be introduced, there will, of course, be a period for discussion in the House.
I cannot promise the early prospect of a general debate on foreign affairs, but discussions can no doubt take place about whether a debate on Rhodesia is desired and, if so, how we could find time for it.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 130?
[That this House objects to the new presentation of Early-Day Motions and requests that there be a reversion to the former practice.]
I have found no hon. Member on either side of the House, whether a signatory to the motion or not, who does not object to what has been done. The whole purpose of Early-Day Motions is the presentation and re-presentation of the arguments. If that no longer happens, the whole purpose of Early-Day Motions is lost. I think that I speak for almost every hon. Member when I ask my right hon. Friend to revert to the old practice.
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that the question was debated in the House. [Interruption.] I agree that the debate took place at a late hour. It was debated following the recommendations made by the Services Committee on the subject. As was indicated in the discussion then, there are considerable advantages in the proposal accepted by the House, which is for an experimental period. We shall, of course, take into account the representations made by hon. Members, but they should take into account the arguments which persuaded the House and the Services Committee.
Sir Bernard Braine: Is the Leader of the House aware that I am rising for the third week in succession to inquire whether the Foreign and Commonwealth
1718
Secretary will make a statement about the grievous wrong done to the Banaban people, which was drawn to the Government's attention by a High Court judge last month? Will he also note that when public assets are involved statements on the subject in another place are not good enough, and that many hon. Members on both sides of the House expect the Government to ensure that an early statement is made?
Mr. Foot: I fully accept that statements in another place are no substitute for statements in this House, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know that a Written Answer appears in today's Hansard. An Oral Answer on the subject is to be given on 2nd February. I believe that that is the right way for the House immediately to deal with the matter, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman can press it when he hears the further reply which is promised.
Mr. Jay: Does my right hon. Friend intend to take action which would enable the House to take a decision on the Import Duties (General) (No. 10) Order at 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday?
Mr. Foot: I can give no promise that we shall have a Division then, because there are other issues involved. I hope that it will be possible for the House to reach a decision on the Prayer in the light of the Committee's discussion. There would be advantage in delaying that decision until the Committee Hansard was available. That was one of the considerations that had to be taken into account in dealing with the matter. I acknowledge that the method of dealing with it has not been satisfactory for the House, but I cannot give the absolute promise for which my right hon. Friend asks. However, I shall consider afresh his representations.
Mr. Thorpe: In support of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), may I ask the Leader of the House to consider getting his Department to write to hon. Members asking for their view on the reprinting of Early-Day Motions? The present procedure is very inconvenient.
Secondly, is there any significance in the fact that last week we were to make further progress in Committee on the Scotland and Wales Bill and this week we are to have further proceedings on

1719
the Bill? Is there any significance in the change of wording?
Thirdly, will there be a statement next week on the Government's plans for the referendum? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there may be a case for having a referendum before legislation is introduced and for having one after legislation has gone through both Houses, but that it would be extremely unwise to have one in the middle of legislation between the two Houses, as it is rumoured the Government are considering?
Mr. Foot: On the third question, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should attach any significance to such rumours. I agree that the proper time to have such a referendum would be when Parliament had made its decision on the Act. That is the attitude the Government have taken.
I do not think that the question concerning Early-Day Motions can be settled by asking hon. Members to write. I think that it is a matter to be settled by the House in the way in which we settle recommendations from the Services Committee. If there are representations from many hon. Members, we shall, of course, take them into account, but there is a case for what is proposed, and that is why it was done.
As for the difference between progress on the Scotland and Wales Bill and proceedings on the Bill, I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to attach any high constitutional importance to the distinction. It is merely that variety is the spice of life. I thought that the change might be helpful and encouraging to everyone.
Sir Anthony Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave concern because the Government have not yet produced their legislation for direct elections to the European Parliament? When will the legislation be produced?
Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to the comprehensive answer on that subject which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave yesterday.
Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend is right to attach importance to Committee Hansards, but does he not think that deciding within time overrides that consideration?
1720
While we are on the subject of Hansard, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend intends to put down for debate next week the Services Committee motion recommending a change in the size of Hansard, for which no proper report has been made available to the House? The minutes of the Sub-Committee concerned are not available either. Will my right hon. Friend tell the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who has just left the Chamber, whether we shall debate this matter, because it is deciding on the Floor that counts?
Mr. Foot: I agree that deciding on the size of Hansard is a matter on which the House wishes to give an opinion. The matter is not down for discussion next week, but it must be discussed and settled by the House before a change can be made. As with the other matters, the House must take into account the general considerations which are intertwined with the convenience of the House and which make that recommendation a good one.
I fully accept what my hon. Friend says about the difficulties concerning time on the Import Duties (General) (No. 10) Order, which I suspect is the one to which he is referring. I acknowledge that the way in which the House has been able to deal with the matter is not satisfactory, but, as I think my non. Friend appreciates, we are seeking to overcome the difficulties which arose.
Mr. Wells: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of Early-Day Motion No. 136?
[That this House notes that the Maidstone Division Conservative Association has refused to re-adopt one of its members as a candidate for the County Council elections on the ground that as Chairman of the Borough Planning Committee and Vice-Chairman of the County Planning Powers Committee he had not given enough planning permissions to Conservatives; considers this action to be the unacceptable face of conservatism and a threat to democracy; and calls upon the Leader of the House to set aside time to debate the report of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life (Command Paper No. 6524) at an early date.]
It is founded on a completely false premise and, therefore, I have put down

1721
this afternoon an amendment which would make the motion read:
[That this House urges hon. Members to acquaint themselves with fact rather than giving immediate and unthinking credence to tittle-tattle before signing Early-Day Motions.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that this is naturally a matter within the purview of my constituency association and is entirely untrue?
Mr. Foot: I cannot pass judgment on particular Early-Day Motions and amendments. I have enough on my hands without intruding into the murky affairs of the Conservative Association in Maidstone.
Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Leader of the House should describe the affairs of the Maid-stone Conservative Association as "murky". I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to tell him to withdraw that remark.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The Chair rules that there was nothing unparliamentary in that comment.
Mr. Kinnock: May I press my right hon. Friend further on the point raised by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe)? Would he be a little more specific about when we will get the precise proposals for the referendum question? Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the proceedings so far on the Scotland and Wales Bill and discovered, as I have, that the Bill has few friends on either side of the House? Bearing that in mind, should not the Government slow up the building of the Assembly in Cardiff, or even stop it straight away, since if money is to be wasted it would be better that it was £500,000 than £2·8 million?
Mr. Foot: I know that my hon. Friend has taken part in these debates. No doubt he will have noted that we have had in the main even bigger majorities than we had on Second Reading. Whether that was due to the force of my hon. Friend's eloquence I am not sure, but that is what seems to have happened. Nothing which has happened, however,
1722
should persuade us to hold up the proposals for going ahead with the buildings in Cardiff or Edinburgh. I cannot give an absolute date when we shall be tabling the new clauses about the referendum, but I understand the interest in the House that it should be done in time to allow consultations. We are prepared to see whether we can discuss those clauses before we reach the new clauses in Committee. Government intervention would be required to ensure that.
Mr. Montgomery: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise us a day's debate on education in the near future so that we may discuss the first Bullock Report, which is long overdue for discussion, and, in much greater detail, the Secretary of State's statement about teacher training cuts, which has caused consternation in the education world?
Mr. Foot: I am afraid that I cannot promise an early debate on these important matters. If the second one has caused consternation, it would be a fitting subject for a Supply Day.
Mr. Pavitt: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 133 concerning possible dental charges and the basic principles of the National Health Service?
[That this House reaffirms its belief in the basic principle of the National Health Service that treatment should be free at the time of use and paid for according to means rather than needs through the general taxation system; urges Her Majesty's Government to phase out all health service charges as soon as economic and financial conditions permit; is concerned with the possibility of an increase in dental charges which would move in the opposite direction to the basic principle; and, whilst being willing to accept an increase in the luxury end of dental provision like bridges and gold work, is nevertheless totally opposed to any increase in the basic charge of £3.50 which would have the effect of taking the majority of dental care out of the National Health Service into private practice.]
Does my right hon. Friend recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and the late Aneurin Bevan resigned from the Government on this kind of issue and that in

1723
the last Government we had many problems over this matter in the party? If we cannot have a debate next week, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Cabinet that there are ways of raising precisely the same amount of money by means other than one which would split this party from the Front Bench to the Back Benches?
Mr. Foot: I acknowledge the significance of this subject and am aware of the history. Although I cannot promise a debate, I shall convey to my right hon. Friends the view of my hon. Friend and, I am sure, of many of those who have supported his motion.
Mr. Wigley: Reverting to the question of a statement next week about the referendum, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the widespread Press reports of statements that he is alleged to have made to a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party giving definite information about the number of questions and the type of constituency in which the count will take place? In those circumstances, does he not feel it appropriate to make a statement to the House?
Mr. Foot: I did not say that I would make a statement on the subject next week; I said that we would certainly take into account the representations from hon. Members in many parts of the House and that we would put down the new clauses as soon as we could so that the matter might be settled as early as possible. At the meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party this week we had discussions on these matters, but I gave no firm indication of any Government decisions.
Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the persistent Press reports that, as part of a deal concerning a guillotine, the Government propose to reduce the representation of Wales and Scotland at Westminster. Is he aware that many of his hon. Friends reject those reports because we know that, as a House of Commons man, he would not have in mind a guillotine on a constitutional issue? However, perhaps for that very reason my right hon. Friend will seek to deny that there has ever been such a deal, or at least allow an early debate on that subject.
Mr. Foot: There has been no deal by me or any other member of the Government. No bargain has been entered into, nor have we attempted to enter into one. What appeared in The Times today was a speculative report, and anyone who reads it can see that the author of the article was careful to frame what he said in speculative terms. It is natural that journalists should speculate on these matters, because some of them were among the main topics raised in debate in the House itself, and the Government have given an undertaking to listen to what is said in the House.
Mr. Crouch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern among many hon. Members that, in this week of the tabloid, Hansard might be going the same way? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not drawing on his experience with the Beaverbrook Group and following the example set by the Daily Express this week, because I do not want to read Hansard at the same time and in the same way as I read the Daily Express.
Mr. Foot: I believe that it is appropriate for the House to debate this matter. That is what will happen. There is much misapprehension about what is being proposed, and I do not believe that all the issues involved have been fully considered by those who condemn the proposal. But as for trying to recall my murky past—to use the word I used earlier, although I did not think it bore any relation to the appalling events which must have gone on in Maidstone—as far as I know I never worked for a tabloid. So I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman on that matter.
Mr. Canavan: When will we have the guillotine motion for the Scotland and Wales Bill, so as to ensure its speedy progress and put an end to all the tedious repetition and filibustering that we have to suffer until the early hours of the morning, especially from the Tories?
Mr. Foot: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that it is only on the rarest occasions that such an indelicate word as "filibuster" passes my lips. I must therefore be careful about the use of language. The Government have made it clear that we want to get the Bill on to the statute book. We wish to have full discussion before that. We are seeking to satisfy both those requirements, and we shall continue to do so.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that a statement is made about the progress of the Government's discussions with the Council on Tribunals about the conduct of motorway inquiries?
Mr. Foot: That is not the subject which is absolutely uppermost in my mind at the moment, but I will find out and give the hon. and gallant Gentleman a proper reply.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend end the speculation about the number of Welsh and Scottish Members of this House being reduced? Is he aware that, if that is to have a bearing on the passing of the Bill, it will affect the attitude of hon. Members to the Bill? On the earlier question about the Attorney-General's decision, in view of the action taken internationally by the trade union movement against South Africa, may we have an early opportunity to debate apartheid so that the feeling of the House on the issue may be understood?
Mr. Foot: On the first question, that matter is bound to occur at various stages during discussion of the Bill. It was discussed on Second Reading and in our debates on the first batch of amendments. Therefore, if the discussion arises on the selection of amendments, the Government will give their view at the proper time. I was saying that there was no basis for any suggestion that we had entered into any deal or bargain. I accept what my hon. Friend says about the importance of the subject of apartheid, but the House as a whole, certainly on this side, has many times made clear its absolute abhorrence of the system, and we are not surprised that people have wished to express their opinions in a similar way.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While I appreciate the viewpoint of the Leader of the House on this matter, may I ask you whether it is appropriate for him to make a biased statement or to explain his individual view on this subject when he is speaking as Leader of the House, representing all Back Benchers rather than speaking for the Government?
Mr. Foot: If I have said anything which caused offence to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I apologise. I was not seeking to do so. I was seeking to
1726
tell him—it may have been apparent in any case—that I did not fully comprehend what was the correct answer to his question. I assure him that he will receive a correct answer.
Mr. Luce: Is it not a terrible reflection on the Government's attitude towards foreign relations that there has been no debate on foreign affairs for so long? Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on this subject as soon as possible?
Mr. Foot: It is no reflection on the Government's attitude towards foreign relations that there has not been such a debate. Indeed, if I wished to enter into a partisan argument I might say that it was much more a reflection of the fact that the Opposition had not selected this subject for debate, as is normal, in our discussions on the Debate on the Address. I made no adverse reflection on the Opposition. Before the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw such conclusions, he should study the practice of the House in these matters.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I intend to call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.
Dr. Phipps: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable disquiet on both sides of the House over the rumours that a guillotine motion will be introduced at an early stage and that it might be brought before us before the House has had an opportunity to see the new clauses dealing with the referendum and before the House has had time to know and to contemplate what proposals the Government might be bringing forward for a reduction in the number of Members representing Welsh and Scottish constituencies? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that no such guillotine motion will be brought before us until the House has had the time to study the Government's proposals dealing with these matters?
Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier in answer to a similar question.
Mr. Stephen Ross: May I remind the Leader of the House that he said before Christmas that he would give sympathetic consideration to a debate on imported

1727
whale products? Is he aware that there are two Early-Day Motions on the Order Paper dealing with this subject which have already attracted a large number of signatures? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that there has been a further development recently concerning the lack of information about the amount of imports coming through Dover? Will he give consideration to that point?
Mr. Foot: It is difficult for me to offer any Government time for such a debate. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I agree that this is a subject on which there is obviously considerable legitimate public interest. The House provides that a considerable part of the time available is at the disposal of private Members. It is partly that time which must be chosen to debate some of these topics.

UNION OF POST OFFICE WORKERS (RELATOR PROCEEDINGS)
Mr. Christopher Price: 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,
"today's Appeal Court judgment which seeks to review the discretion of the Attorney-General, who ought to be answerable to this House alone."
I do not think that anyone would gainsay that this is a specific and important matter. It concerns the very jurisdiction of the House of Commons and the proper boundaries that we should lay down between the High Court of Parliament and the High Court of Justice.
I also urge that this urgent matter should be considered forthwith so that Back Bench Members can have their say without the Front Benches and the lawyers fixing up some later debate between themselves. Everyone else in Britain—the newspapers, television and the Appeal Court judges themselves—has contributed during the past 10 days to a public debate on this issue. The House of Commons alone has kept silent, restrained by our self-denying ordinance about sub judice rules. As a result the public debate has
1728
been one-sided because Parliament has been unable to put its own point of view.
This is an issue where the privileges of the House of Commons are at stake. It is essential that the wider implications should be aired immediately in this House to show the country at large that this democratic institution of the House of Commons is not prepared to stand idly by and have its rights over-ridden by the judiciary.
There remains the question of sub judice. I understand that leave has been given to appeal to the House of Lords, but notices have not yet been issued and may not be issued for some time. The whole purpose of our sub judice rule is to prevent our debating anything in this House that might injure the traditional balance between Parliament and the courts. But, for better or worse, in this case the balance has been put in the melting-pot by the Court of Appeal.
Enough has already been said by the Appeal Court judges and the Attorney-General to ensure that that balance is now in jeopardy. In particular, statements have been made in the courts stating that the only power we have in the House of Commons is to reduce the Attorney-General's salary by £100. Statements have been made by Lord Denning to the effect that the judges have the power in their breasts—as he put it—to define this area of the law.
I submit that the 1972 Resolution of the House on sub judice, which instructs Mr. Speaker to take into account the gravity of the issue where ministerial discretion is involved, together with Mr. Speaker's ruling to me on Tameside in 1976, gives ample discretion to allow us to debate the issue, whether or not notices of appeal have been issued.
Failure to debate this issue can only give the impression to the country at large that Parliament is impotent and is willing to stand idly by as its privileges are eroded. Such an impression cannot be good for democracy in Britain. For that reason I submit that we should debate this matter at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the

1729
purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"today's Appeal Court judgment which seeks to review the discretion of the Attorney-General, who ought to be answerable to Parliament".
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 of the hon. Member but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provision of Standing Order No. 9 and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  NUCLEAR INDUSTRY (FINANCE)
  Mr. Secretary Benn,supported by Mr. Secretary Crosland, Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary Dell, Mr. Joel Barnett and Mr. Alex Eadie, presented a Bill to make further financial provision for and in respect of British Nuclear Fuels Limited, the Radiochemical Centre Limited and the National Nuclear Corporation Limited; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 55.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [4th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

  CRIME PREVENTION
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. William Whitelaw: It is surely the primary duty of Governments to protect their citizens. Few if any democratic Governments can claim to be discharging that duty successfully today. Certainly we in the United Kingdom are not. We must face the fact that for a good number of years our failure has become increasingly marked. As a result our people are very concerned about the state of lawlessness in present-day society. They tend to blame the Government and everyone in Parliament for failing to carry out their responsibilities to them.
  We have chosen this subject for debate today in order to promote a fundamental discussion on all aspects of the problem we face in crime prevention. Unfortunately, other events today mean that this debate will receive less attention and will be less well attended than would have been the case otherwise. This is a great pity because it is a subject which Parliament should debate constructively. Nevertheless, I hope that the debate will be positive and constructive.
  Criticism will be made of the way in which the Government are carrying out, or in too many cases failing to carry out, their responsibilities, but we do not intend that this should be a partisan occasion with a vote at the end of the day. Many of us, on both sides of the House I suspect, have come to the conclusion that we have not thought deeply enough about this growing cancer of crime in society, its causes and its possible cures. I want to develop some tentative thoughts about the way we should proceed on a more systematic and intelligent basis.
  To deal with crime effectively we must consider the major factors which contribute to the growth of criminal behaviour in individuals and society. We

  1731
  must look at the social and economic developments of society that are relevant to law enforcement so that we can devise law enforcing and remedial agencies, laws, sentencing policies and the penal institutions which are likely to be most appropriate in a rapidly changing society.
  It is worrying that the amount of research which has practical application to the whole area of crime prevention, detection and rehabilitation is so meagre—much more so than that in many other policy areas. Would the Home Secretary consider this aspect urgently and ensure that the Home Office, the police and the law enforcing and remedial agencies liaise closely together on research projects? I hope that he will use the practical advice and expertise of many outside organisations.
  No debate on crime prevention in the United Kingdom can be complete without reference to the tragic events in Northern Ireland, where terrorism and crimes of a particularly violent nature highlight the danger in any community when lawlessness gets out of hand. There are circumstances peculiar to the situation in Northern Ireland, and neither the Home Secretary nor I need much reminding of that.
  Alas, it does have its effects on the rest of the United Kingdom and serves as a constant reminder that strong and effective action to protect citizens is vital to the health and security of our society. However, Northern Ireland deserves and receives separate consideration, so in the rest of my speech I shall refer to the situation in Great Britain, particularly England and Wales, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will deal with Scottish aspects when he winds up at the end of the debate.
  In England and Wales the bare statistics make very serious reading. In 1975 there were over 2 million indictable offences recorded by the police, and the number of undetected crimes could easily double that figure. There were 71,000 crimes recorded involving violence; more than 500,000 burglaries, and 1¼ million acts involving theft and the handling of stolen goods. Crimes of violence rose by 11 per cent. between 1974 and 1975.
  What is worse, more and more young people are becoming enmeshed in crime.
  1732
  In 1975 more than 6,000 12-year-old boys were found guilty or cautioned on indictable offences. More than 10,000 13years-old boys were found guilty, more than 16,000 14-year-old boys and more than 22,000 15-year-old boys, making a total of more than 100,000 young people under 18 who were found guilty of various crimes.
  We are not witnessing a sudden outbreak of crime. Between 1955 and 1975 the number of offences known to the police has trebled while crimes of violence have increased ten-fold. If current trends continue, the present crime rate will have doubled by 1982.
  Nor can we forget the human personal tragedies and human fear which inevitably lie behind these figures. We are holding this debate in the aftermath of the tragic incidents in Derbyshire last week, which we shall consider separately on another occasion when the Home Secretary publishes the initial report. We must appreciate the effect of criminal actions on the lives of ordinary people, particularly the elderly.
  Many hon. Members will have received a brief from Help the Aged, which tells a serious story of the experiences, anxieties and fears of elderly people. Help the Aged feels that those engaged in looking after the interests of the elderly should meet with the police, representatives of the Home Office and any other affected organisations to find ways in which the elderly can be given extra protection and investigate the root causes of crimes against them. I hope that the Home Secretary will respond positively to this suggestion.
  There is a danger that we shall take for granted acts of lawlessness which were once thought almost unthinkable. For example, teachers have been stabbed in their classrooms by pupils, a prison has been seized and wrecked by prisoners—and we shall receive a report on that to consider separately—bombs have been left under cars and hurled at houses, and even football matches have been ruined for innocent spectators by scenes of senseless violence and destruction. Some years ago on hearing of such events in other countries we would have been tempted to say complacently that it could not happen here. It has, it is happening and it will continue to happen unless we take the right steps to stop it.

  1733
  What are these right steps? As a start they must lie in the treatment and bringing up of children and young people. If we deal with them wrongly, they are first the potential young offenders and then, even worse, the young and older criminals of tomorrow. In any discussion on bringing up children there is a danger of becoming a victim of one's own prejudice. Nor can it be the job of Government or of politicians generally to dictate to parents how they should bring up their children. But we have a duty to give our own views to encourage and to warn.
  I am convinced that an ordered life, with parental discipline in the home and discipline in schools, leads to a respect for the rule of law and the rights of others throughout life alone leads to a healthy and free society for all our people. All this starts in the home, and that is where it seems that as a nation we have failed and are failing today. As a result we find that a very common element in the background of many young people who become involved in crime is the presence of an unhappy or unsatisfactory home environment.
  Nor are such circumstances confined to one-parent families or broken homes. Sometimes the single parent brings up the children with great dedication and success. The homes I have in mind are mainly those where, through parental failure or neglect, the children grow up developing a sense of hatred or an alienation from the family and so, almost inevitably, from society itself.
  It cannot be said, either, that such homes are associated wholly with poor living conditions. Of course, there are many good reasons for dealing with urban deprivation in our big cities, and the likely beneficial effect on crime would certainly be one of them. However, we delude ourselves if we imagine that we can buy successful family backgrounds simply by spending money.
  Equally, I am certain that Governments and local authorities can help to promote better backgrounds for young people with unsatisfactory home lives through the education system. The teachers should be encouraged to enforce disciplines and standards which may be lacking in the home, and they deserve far more support than they get from society as a whole
  1734
  when they do so. In spite of the many pressures on them, teachers also have a responsibility positively to help those children whom they know have difficult and unhappy backgrounds. In this connection we as a community should surely deal far more ruthlessly than we do with the problems of truancy.
  The Government and local authorities should give urgent consideration to the best means of encouraging the work of church and other voluntary organisations. Many workers in such organisations complain of their frustration at local authority bureaucracy and at the delay in dealing with their requests. I would therefore ask the Home Secretary to inquire into these problems through the Voluntary Service Unit at the Home Office. I hope that this unit will be used and that efforts will be made to investigate what is happening in the work of many local authorities in dealing with the voluntary organisations in other areas.
  The Government and Parliament should exert their own moral authority to dissuade all those who seek to undermine educational, moral and personal disciplines. Some people have gone too far in attempting to justify the destructive and disruptive tendencies in young people, and in actually persuading young people that the society in which they live is so unacceptable that action against it, however criminal, is in some perverted sense morally acceptable. There is surely all the difference in the world between young people being angry and critical at our very imperfect society and being encouraged to become wholly alienated from it. The Government cannot escape the responsibility, through the failure of their economic policies, of leaving many young people on the streets, unemployed.
  Even if all these efforts were to be successful, and they would not be, we should still have to develop a strategy for dealing with what will certainly remain as a high rate of crime. That brings me to the law enforcement agencies. Here again the Government have a duty to set an example to the nation through their own attitude to the law. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Hailsham said in a speech last year
  "For the rule of law, more is necessary than impartial judges, and lawyers who are incorrupt. The rule of law demands Governments and civil servants and Parliaments

  1735
  who use their responsibilities impartially and exercise upon themselves the restraints which they would demand of others in authority."
  Naturally I shall not refer to the events which have taken place earlier today. These should be properly studied, and it would be right for the House to come back to them when that study has been made.
  However, I do not need to refer to them to make my case, for the Government have already to answer for their disgraceful failure over the Clay Cross action. The Home Secretary must be relieved that he personally did not vote in the Division concerned with that matter, but he cannot escape collective responsibility for the sins of his colleagues. In contrast one must applaud the steadfastness of Mr. Roy Jenkins who consistently refused to yield to the pressures of some Labour Members below the Gangway—they are not here today—and of some members of the trade unions to afford preferential treatment to the Shrewsbury pickets.
  In considering law enforcement I want to deal first with the treatment of young offenders. Here our basic aim must surely be to deter as many as we can from involvement in further acts of crime. The chances of achieving a measure of success would appear from the evidence available to depend to a very large extent on whether young offenders are caught the first time they commit a crime. This in turn depends on successful police work, to which I shall return.
  At present the main piece of legislation dealing with young offenders is the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Recently a group of my hon. Friends and Conservative lawyers, under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), published a report on its working. Their views reinforced those in the relevant report of the Select Committee on Expenditure. They pointed to serious inadequacies in the Act. In particular they found that the courts were left without sufficient powers to control the hard-core persistent offenders while, due to a lack of resources, they were unable to provide remedial care in certain appropriate cases, which was one of the main intentions of the Act.
  1736
  The two reports have received widespread support from those who have the duty to operate the Act. Therefore I ask the Home Secretary to comment on the views expressed and to tell the House what the Government intend to do about it. Clearly the present position under the Act is most unsatisfactory.
  For all types of offenders sentencing policy is of crucial importance. There are serious doubts whether the sentences prescribed and the penalties laid down in various Acts of Parliament match the magnitude of the crimes. In particular we must surely meet the growth in crimes of violence with tougher sentences than are available at present. In this connection I do not now intend to enter into arguments on capital punishment, a subject which arouses widespread interest and emotion, simply because the decisions have been taken by this House on the appropriate free votes in recent years.
  There is also an unsatisfactory position when judges feel that their sentences may be drastically changed by remission policy. It is said that the Home Office is considering an early release scheme as a means of relieving overcrowding in our prisons. I trust that the Home Secretary will give very careful thought to such a scheme before introducing it. There are clear dangers that it would result in an effective curtailment of the powers of the judiciary to determine sentences and in the release of persistent offenders who would soon commit another crime.
  There is a particularly heavy risk with prisoners who have records of violence or mental instability. I know that the Home Secretary will consider these points carefully. I fully appreciate the difficulties he faces in this whole matter, and if he is considering such a scheme I understand the reasons for his so doing. However, I hope that he will bear these points in mind.
  At the same time, I trust that he will encourage non-custodial sentences in appropriate cases with community service work. The Probation Service seems to have had considerable success in this direction. If it is expanded, such a development could certainly help with the problems to which I now turn.

  1737
  Mr. Roy Jenkins when he was Home Secretary made it clear that if the prison population reached the figure of 42,000, drastic action would be needed. I do not need to remind the Home Secretary that that figure has now been passed. The situation is particularly bad for the undermanned and over-worked prison officers who are struggling to do what would be even in normal circumstances an immensely difficult and sensitive job. They are deeply anxious and frustrated because they cannot do their job according to the high standards and ideals that they set for themselves. I am told that they have a clear feeling that their views are inadequately considered by the Government. I do not know whether this is fair, but it is the message that I have received.
  I therefore ask the Home Secretary to look into the matter personally and carefully. If that feeling were to get abroad, it would be extremely unsatisfactory. In this connection, I particularly hope that the Home Secretary will positively involve the prison officers in the serious examination that he must be conducting of prison strategy and of details of the present administration. As to strategy, I hope that the Home Secretary will seek to involve more voluntary workers, both in visiting prisoners and in helping prisoners' families. Such people can play a very useful rôle in rehabilitation.
  We in the Conservative Party believe that while we are in opposition it is our duty to do what we can to study and to help in seeking to improve our prison systems because there is a worrying and in many cases dangerous situation. Accordingly, I asked my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde to set up a study group under his chairmanship for the purpose of making such a study. The announcement that the study group was starting work attracted considerable interest, as I know from the correspondence that I have received. I realise that the Home Secretary recognises the gravity of the problem and I assure him that we Conservatives wish to do everything that we can to help him overcome it.
  Lastly, I come to the fundamental problem of our police service. Any strategy to deal with crime that is not based on a contented, fully manned and properly equipped police service is bound
  1738
  to fail. Furthermore, the police service has the right to expect the wholehearted support of the Government and the public in its task of protecting us. My major criticism of the Government is that they have failed to give the police the distinct impression that the Government are fully behind them.
  Unfortunately for the Home Secretary, some of his hon. Friends below the Gangway, who are absent today, seldom fail to show their distrust and even dislike of the police. The Home Secretary has a responsibility to prove to our police officers that the Government really will give them full backing. The hon. Gentleman has begun work at a difficult moment in this relationship and he has much to do if he is to restore police confidence.
  I know that important discussions are now going on about the current unfortunate dispute over police pay. As the Home Secretary knows, I have consistently urged him to deal with this as sympathtically as possible and today I shall add only that I trust that a fair compromise will be reached at the earliest possible moment.
  The Government should give a number of firm guarantees to the police force. We on this side of the House believe that the pay and conditions of the police must be steadily improved. The police must not be put in a less advantageous position in terms of pay and conditions than other public servants.
  Their pay and career structure must be such as to fulfill two objectives. Firstly, chronic undermanning must be quickly and permanently eliminated, particularly in urban areas. Secondly, the service must be able to attract and hold people of calibre from all walks of life. In the years ahead, as crime becomes more complicated and sophisticated, it is vital that the police should be able to recruit increasing numbers of people who have a high degree of intelligence and practical ability. The development of in-service training at Bramshill Police College and the university scholarships associated with that are welcome and will, I hope, be further expanded.
  In police work I hope that voluntary work through the special constabulary will be encouraged. It surely has a valuable rôle to play, not in substituting for professional policemen but in complementing them. We in the Conservative

  1739
  Party are determined to work for the maintenance and development of a police force that will be able fully to meet the challenge in the years ahead. We are resolved as a future Government to provide the necessary resources. I must point out to the Home Secretary that our approach appears to be in marked contrast to that of his Government and of the Labour Party.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Opposition spokesman has made a number of suggestions throughout his speech, but that is the first time that he has mentioned resources. All of us would agree with much that he has suggested, but there are real difficulties in this at a time when resources are scarce and when there are public expenditure cuts. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in future in voting against further public expenditure cuts in order that these dreams can be achieved?
  Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is usually somewhat cunning in his approach. Many of the proposals that I have put forward concern particularly the voluntary services and would not cost more in terms of resources. As to the police, the Conservative Party has made it clear that while it believes in public expenditure cuts and would be determined to carry them out, it would make a clear difference in the instances of the police and the Armed Forces on the ground of protection of the safety of our citizens. That is a matter of priorities, and it is important that any Government or party should set out priorities clearly. We have made clear our priorities for the defence forces and for the police force.
  I find it incredible that a Government who can so effortlessly mis-spend thousands of millions of pounds can decide to cut back in an area involving the physical safety of our citizens. The Government are intent on creating a society in which projects for nationalisation will have a higher priority than the safety of our people and their property. The Home Secretary has been urged by Britain's chief police officers that the fast-growing lawlessness is a direct result of cut-backs in public spending. In The Times of 5th January a chief constable was reported as saying:
  "the Government's decision to cut back on local government spending will be tantamount
  1740
  to a criminal's charter. People will be able literally to help themselves and our manpower will be so weak on the ground that we will be unable to stop them."
  That statement was made by a chief constable and it must be taken seriously. I trust that the Government will do so.
  It is surely madness at a time of rising crime to cut back the forces of law. I hear the Minister of State say that they are not being cut back. I am glad to hear that, but what about the Home Office circular that the Home Secretary put out concerning the cut-back in the numbers of police cadets? What was that if not a cut-back? If the Minister of State can assure me that there is no cutback and that the circular did not mean what it said, I would be delighted to hear it. If the Minister of State can give me that assurance, he may look satisfied and happy and so shall I. That would be a good thing.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that in order to prevent cuts in the police force we should, for example, cut the number of primary school teachers and increase the sizes of classes? Could the right hon. Gentleman be more specific about the areas of public services in which he would make cuts? We know that the Tories want larger cuts in public expenditure than the Labour Party would wish.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman is an old enough hand in politics to know that all decisions are a matter of priorities. We believe that it is right to give top priority to the defence forces and the police in the interests of protecting our citizens. We happen to believe that it is the first duty of a Government to protect their citizens from threats from both abroad and within.
  I suspect that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) shares that view, but he and I both know that some of his hon. Friends do not feel the same way and, sadly, that affects the attitude and policies of the Government. Large sums are being squandered on nationalisation projects simply to appease the same people who are not interested in the defence of this country or in its police force. I could go on for a long time on this subject, but I am seeking to make a constructive and positive speech and I

  1741
  shall not be drawn further into an argument which, much as I enjoy it, is not appropriate at present.
  I come, peacefully I hope, to a conclusion. I hope that today's debate will be just the beginning of a much more determined and thoughtful approach to crime in our society. A society which is riddled with lawlessness demoralises its law-abiding citizens, weakens the social fabric and increasingly exposes its children to the temptations of a criminal life which can lead only to prison and misery. Without a minimum code of discipline and a set of shared standards, children and young people find not freedom but frustration and futility.
  The time has come for us to strengthen the social forms and institutions which provide the bulwark of real freedom—the rule of law effectively enforced and the resolute advocacy of those values in the home and school which so many of our people share. The Government and the Home Secretary have the power and the responsibility; they are in a position to give a lead and fight back against increasing crime and lawlessness. Let the right hon. Gentleman show by his response today that they have the necessary will and determination.
  5.23 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The breadth of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) shows that the prevention of crime can be seen as the primary purpose of the whole system for the administration of justice and as a secondary aim of much else besides.
  I shall reply to a number of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, but he will understand that in a debate in which the speech in reply will deal primarily with Scottish affairs—and perhaps some aspects of policy in England and Wales—it will not be possible to deal with all the matters that are raised. Perhaps we could follow the usual pattern of keeping in touch by letter or in other ways.
  I shall look at the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about local authority bureaucracy. There are always lessons to be learned in politics, and whenever I am involved in policies that require
  1742
  structural change I never make the mistake of the last Conservative Government in its reorganisation of local government in the early 1970s. That was the greatest disaster of all time, and I have the example written above my desk to make sure that I do not fall into a similar error. That aberration of the last Conservative Government caused the bureaucracy.
  Mr. Graham Page: Why did this Government do nothing about checking that bureaucracy? Why did they take no account of the inquiry that was set up just before they came to power? Where has that inquiry's report gone?
  Mr. Rees: I do not need a rubric on my desk to remind me of the local government disaster; I shall keep a picture of the right hon. Gentleman. That disaster led to the bureaucracy with which I have to cope.
  I shall consider the suggestions of the Conservatives' committee. All ideas, whatever their source, should be carefully considered.
  We are debating an important subject; the Government and I accept that the level of crime and the steady increase over the past 10 years are a cause for serious concern. It is right that the House should review what is being done and that the Government should continually ask themselves whether the measures over which we have control are being taken in the right direction. I shall concentrate on those matters over which we have control and influence, but this is a wide subject and one over which no democratic Government could ever have absolute control; nor would I want such a Government to have such control.
  It is a depressing fact that indictable offences reported to the police have increased in the past 10 years from 1·2 million to 2·1 million. The increase has been steady during that period, with a slight drop in 1973 being cancelled by a steeper than average rise in 1974. I take no comfort from the fact that the upward curve has been levelling off in the past three years. The increase in 1974 was 18 per cent., in 1975, 7 per cent. and in the first nine months of last year, 2 per cent. It is too soon to say whether that levelling off will be permanent, but the level is far too high anyway, and we must guard against any acceptance that such a

  1743
  high level of crime in our society is unavoidable.
  I am particularly concerned that within the overall total, criminal damage and offences of violence against the person have increased in recent years at a faster rate than the total. We should not leave the bare world of statistics without a comment on the limitations of our knowledge. We do not know how accurately they reflect the true level of crime in society or fluctuations in it. Increased public concern about a particular offence, such as criminal damage, may result in a greater proportion of those offences being reported. I am advised that local campaigns may be run to encourage the reporting of such offences to the police. Accordingly, we must avoid the danger of interpreting statistics subjectively. A sensational case often blurs the trend.
  Some people seem to suggest that a perfect state existed in 1945, 1939, 1914 or 1900 and that all our problems started suddenly. I was studying the volumes of "Life and Labour in London" recently. They reveal a very different state of affairs in the 1890s. It is wrong for people to believe that there was no violent crime then, and that people could walk the streets of London without fear of being attacked. Some time ago, I was looking at the log books of municipal schools just after they had been set up in 1870. The head teachers had laboriously logged in copper-plate writing some of the things that happened in their schools. They do not happen now.
  The idea that an imperfect world, for which we should have a great guilt complex, has suddenly come upon us is wrong. The older I get, the more often I fall into the error of saying that it was all different in my day and that there are simple answers to these problems. There are not. We shall be having similar debates in the House in 40 or 50 years' time.
  Although we must take the statistics as the best available yardstick, we must look behind them and interpret them as best we can. We must also ensure that those who are engaged in the prevention of crime are aware of current trends and needs.
  Before leaving criminal statistics, I wish to make particular comment about the allocation of offences to categories
  1744
  for the purposes of the mode of trial. I do it for a purpose. I do it in perhaps a slightly illogical way, but I have been disturbed by some of the letters to responsible newspapers, which in my view have wrongly criticised magistrates. I wish to give my support to the magistracy. Some of the things that have been said about it have been ill-informed.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is responsible for these matters and who, incidentally, did not deserve any strictures from the right hon. Gentleman because he did not open his mouth—but that is another matter——
  Mr. Whitelaw: If I criticised the Minister of State unfairly, I shall withdraw my criticism. I thought I said that the hon. Gentleman had smiled. I did not know that that was a stricture. I have never had so little sense of humour that I have objected to people smiling.
  Mr. Rees: There it is. We have talked about these matters and, as I have said, my hon. Friend has responsibility. We decided that it would be worth putting to the House the allocation of offences to categories for the purposes of the mode of trial, it having a bearing on the Criminal Law Bill that will be coming before the House for discussion.
  One argument that has been used against some of the proposals is based on a general belief that a jury is more likely to acquit than are magistrates. It is sometimes alleged that magistrates are more prosecution-minded than juries.
  I draw attention to a table of figures that appeared in the Order Paper yesterday in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) about the comparative rate of acquittals as between magistrates' courts and Crown courts, where the principal offence, in the sense used in the published criminal statistics, is one of those whose allocation to the trial category is in issue. The figures may surprise some people.
  The acquittal rates for drinking and driving offences are about the same in the magistrates' courts and the Crown courts. For thefts, the rates vary according to the type, but for what are described as "other thefts" of under £5 the magistrates' courts acquitted in 64 per cent. of contested cases and juries

  1745
  acquitted in 61 per cent. For offences in the public order group, in 1975 the magistrates acquitted in 57 per cent. of contested cases as against 28 per cent. acquitted by juries. For assaults on constables, magistrates acquitted in 27 per cent. of cases and juries in 20 per cent.
  I hope that those who have criticised the magistrates' courts will reflect on the position. Again, I must give my praise to the voluntary work that is done by the magistrates in the magistrates' courts. It ill became some who wrote to the newspapers to make criticism of the magistrates, some of those letters being written by professional lawyers. I shall not use the letters, but in my postbag there have been letters from some magistrates criticising the calibre of some of the lawyers who operate in their courts. Perhaps we should call it a draw and leave it at that.
  Let us discuss the matter objectively. I suspect that whatever praise I give to whatever group may be interpreted as suggesting that some lawyers and some magistrates are not as good as the rest of the lawyers and the rest of the magistrates. I am exempting any hon. Members who are members of the legal profession.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke about public expenditure. I shall not go into the issue of nationalisation, how it is financed and what the right hon. Gentleman and I did in different ways in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman spent money on a shipyard when it was private and I spent money on it when it was nationalised. It was, in effect, the same money. The structure did not seem to matter very much. Whether an undertaking is nationalised or private, anyone who is against nationalisation or against private ownership can prove a lot. But the proof is often nonsense. Let us leave it at that. I shall deal with the spending on law and order and protective services, that is, my budget.
  The Government have spent £250 million—that is a quarter of a billion pounds at constant prices, which involves nothing about inflation and avoids any need to mess around with the figures—more than was spent by the previous Administration in its last year in office. Next year we shall be spending about the same as this year. I know that it is difficult,
  1746
  but when talking about cuts we are talking about cuts in increases. The Government are spending about a quarter of a billion pounds more, in constant prices, than were the previous Administration.
  A crucial item is policemen and policewomen, as opposed to police cadets. I feel that it is perhaps the most important item. It is the sharp end. I feel that they are at the sharper end than the civilians employed in the police force. We shall be spending more during the next year than this year on policemen and policewomen. I suggest that the facts that I have outlined are sufficient to refute any suggestion that the Government have neglected their responsibilities in this area, although there are various matters that we wish to consider.
  I think that we all agree that those in the front line are the police themselves. It has often been said that their raison d'etre is the prevention of crime. Almost all their activities can be so viewed.
  Their responsibilities for the maintenance of public order may certainly be so viewed. Indeed, that is how the police view their responsibilities. Breaches of public order are criminal offences. The purpose of the police is, if possible, to prevent the offences from being committed. If that cannot be fully achieved, their purpose is to arrest and charge offenders.
  My experience in Northern Ireland—I know that it was the right hon. Gentleman's experience—has convinced me how important it is that the maintenance of public order should be regarded as part of the normal responsibilities of the civil police and how inestimably fortunate we are in Great Britain to live in a country where that is accepted as normal.
  Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom—and that is the way it should be. But it is not until we see the situation in Northern Ireland, until we have to use the Army, and until we learn of the problems of the police in Northern Ireland, that we realise that the situation is different. I know that I carry the right hon. Gentleman with me when I say that every time we come back we have the feeling "Thank God it is different here".
  It is the civil policing that is so important. It is very important that the police should be able successfully to discharge their responsibility without recourse to methods that the police and the

  1747
  public would regard as authoritarian and alien to our traditions. It will certainly be my aim, so long as I am Home Secretary, not just to uphold law and order but to give active support to the police in maintaining it in the manner to which we have become accustomed.
  I have special responsibilities for London, where I am the police authority for the Metropolitan District and where the task of maintaining public order is most challenging. I have discussed these matters with the present Commissioner and his successor. Both entirely share my view that the police should rely on traditional methods for maintaining public order, with the support of the general public.
  But they, and I, also have a responsibility to the members of the Metropolitan Police. It is clear that we have to reckon with the possibility of incidents involving a degree of violence. For example, an incident involving the throwing of bricks, stones and bottles could give rise to unwarrantable risk of injury to policemen. We owe it to them to provide them with adequate protection if and when they need it.
  Therefore, I have approved the Commissioner's proposal that the Metropolitan Police at least should acquire protective shields for use if, and only if, the need arises. The Commissioner and his successor have assured me that they intend to continue with traditional methods of maintaining order whenever possible, that the issue of shields will be authorised only if an incident cannot be maintained by traditional methods without unacceptable risk of injury to policemen, and that they will be used only under the close supervision of senior police officers.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that he feels that that is a necessary measure to take for London alone and that it is not necessary to institute such measures in other large cities? Does he think that the difference between the maintenance of law and order in London is really that much different from the task in other cities?
  Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend has raised an important matter. When I was giving approval for the use of shields and discussing the matter, I asked if use could
  1748
  be made of them, if necessary, outside London.
  I am the police authority for the metropolis. There is close co-operation with other police authorities. I have left the matter on the basis that it will be considered. We shall have to see what happens, but if necessary what is available and closely held in London could be made available elsewhere. However, it is the Metropolitan Police for which I have direct responsibility.
  In looking at the police service as a whole, the Government have not imposed any limit on police forces to prevent them from recruiting up to authorised establishment. After careful scrutiny we have also authorised some increases in establishment. An extra £11 million has been provided to cover the cost of growth in the next financial year. The results are encouraging.
  Someone who was brought up as an economist in the economic free market would start with the premise that recruitment to a labour force is determined by wages, that if wages are not enough, down will go recruitment, and that, given a shortage, recruitment will increase. In a free market one starts on that basis. It does not work that way in practice. Other factors persuade men and women to join a force, to go into a factory, or to go anywhere else.
  However, the statistics are interesting and encouraging. Police strength—over 109,000 at the end of 1976—is now nearly 9,000 more than when the present Government came into office in February 1974. In 1976 the bulk of the increases—nearly 2,000 out of about 2,300—went to the large cities, where they were needed most. That is good. I cannot pretend that this was because somebody wrote a circular. I sometimes think that had my predecessor or I written a circular to the effect that recruitment should be in the inner cities, recruitment would have ended up away from those areas. But it has happened that way. I hope that the House will not mind if I claim some credit for it, just as others would have done had it gone the other way.
  The police in England and Wales are still 8,625 below the authorised establishment, but the measures that we have taken show the importance that we attach to further increases in strength.

  1749
  Some restraints elsewhere in the service have been unavoidable. This is a problem at which we must all look. We have had to ask for limits to be placed on the numbers of civilians, traffic wardens and cadets, and on goods and services. When people ask for cuts in public expenditure to help the economic situation, they usually mean cuts in goods and services, unless they want cuts for the sake of them. If there is any argument economically, it is that goods and services shall be sold elsewhere to help the export drive, and so on. Therefore, it is not surprising that such cuts should be made. I suggest that it would be surprising if the measures considered necessary by the Government did not produce difficulties in particular areas.
  I have had representations about some of the difficulties from individual chief officers and police authorities. The representations have not been about police manpower. I notice that one reputable newspaper got it wrong. It was a Saturday morning headline that it got wrong, so perhaps one could forgive it.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this matter?
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman may find that I can be helpful here if I give some facts. I hope that these difficulties can be settled locally, in a spirit of cooperation. To some extent, the decisions will reflect locally determined priorities.
  I have considered this matter. I have certain powers. Other powers are in the hands of local authorities. We in this place can hardly stand up and talk about local democracy and then, when local authorities do things that we do not like, say that such matters should be determined nationally. Of course, we can say that, but we cannot have it both ways.
  I hope that no local authority will seek to oblige its police authority to take measures that would unacceptably reduce the capacity of the police force to do its job. This is a delicate area, involving priorities as seen by local and central government police authorities and the police themselves. Over the years we have talked in the House about this delicate area. It is not surprising that in current circumstances we should be seeing
  1750
  some signs of strain, but it is right that we should keep a close watch on developments. The point that I am making is that I have powers regarding the numbers of policemen and policewomen, and they are increasing. As for cuts in public expenditure, the rate support grant, and so on, there are variations between different local authorities. The people who run those different local authorities are locally elected. There is a problem regarding what control I should exercise. I am prepared to deal with the point that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) may make. Local authorities are democratically elected locally, and there are delicate problems between myself and them and between them and police authorities.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have had some experience of dealing with local authorities. How can the Secretary of State say that police manpower is not affected by reductions in the numbers of traffic wardens, civilian clerical aides and, of course, police cadets? Inevitably, if there are fewer civilian aides, more professional police officers will have to be taken off the job to carry out the clerical work. The same point applies to traffic wardens. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can maintain that the cutting of these ancilliary services has no effect on police manpower.
  Mr. Rees: I agree that if the policeman has to go off his normal job to see children across the road, that must be so. My decision was based on what had to be done in terms of a real increase in my budget. The point that grieved me most concerned police cadets. I believe that they are the seed corn for the future. They receive an excellent education, as right hon. and hon. Members would know if they saw them in training. The judgment that I had to make at the end of the day was that it had to be in favour of policemen and women, and, in a different context, the Specials. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and I know the value of police reserves in Northern Ireland. That is not necessarily the view of the Police Federation, for other reasons. One has to make judgments. I understand the problems. Some policemen have to do paper work. I am sure that what we have said in the House will be noted by local authorities.

  1751
  I turn now to police pay. With regard to the difficulties over police pay and the pay negotiating machine, I was and am sorry that the Police Federations for England and Wales and Northern Ireland—but not for Scotland—have withdrawn from the Police Council—the body set up by Parliament to negotiate police pay. I emphasise that because, if there is any change, it is a matter for Parliament.
  I do not consider that the withdrawal was justified. The official side of the Police Council, without any pressure from the Government, had made an offer of the maxima available under the pay policy. My predecessor and I have met the Police Federation on a number of occasions since the withdrawal, the latest occasion being on 19th January. Another meeting is being arranged for February.
  During the phase of pay policy while other workers were limited to an increase of £6 a week, the police, up to the rank of Chief Superintendent, got considerably more. Their settlement amounted, in round figures, to 30 per cent. Special arrangements allowed this settlement, due from 1st September 1975, to stand. But for these arrangements, the police settlement would have been put into suspense. My predecessor, with me—I then being responsible for Northern Ireland—and the Secretary of State for Scotland, played some part in looking after the police interest.
  Although I do not regard withdrawal from the Police Council as in any way justified, I recognise that the machinery is not working. In my meetings with the Federation I have been exploring what can be done to find a solution. I have agreed that there should be a review of the police pay negotiating machinery in which all those with an interest would have a right to participate. The precise form of this review is still a matter for consultation. I am also examining a proposal that the constitutional arrangements for the Police Federation should be examined. That will be a matter for this House. The House will recognise that this matter needs very careful consideration, bearing in mind the unique position of the police.
  I hope that a settlement can be reached in the pay issue. Obviously I cannot go into this in detail now. But I should deal with one point. The suggestion has been made by some people
  1752
  that the pay issue should be referred to an independent person or body. That suggestion loses sight of the fact that what is at issue is the interpretation of the Government's pay policy. This is not a matter which lends itself to arbitration or adjudication. But, as I have said, discussions continue, and I hope that a solution will be found. I understand the problems of the police. If I did not before, certainly as Home Secretary I do now.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is being statesmanlike. Does he accept that this is not just another group of wage earners? The Government must take into account that these people are in a wholly different sphere—law and order—and that the strength and happiness of the police are essential if we are to maintain the country's strength on that front.
  Mr. Rees: Yes.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Therefore, this is surely a wholly different matter and should not be considered only with reference to the cost of living or the Government's incomes policy.
  Mr. Rees: That was precisely the argument—I know the rules—when the matter was discussed in the Cabinet nearly two years ago. My predecessor said something like that. That is why the police got 30 per cent. instead of the lower figure that everybody else had. Therefore, that matter was taken into account. Recently I talked to someone skilled and older in politics than myself—not a Labour Member. We were discussing this matter the other day. He said "Nothing changes. That is what Home Secretaries have been doing for a long time." I am aware of the problem. We are trying to find our way out of a very difficult situation.
  With regard to police matters in general, there are many things that I could say, but time goes on. I should like to pick up one point in which I am particularly interested. In my brief time at the Home Office, I have called together various people—the police, football people, British Rail, and colleagues in other Departments—to study the question of football hooliganism. Without going into the details, I want to get on record the fact that this is another matter

  1753
  on which nice simple answers seem to abound. Judging by the number of letters that I have received, a great many people have nice simple answers to football hooliganism.
  I do not believe that the matter can be dealt with in that way. However, I should like to make this point. Those authorities or groups that arrange for young people—the problem is with those aged about 15 to 18—to arrive in Leeds, Manchester, or wherever the match is, at 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning, with nothing to do until 2 p.m. when nowadays supermarkets sell everything from Nigerian riesling to vodka, should realise that it is not surprising that by 2 o'clock problems arise. Problems also arise after the match particularly if the away team loses and the supporters who are on the way home to the station feel that they must show their feelings.
  I hope that those who organise the arrival of people for a match in the middle of Leeds—I have a particular interest here—will ensure that they get there at about 10 minutes to 3 o'clock in the afternoon, or 10 minutes before the match starts, and catch the train home at about 5.15 p.m. That would suit us very well, and it would save much police money, and the like. I am sure that many other towns face the same problem.
  Mr. Reginald Eyre: The problem of football hooliganism in the metropolitan areas is also much affected by the times of arrival and departure of coaches.
  Mr. Rees: I had that in mind as well, and it applies sometimes to places other than the middle of towns after a match. For one horrible moment I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to offer the result of a match that is to take place on Saturday. I should rather not get involved in that matter.
  Being conscious of the time available to me, I shall not attempt to do justice to all the things that are being done. However, I want to turn to the treatment of offenders, which is an important matter in which the Government have a major responsibility in the ways in which courts may deal with offenders and the facilities provided to carry out their decisions. Naturally, it is an aim of the various ways in which offenders are dealt with that they
  1754
  should be deterred from committing further crime, and that those who have not yet offended should be deterred from committing crime at all.
  I am satisfied that the penalties now available are sufficient, except that I hope that the proposals in the Criminal Law Bill that is now being considered in another place will be approved. Under the Bill, certain maximum fines and amounts of compensation which offenders may be ordered to pay by magistrates' courts will be increased to £1,000.
  It is fair to say that, thanks to the policies of successive Governments over the last 10 years, we now have an imaginative and flexible range of methods available for dealing with offenders. I am not praising my efforts; I am referring to policies of Governments of all political persuasions. I think that that may be out of character with what we are supposed to do in the House, but it is not out of character with what happens in the Home Office. In that respect, it is a rather different Department.
  Community service is, for instance, now available in all or part of 53 out of the 56 probation areas in England and Wales. Recently the scheme has extended to a further 24 petty sessions areas. In the year ending April 1976 the Probation Service reports that some 4,900 offenders received community service orders. I met members of the Probation Service the other day. There is no doubt that they feel that this is something important that ought to be developed.
  Admittedly, some of the pressures for community service and other new methods of treatment, such as suspended sentence and parole, have come about because of the problem of accommodating increasing numbers of offenders sentenced to imprisonment. The question of overcrowded prisons in the past has prompted change. It has been one of the factors. But that is not the sole, nor even the principal, reason for the development of alternatives to imprisonment. Neither the present Government nor their predecessors have been pushed by the pressure of events into adopting policies which they believed were to soft. The fact is that the development of alternatives in this way has provided sentencers with a more graduated series of responses to meet the varied needs of offenders.

  1755
  It is unfortunately true—I come back to economics—that in the current economic situation it is difficult to increase resources in any direction. The prisons are overcrowded. The prison population recently rose as high as 42,000. I do not want to get involved in the numbers game. Temporarily the number is 40,400, but I am advised strongly that this always happens in January and that the number is on the way up, so it is no good taking that figure, because it will soon be bigger.
  Conditions, particularly in local prisons, including the one in the city part of which I represent, fall far short of the desirable standard, and plans for increasing their capacity have had to be reduced. We now plan to provide about 4,500 extra places in the period up to 1981. Therefore, although 4,500 extra places will be provided, given the numbers that I have mentioned, obviously this will not be enough.
  Clearly, however, it would be wrong for me not to continue to maintain a close watch on the situation and to keep under review—especially with regard to the adult population—all possible measures for intervening. I simply say that I am very concerned about the serious overcrowding that exists in our prisons.
  The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border asked about the scheme that I introduced in Northern Ireland. I have not come to the House about that matter, because I have not made up my mind or discussed it sufficiently, although I told someone from the Press that I was considering it. The scheme that I had in Northern Ireland arose because there was no parole system. I do not want anything that I do to interfere with the parole system. In so far as I am considering such a scheme, it is for the shorter sentences, which are not affected by parole. In so doing, I think that I shall not be dealing with those who have been involved in violent crime, unless anyone has been given, perhaps, too short a sentence.
  What I have learned with regard to shorter sentences in particular is that we have far more short-sentence people in prison here than has any other country in Western Europe. We have alcoholics and people who are inadequate. When some of them leave prison, they say "We shall
  1756
  be back very soon." It is a place where there is a regime that they understand.
  It is a question not of being soft but of dealing with people of that kind in the best way. For people on shorter sentences—I am speaking of a sentence of 18 months or less, or something like that—there is no doubt that the length of sentence is not a major factor. Many of the people involved in this matter say that for many people sentenced for the first time the major factor is the shock of having a sentence imposed on them at all. Therefore, when I deal with this matter in the House I hope that no one will shout "Softy". It may be that we shall have looked at it for the first time in a more sensible way than we have in the past.
  Mr. Roger Sims: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, nevertheless, that the decision on the length of a sentence should be a matter of sentencing policy by the Judiciary and should not be taken by executive action, as has appeared in the past, by the Executive deciding arbitrarily on a remission, about which the court had no knowledge when it imposed the original sentence?
  Mr. Rees: I understand that there is a problem. What I inherited was a system in which people got one-third remission anyway. It is not a new idea of mine. Remission is on the basis of behaviour in prison, and so on. It is not a new idea in that respect, and, indeed, parole itself to that extent interferes with the sentencing process.
  Perhaps I may deal with the matter of research now, because obviously I shall not have time to follow it up in detail, otherwise I shall be speaking all night.
  Quite properly, mention has been made of research. A great deal of research is done in the Home Office and by voluntary organisations, at Cambridge, and so on. What worries me is who reads it all. We should be considering the best way in which to make it available to people, and we should talk about these matters sensibly. This is all related to documentation produced by the Labour Party Research Office, the Conservative Party unit, and other organisations, and we must see that these matters are discussed. The media appear not to be very interested in the subject—probably because it is all too detailed. At present we

  1757
  appear to be preaching to the converted rather than to those who should be considering these matters.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I wish to reinforce what was said by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). I have three prisons in my constituency. Prison officers feel that their views are not getting through to the Home Office especially when there are disturbances. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the situation to see whether there is a better form of procedure that could be adopted?
  Mr. Rees: I shall examine that matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently made his view clear about the promotion of prison officers and their involvement.
  There is another aspect to be considered than just sentencing policy. There is a wider aspect, touching penal policy, that must be considered. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall examine that aspect. It is important that we canvass the views of a large number of people on it.
  The Executive of the Prison Officers Association carried out a helpful job in Northern Ireland. There is a tendency for prison officers to believe that all these discussions and debates comprise only the thoughts of wet and wishy-washy people, and that their views are of no interest. We must make it clear that we are not soft but are seeking to use our resources properly. Certainly the material that exists should be read more widely.
  Mr. John Lee: On the point raised by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), my right hon. Friend said that these matters in the first instance were the primary responsibility of the Judiciary. To what extent can my right hon. Friend say that the Judiciary, through the Lord Chief Justice's office rather than his own Department, is apprised of these matters and receptive to them? One knows that judges have sentencing conferences, but to what extent are they seized of the information available?
  Mr. Rees: There are discussions on these topics, and I am always interested
  1758
  to hear people's views. Before I take a decision as to the direction in which policy should go, I should like to know what people feel about it. I am in something of a dilemma.
  In this context I had intended to give some information about young adult offenders. However, if I make that information available, possibly in the form of a Written Answer, it will enable me to devote a little more time to the important topic of children and young persons.
  In considering the effect of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, it is not surprising that juvenile offenders should figure so prominently in a debate of this kind. Juvenile offences are matters of serious concern to us all. Some people are very much opposed to the whole approach to the Act. My impression is that much informed opinion agrees that it was, and remains, a great advance, much of which still remains to be worked through, in our methods of dealing with juvenile offenders and other children in trouble. That is the Government's view, and we do not contemplate going back on the principle of the Act.
  At the same time we recognise anxiety about the means available to control the small hard core of serious and persistent juvenile offenders. It should not be thought that the courts are powerless to deal with this group. Parts of the Act which would have withdrawn from the courts the power to send juveniles to borstal and detention centres remain—and will remain for the present—unimplemented. Indeed, the juvenile population in these institutions has risen.
  I wish to mention the effect of care orders. The Expenditure Committee made recommendations which would substantially have changed the balance of authority and discretion away from the local authority, as the treatment agency, back to the court. In particular the court would be given power to order "secure care" for repeated offenders.
  The Government, for reasons given in the White Paper last May, were not persuaded that this was right; instead, they proposed a more modest change which would give the courts a say in the handling of a child committed to care, by authorising them to make a recommendation about his treatment.

  1759
  The Secretary of State for Social Services and I are well aware of the adverse reaction of magistrates to that proposal. Equally, we are aware of the anxieties of local authorities. We are anxious to find common ground. This is one of the matters that we have discussed with representatives of the magistrates and of the local authorities. We shall be meeting them jointly next week for discussion on these and other issues.
  There is much more that could be said, but I think that I have given the House my views on Government policy. Given the uncertainty of much of our knowledge, and also given the fact that we are now in a period of restraint on resources, to what should we now be devoting our energies? We are talking not about spending money but about what resources should be made available. We do not know enough about the effects of any of the things that I have mentioned. Sometimes new ideas—including police patrolling, probation, and wider social policies—have their effect in whole or in part on the level of crime. In the police service there is renewed interest in the effect of varying methods of patrolling, and interesting research has been carried out in the United States.
  In respect of offenders, many believe that it is the fact of imprisonment rather than the length of sentence that is the main deterrent. We need to study these questions with open minds and make available to those who need them the conclusions which emerge. I have tried to keep an open mind in this debate this afternoon.
  We are all aware of the limitation of resources. The implication to be drawn is that society, too, has a responsibility. It has been said that society sets its own standards. Sometimes we in this House appear to be merely talking to ourselves rather than to any wider audience outside. We should do all we can to make others listen to what we say. People need a lead not only from this House but from the community, the trade unions, teachers, parents and others.
  There is one area of concern about which I feel extremely strongly. In general company, sometimes we allow things to go by the board when clearly we are not in favour of them. There is always the dodger in every modern society. Such a person is often greeted
  1760
  with laughter rather than with criticism. I believe that this is an important matter, which we should have very much in mind.
  The system aimed at preventing crime—the police, the courts, the prisons, probation, child care, and all the rest of it—does not exist to act by force against the rest of society; it exists to serve it. To do that it needs the full support and involvement of the community. The Government will give that effort their full support.
  The Government believe in the rule of law. There will be no preferential treatment of anybody. I learned a great deal from my experience in Northern Ireland. I was against political status that involved preferential treatment for people in Northern Ireland. There will be no political status for those who go to gaol for terrorism in this country. There is a law, and it must be obeyed, but in interpreting these principles we must have an open mind. For too long there have been closed minds. I have an open mind, though not on principles, not because I am soft but because I believe that it is time that many of the matters discussed amongst a small group should be discussed more widely in the community.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am sure that the House is extremely grateful to the Home Secretary for his interesting and informative speech on this wide subject. His speech justified the Opposition's wisdom in choosing this subject on a Supply Day. The Home Secretary did not meet many of the vital points put forward so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), and I wish to concentrate on one aspect that will, no doubt, raise a certain amount of opposition.
  The debate on the prevention of crime comes at a time and in the context of a crisis in violent crime. That crisis is that in two score years the number of crimes of violence has increased by 2,500 per cent. Most of that increase has occurred recently. The figure quoted today for crimes of violence known to the police in one year is 71,000.
  Looking back in history, when the Cadogan Committee was considering corporal punishment in 1938, there were known to the police 3,000 offences of

  1761
  violence against the person a year. That figure remained fairly static until soon after the 1948 Act which abolished corporal punishment for crimes of violence, when the figures shot up. By the time the Barry Committee was studying corporal punishment in 1960 the offences known to the police involving violence to the person had risen from 3,000 to 14,000 a year. In recent years the increase has rocketed, until we now have 71,000 crimes of violence against the person known to the police in a year. From 3,000 in 1938, to 14,000 in 1960, to 71,000 now—that is the measure of what I believe to have been the error and the folly of the advice given to the country by the Barry Committee in 1960 that soft methods of dealing with violent crime were the best. They were not, and they have failed.
  I want to express the public demand, which I know exists, that the ordinary method of discipline and punishment which most families adopt in their own homes should be restored so as to maintain discipline in public places. I am arrogant enough to say that I know that public demand exists because recently over a very short period a constituent of mine obtained in the North-West 750,000 signatures to a petition to bring back the birch for muggers.
  I shall confine my remarks to just that—the birch as a permissible punishment for crimes of physical violence. I am not talking about the cat, nor do I wish to encroach upon the consideration of capital punishment. I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member—whatever his view—knows that if that simple question were asked in a referendum the public would be overwhelmingly in favour of bringing back the birch. According to those who have studied this subject, at least 80 per cent. of the electorate would be in favour, seeing it as a particularly appropriate punishment and deterrent to the violent young criminals, the 100,000 offenders under 18, mentioned by my right hon. Friend.
  The increase in the number of crimes of violence known to the police and called by the Police Superintendents' Association
  "the decay in Britain's way of life"
  can be attributed in part to the increase in population, the improvement in the
  1762
  methods of detection, and so on, but the statistics show that crimes of violence are increasing at double the rate of the increase of other crimes. We should, therefore, distinguish between the rate of increase in crime in general and the rate of increase in violent crime.
  We must take notice of the reports we receive from hospitals to the effect that in casualty departments broken jaws and teeth, broken ribs, broken noses, stab wounds, kicks in the kidneys and boots in the groin now put the number of mugging victims at the top of the casualty list in hospitals—a place in the list that used to be occupied by road accident victims.
  In another context, my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) warned the country that in certain circumstances rivers of blood would flow. In some of our cities, at least, streams of blood are now flowing, the blood of victims of mugging and stabbing. We only need to pick up a provincial newspaper on any day to find item after item about violence in the street. We must do something effective to prevent those streams from becoming rivers.
  We now have to add the victim of mobile muggers. Earlier this week, in the Sun newspaper, it was reported that cars containing mobile muggers were parking near post offices and following the elderly who had just collected their pensions. What happened then I will quote from the report:
  "Their car pulls up behind the victim—nearly all have been women—and one of the youths jumps out. He gives the woman a hefty shove, grabs her handbag and jumps back into the car."
  It is pointed out that serious injuries have occurred in many cases, and the police are afraid that deaths will result from mobile mugging.
  It may be said that robbery for money has always been with us, and at times we have hero-worshipped the highwayman, but today we have a more revolting, bestial and sadistic crime than robbery. In my constituency a fortnight ago a man was knocked to the ground by three youths, kicked and seriously injured. He was carrying £30, but none of the money was stolen. That was violence for the sake of violence. That is the sort of crime we face now—hurting and injuring the helpless just

  1763
  for the sake of it, mugging a fellow human being just for the kick of it.
  The Barry Committee is 1960 resulted from the teddy boy troubles at that time. That was gang versus gang, and no figures had emerged in 1960 for the sadist versus the innocent stranger type of crime that occurs today.
  Even in those days, the Barry Committee advised against the restoration of corporal punishment. Its advice, if I may fairly summarise the report, was that, although corporal punishment would not substantially reduce crimes of violence, it would reduce those crimes, and that, although corporal punishment would not be an especially effective deterrent, it would be a deterrent. The two words "substantially" and "especially" I quote from the report. In short, the Barry Committee said "Corporal punishment would be a deterrent, but we do not like it". Nor does anyone like it, but the crux of the problem is how to check the increase in crimes of violence. That is what must be done, and it is what our present system is failing to do.
  The certainty of detection, which is the primary deterrent, has, of course, increased by improved methods of detection, but we still have an insufficient police force. The courts' powers of imprisonment have been increased, but we have insufficient prison accommodation, so that there is a sort of enforced leniency by the courts. In 1961 great reliance was put on detention centres, but we have very few. We have increased the limits of fines the courts can impose, either on the person convicted or, if it is a young person, on the parents. But the non-payment of fines is a public scandal, and a substantial amount is never paid. As a result, crimes of violence continue to increase.
  Those who are opposed to corporal punishment argue that we should not inflict in punishment the very thing which the punishment is intended to deter; but if there is logic in that argument at all we ought not to fine the thief, or imprison those who imprison their victims as did the Balcombe Street gang, which is a topical item at present.
  Those who are opposed to corporal punishment also point out that it has been abolished in most of Europe and that we have signed the European Convention
  1764
  for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Article 3 of that Convention states:
  "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
  It is stretching the meaning of "torture" very far to include in its interpretation a judicial sentence of birching. And what is meant by
  "inhuman or degrading treatment"
  in the article that I have quoted? Is not imprisonment always degrading and inhuman, and could it come under that description? I am sure that Article 3 of the Convention was intended for administrative action, and not to apply to judicial sentences after genuine and fair trial.
  It seems to me that common sense and experience proves that the fear of the sharp physical pain of a birching is indeed a deterrent to the kind of coward who attacks the defenceless, the elderly and the weak. The courts ought now to be given the discretion to impose such a sentence.
  6.23 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce George: One needs to put the question of crime in its true perspective. While one should not be complacent about the crime figures today, I do not think we should join the chorus which believes that we are, in fact, essentially a criminal society. I think it is quite the reverse. The crime rate of British society is very much less than the crime rates of many other societies, be they non-democratic or democratic.
  I would not want anyone to be self-satisfied on the subject of criminal statistics, but amusingly—possibly it is a point against what I have just said—I was recently advising my temporary assistant from the United States what a peaceful and law-abiding society we were. But two days later all her American Express cheques were "knocked off". Perhaps my argument did not seem as impressive to her as it would to other people whom I might seek to convince.
  I want to talk about a subject which has received little attention in the House or outside. It is a subject which deserves a great deal more attention and it concerns the growth of the private security industry. The hon. Member for Sutton

  1765
  Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) introduced a Ten-Minute Bill on this subject in 1972. I shall be introducing a Ten-Minute Bill on the same subject on 8th February.
  Far too little attention has been given to this remarkable phenomenon over the last 10 years. We need to look at how the private security industry operates and the ways in which it can be assisted and—this is not paradoxical—controlled. At present it has existed with almost the absence of control. Ironically, the industry itself is clamouring for some form of registration and control, which so far has been denied.
  I must declare a non-interest. I have no financial interest whatever in the private security industry. I must confess that originally I had a feeling of trepidation and fear about the growth of the private security industry. We read periodic sensational reports in the newspapers about it. We hear of private security firms in the United States and the terrifying spectacle of men carrying sub-machine guns and rifles and driving around in enormous armoured vehicles. That frightens me and other people as well.
  Having looked at the subject in a disinterested but serious way, I feel that the private security industry has a great contribution to play in the prevention of crime. It really deserves much closer scrutiny from this place and, perhaps, from other institutions as well. That is not to say that I have no anxieties about private security firms. I do have anxieties, but they are directed mainly at the smaller companies.
  Although the larger companies dominate the industry in terms of the money they transport and turn over, they are only about 5 per cent. of the total number. Most of the companies operating in the private security industry are small. Those are the companies that I express my greatest concern about.
  In an ideal world we could do without private security firms. Perhaps the time will come when we shall be able to do so. Perhaps the ideal time will come when we shall be able to do without the ordinary police. Regrettably that is some distance away, if, indeed, it will ever be achieved.
  1766
  The corollary of what I have been saying about the growth of the industry is that it must come far more within the ambit of the law than at present. Ten years ago the private security industry was very small and consisted often of an aged night-watchman and little else. But over the last 10 years it has witnessed a proliferation of companies and, in many cases, a growing sophistication. It is not just a British phenomenon but a worldwide phenomenon.
  I read that in the United States American companies spend $6·6 billion annually on private guards. That amount has grown by 46 per cent. in the last five years. In the United States a total of 800,000 people worked for private security firms as opposed to 450,000 State or local police. I believe that the number of people employed by private security firms in Britain exceeds the number of police that we have in uniform.
  One specialist on the private security industry in the United States says that there is only one business better than theirs, and that is crime. As long as it flourishes, they flourish. The reasons for this growth are obvious: the growth of crime and in many cases the slow growth in the numbers of police and people wanting to fill the vacuum by establishing private security firms. In some ways the areas covered by private security firms may duplicate those covered by the police. In most ways, however, they are entering areas which the ordinary police would not want to enter or legally would be prevented from entering.
  I estimate that over 100,000people work for private security firms in this country. It is a major industry. It deserves much closer scrutiny than it has so far received This is not to denigrate the larger companies such as Security Express, Securicor or Group Four. I am more concerned about the smaller companies and the ease with which people can form a private security company. It is almost impossible for anyone to set up in competition with, say, Securicor because one would need to spend £30,000 on buying a van and back-up equipment for headquarters staff. It is not the kind of industry that one can easily enter if one is seeking to give protection to money or valuables in transit. It is incredibly easy, however, to set oneself up as a small private security firm offering services to guard

  1767
  and patrol factories and offices. It has been said that all that is required is headed notepaper, second-hand fire brigade uniforms, a few moth-eaten Alsatians and—bingo!—one is in business.
  The matter can be over-dramatised. I am not suggesting that criminals coming out of Pentonville or Wormwood Scrubs instinctively form private security firms straight away. But although the figures perhaps do not suggest that vast numbers of ex-criminals are forming private security firms or working in them, the matter is a cause for concern. In theory known criminals could do so and I suggest that it happens. I am not thinking of people who pinched apples at the age of 14 or have committed minor, or less than minor, indiscretions. With the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act the slate is wiped clean of certain crimes. But there is anxiety about the ease with which people with serious criminal records could penetrate private security firms for their own advantage, either as employees or as employers.
  When we talk of the scope of the industry, we should not talk simply about people providing guard facilities or transit facilities, firms such as Securicor. We are talking about the part of the industry providing alarms and the section dealing with safes and locks. We should also consider the industrial police. Many large companies and some medium-size companies have their own police forces. We could include private detectives. When we add up all the different branches, we realise the magnitude of the subject. We should not concentrate in this debate on the rôle of the police and neglect this area of the defence of society against the criminal.
  I do not want to exaggerate the sanctity of private property. As a Socialist, I am not as preoccupied with the preservation of private property as others may be. But we are talking, too, about the preservation of public property. Many private security companies are guarding public property. In Cardiff the new Companies House is guarded by a private security firm.
  My researches have not been as extensive as I should like, but on a recent visit to the United States I talked to security companies and saw how they operated. In Atlanta, I saw the agency
  1768
  set up by the State of Georgia to regulate private security firms. I have also had discussions with all the major security firms—this country and their association, the British Security Industry Association. I have spoken to numerous specialists and have read a great deal on the subject. Therefore, I do not approach it simply as one who has read two articles and then rushed in to make a speech.
  We should look at foreign examples but we should not be too preoccupied with the United States. Thankfully, our cultures and institutions are very different. I should not like to see security guards armed, and I am sure that the security industry would hate to see that happen. The guards are not even allowed to carry truncheons in this country, which is something that they and I welcome. I would hate to see the kind of ethos in which the private security firms in the United States operate. But the United States can tell us something about licensing. The companies there have to satisfy rigid criteria before they can set up in business, whereas in this country there is an absence of restraint. When I told the Americans how it was possible for a person with no qualifications, and possibly with a criminal record, to set himself up in the business without his financial backing or personnel having to be checked, they fell on the floor laughing.
  As well as learning from the Americans about licensing and professionalism, we can learn a great deal about training. I wonder how many private security firms here, even the major ones, have a training programme on a par with that of the police. I suggest that many have no training programme. That is a matter that we should not leave to the industry. The State has a rôle.
  There is a great demand for licensing from the industry, the BSIA, many hon. Members and Members of another place, academic and insurance circles and parts of the police force. Unfortunately, the Home Office is obdurate on the matter. Letters that I wrote to the previous Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, evoked a less than satisfactory response. One reply was a letter of 29th June 1976, the day it was announced that one of the leading lights in a robbery at Heathrow Airport involving £2 million had a long

  1769
  criminal record and worked for a private security firm. Mr. Roy Jenkins wrote:
  "I am not at present persuaded … that there is sufficient justification for a stricter form of limitation or control over private security organisations than is provided under the existing law. As you point out, employees of these organisations have no powers or privileges beyond those enjoyed by any citizen under the law of this country. If there was any evidence of an infringement of the law or a threat of a breach of the peace, I am sure the police would not hesitate to take appropriate action. Although I should be prepared to look again at the question if there was more concrete evidence of the need for greater statutory control, I do not think the case is yet made."
  This is ironic. Industry often expresses the view "Government, get off our backs". We want to remain free of control. The Government often seek to extend their influence—to the detriment of the companies concerned, in the view of those companies. Yet here we see the reverse happening. The Home Office says that the industry can police itself. The BSIA can police its members, but it has only a fraction of the total industry among its members. I do not know how it can control those outside its scope. The security industry is saying "We want some form of regulation", and it should be provided by the Government. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary will reconsider the situation. If he disagrees with me, I shall no doubt hear in good time, but there is a strong case and I hope that the Home Office will give it more favourable consideration.
  I do not want to overstate the case. It would be false to assume that everyone working for a small company is a crook of a potential crook. We know full well that even with the strongest vetting of all, in the police service, it is not unknown for a person with a criminal record to join the police or for a person who was honest when he entered to leave the straight and narrow later. I have no intention of criticising the police. My father was a police officer for 29 years, and the last thing I would do is to criticise the police. I would have my father on my back, which is something I do not want.
  I have already mentioned the Heathrow robbery. Other examples can be found in newspapers. The Birmingham
  1770
  Evening Mail of 5th August last year reported:
  "Sentencing a young man at Birmingham Crown Court, Deputy Circuit Judge Griffiths said 'It seems to me to be a strange thing that a man with a record like that should be employed as a security officer'."
  We often see in the sensational Press exposures of people with criminal records. We should not exaggerate the danger, but it exists.
  We must, therefore, be more vigilant. I hope that I have made or will make the case for regulations, and I shall elaborate my case on 8th February in my Ten-Minute Bill.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that his strictures are against those who provide the men and not those who manufacture or install intruder alarm systems?
  Mr. George: I believe that that section of the industry is well regulated and is no cause for concern, as is the lock and safe side. It is the guarding and transit side which merits closer consideration.
  To cut crime, we need greater vigilance. Many people take no precautions. Some think that simply hiring a private security firm solves all their problems. It is no guarantee. Even the major security companies are robbed, and one may get a dud outfit among the smaller firms.
  In Walsall, but not in my constituency, thieves rushed a car—not an armoured vehicle—driven by two security guards aged 73 and 69 and stole £20,000. When hordes of armed men descend on a car in that way, it would need a combination of the Bionic Man, Superman and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) to frighten them off. I have not investigated the background of that firm, but I know that it is asking for trouble to have two men supplementing their old-age pensions by guarding £20,000.
  I hope that the Home Office will consider some form of inquiry—I am not being dramatic and asking for a Royal Commission or a commission of inquiry—into the private security industry, the way it operates and its problems and to see whether some form of licensing is needed. There are many models for

  1771
  such licensing which are worthy of consideration. I should favour the kind of licensing system that we see in other areas of public, professional and business life. I hope that I have made a reasonable case. Because of its size and scope, the industry merits investigation.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) for his reference to the paper on juvenile crime produced by a study group which he set up. I also thank the Home Secretary for accepting my right hon. Friend's invitation to look at that paper. That saves me a great deal of trouble, since I now do not have to mention juvenile crime.
  Another subject which is causing mounting concern among hon. Members and people outside is the state of our prisons and what is happening, and, perhaps more important, what is likely to happen in future. I do not know whether the Home Secretary will agree, but I believe that two of the principal reasons for the incipient, if not actual, crisis in our prisons are over-population and under-staffing. In November last year the prison population reached 42,000, which the previous Home Secretary, Mr. Jenkins, described, when anticipating that figure as "intolerable".
  Last year, at Hull Prison, there was an outburst of violence and rioting which must have disturbed everyone with an interest in the proper administration of those establishments and the control and discipline of their inmates. If Hull were considered in isolation it would be disturbing enough, but it cannot be examined in isolation. In 1969 there was rioting at Parkhurst, and in 1972 at Gartree. At Hull last year the degree of violence was more serious than in any riots since the Dartmoor mutiny in 1932. I do not want to be a pessimist or to say that this will get worse. It may, but I cannot help feeling that there is some sort of pattern here which should warn us what might happen in future.
  On Monday night in the "Panorama" programme the BBC was bold enough to put on a film, with commentary, about the riots at Hull. I admired the caution with which it approached that subject and the warnings which it was careful to give
  1772
  about accepting as factual some of the so-called evidence given by various people. That was wise, because at the moment, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Mr. Fowler, is investigating what happened in Hull.
  There were reports on what happened at Parkhurst in 1969 and Gartree in 1972. The governors, the prison officers and the public are in entire ignorance about what those reports contained. I am sure that we can all understand the need to be careful to do nothing to undermine prison security but, with all the ingenuity and imagination that I can apply, I do not see the sense of having these reports if the governors and the prison officers—I mention them alone— who could learn lessons from the past, are denied all knowledge of what happened. I beg the Home Secretary to consider the publication of the report on the Hull riots when it is produced in the next few weeks.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have not checked what I said in my parliamentary answer but I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what I said should be done. The report is being written with the intention of publishing it. I must leave myself with a certain amount of room for manoeuvre, for reasons I have given previously, but I have asked for the report to be written with the intention of publishing at the end of the day.
  Mr. Gardner: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for that encouraging news. I shall go one step further and ask him to consider publishing at the same time the reports on the riots at Parkhurst and Gartree, even if they are now outdated. There must be lessons in those reports—it would be remarkable if there were not—which could be used as a guide for the future by those responsible for the administration of our prisons.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Of course I will consider that. My predecessors in both parties took views about why that should not be done, but I will look into the matter. I am responsible for Hull Prison.
  Mr. Gardner: I think we all agree that prison is the most severe penalty that the law can impose and most people—I am one of them—believe it ought to stay that way, but if a man is entitled to justice outside prison, he is just as entitled to justice inside prison. We are justly proud of taking immense pains to see that

  1773
  justice is done, and that there is no abuse of the procedures and powers of our courts. Justice should protect the accused during and after his trial, and, if he is convicted and sentenced, justice should not be allowed to desert him as soon as the prison gates close behind him. I think that this simple statement of principle would be supported by everyone who has anything to do with our prisons.
  Unhappily, we are in the uncomfortable position of finding that our prison rules have been severely criticised by the European Court of Justice. This is very unfortunate. The court considered Rules Nos. 33, 34 and 37, and was principally concerned with the rule dealing with the right of a prisoner to consult his legal advisers.
  I am sure that the Home Secretary will remember the case of a Mr. Golder, who was in Parkhurst Prison during the riots of 1969. At one stage a prison officer wrote a report to the governor indicating that Golder might have been one of those who took part in the riots, but later other evidence suggested strongly that he could not possibly have taken part. Golder therefore attempted to consult his solicitor with a view to taking proceedings against the prison officer, but the Home Secretary of the day refused to allow him to consult a solicitor because at that time the rules prevented a prisoner who was not a party to an action from consulting his solicitor in this way. As a result, Mr. Golder took the case to the European Court of Justice, which found that the Home Secretary's refusal to allow Mr. Golder to consult his solicitor contravened the European Convention on Human Rights.
  Since that case the rules have been amended. I do not want to go into tedious details about the rules; it is sufficient to say that now a prisoner who is not a party to proceedings may be allowed to correspond with his solicitor, to instruct his solicitor, or to ask his solicitor for advice.
  I ask the Home Secretary to have another look at those rules. I concede that rules are drawn up to improve control and discipline in prisons, and that must have been the only reason why the rules were drawn up in their original form, but I hope that people outside and inside the House, and especially the Home Secretary, will agree that if we
  1774
  make rules which are over-restrictive we create a cause for increased tension in prisons, and we do not help security, but undermine it. Therefore I ask the Home Secretary to look again at these rules, just as they have been reconsidered in other countries, for example, in various States of the United States and in Ontario. Canada, where rules of this kind have been swept away—or at least the restrictive aspect of the rules. That has been done for the benefit of the prisoners, and for the improvement of discipline and control. The Home Secretary must look again at these rules to be sure they act as a safety valve for justice, to be interfered with only at the risk of an explosion of the kind which affected Hull Prison, and which, if we are not careful, may affect other prisons in this country.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I very much agree with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), and I hope that in my remarks I shall be able to carry him with me so that we may have some inter-party agreement on this subject. I am delighted that we have been given an opportunity to debate the subject. We should be grateful to the Opposition for giving us that chance, because these debates are very infrequent. This is an area in which there is a great deal of public concern, especially among those involved with penal reform. Such persons are trying to persuade the Home Secretary to relax some of the regulations which cause a great deal of tension within the prison system.
  I do not wish to talk tonight about young persons who get into difficulty, although that would be legitimate on this occasion. I want to talk about the way in which we manage our offenders once we put them in prison. I would like to draw on my experience of prisons in other countries which I have visited, ranging from Finland to Mexico and all points in between.
  I am concerned about the situation in many of our old prisons. Hon. Members have already referred to the fact that we have passed the crucial figure of 42,000 in our prison population. An increasing number of men are incarcerated three to a cell—a cell originally built for one.

  1775
  I have visited many of the old prisons in this country, particularly in 1967 when the Estimates Committee went to Leeds, Wakefield, Strangeways and others.
  We were horrified on that occasion by the conditions we found. We were particularly horrified by the primitive toilet facilities—one might almost say lack of toilet facilities. Men were having to live three to a cell and perform all their bodily functions in the cell. In those conditions there is no privacy to think or to read. They are never able to get away from other men. These are appalling conditions. I think it is brutal to leave large numbers of men in these conditions. I would hope that we could relieve the situation. If we look at the example of more far-sighted countries we might find ways of doing it.
  I do not have time to refer to many countries, so I shall confine my remarks to two. The Dutch have shown that they have far more regard for the principles of John Howard than have his own countrymen. Many of the proposals which he put forward for penal reform have been enacted in Holland. The Dutch have a different approach to offenders.
  The probation officer's report in a Dutch court is of more importance and weight than the police officer's report. That is contrary to the position in this country. In Holland lay people are brought into the whole range of treatment and rehabilitation in a way which has been suggested here but never acted upon. About 20,000 lay volunteers work in conjunction with probation officers acting as "friends of offenders", frequently on a one-to-one basis. Sometimes the "friends" are in touch with two or three offenders, but it is done only if the offender agrees to the "friend" nominated. Sometimes he can suggest his own "friend", and sometimes the probation officer will suggest a suitable person. In all cases the offender must accept the person suggested before he is engaged. This is a way in which voluntary workers can build up good relationships with offenders which is essential for success. If the offender is hostile to a voluntary worker the scheme is doomed to failure.
  The volunteers are given brief training and they work under the supervision of the probation officer. They have access
  1776
  to the probation officer for help at all times. This scheme has proved successful in 70 per cent. of all cases, according to the Dutch. "Successful" means that the offences are not repeated and that the offenders have not got into trouble with the police during their probation period, which may be up to two years. That is good. In this country we know that there are frequent repeated offences and that the men are often back in prison in a short time.
  In Holland, disturbed offenders are treated in the community wherever possible. In this country we put them in prison. The key to the successful treatment of highly disturbed offenders within the community is the case load of the probation officer and the social worker. In Holland not more than 30 cases are cared for by a team of psychiatrists and social workers acting together. In this country all social workers have very heavy case loads, regardless of the cases they are dealing with, and can give only a small amount of time to each one.
  Holland has managed to reduce its prison population in the last decade by one-fifth, which is a considerable reduction. If the number of persons in prison is reduced, the amount of money which has to be spent on them is also reduced. Knowing the cost of keeping an offender in prison in Britain, I would have thought that this was a very powerful argument for pursuing this line and trying to get people out of prison for treatment in the community.
  In Holland first offenders are seldom prosecuted, unless they have committed a serious crime. Therefore, the Dutch are actually able to close prisons and there is no agitation for more to be built. This is rather different from the situation in this country.
  That is possible only if a new sentencing policy is introduced. The aim of the Dutch judiciary is to keep as many people out of prison for as long as possible. This makes sense because, as is known all over the world, prison is a very good institution for training more criminals. It is a powerful argument that prison should be used only as a last resort.
  In 1952, 30 per cent. of all Dutch prison sentences were for less than one month. Today, more than 56 per cent.

  1777
  are of that duration. A prison sentence of a year or more is regarded as a long one and is given in only 3 per cent. of cases. It is the Dutch attitude that long sentences undermine a sense of responsibility and initiative, and this would appear to be a good guideline. Very dangerous offenders are treated in special clinics, but even there there is a relaxed régime similar to that in other Dutch prisons. Generally, Dutch prisons have a much more relaxed régime than prisons in this country. Prisoners wear their own clothes so that they do not have a feeling of being regimented and all looking alike and being treated alike. Prisoners send and receive as many letters as they like. Each establishment has a prisoners' committee to discuss problems with the governor and staff, and prisoners' letters are not censored.
  No one knows better than prison officers that overcrowded prisons are difficult to run and unpleasant to work in. They are counter-productive because they react on prison officers and prisoners alike. Large prisons are particularly unpleasant when they are overcrowded. The largest prison in Holland holds only 150 inmates. That is very different from the situation here. There are many open prisons where prisoners go out to work each day, and Dutch employers tend to be more tolerant and open-minded than employers here. There is little difficulty in getting prisoners placed in jobs. The general public try to co-operate and help in the rehabilitation process. We have a job in this country to try to bring about a more tolerant public opinion which will allow more reforms to take place in the prison régime.
  My second example is Sweden, another country in which the number of men in prison is falling and not increasing. In 1973 new legislation was introduced to switch the emphasis to probation and community care, similar to Holland. A considerable number of new posts have been created for case workers, psychologists and probation officers and new training programmes have been introduced. A lot of lay people are being used in the care of offenders within the community. Housewives, youth leaders and retired policemen are paid a nominal monthly sum for the work they do, which is a small recompense for some of the
  1778
  expenses they incur in meeting the prisoners they are looking after.
  Sweden has prison councils and other prisoners' organisations in which all kinds of internal matters can be discussed. There is no control over letters sent or received, and there are coin-operated telephones. Prisoners in open prisons get six home leaves a year and receive special monthly visits from their prison visitors. They also get conjugal visits. We made similar proposals some time ago, but the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister, was unwilling to consider them.
  In Sweden, prisoners working in prison workshops get the rate for the job for a 40-hour week. That is quite different from the system here, where we pay prisoners a derisory sum each week with which they can do nothing but buy tobacco. We do not employ them on meaningful work, and in many of our old prisons the amount of time spent in work can be as little as two hours a day simply because of the way in which the prisons are operated and because we use the time of prison officers in unlocking and locking doors and in shepherding prisoners, locking and unlocking doors before and after them. Instead, we should be using them on rehabilitation work within the prisons.
  We use a great deal of the money spent on the prison service in a counterproductive and sterile way. In Sweden, with modern workshops, a proper working week and a proper wage, prisoners are able to pay for their board and lodging and their food. They are able to send money to their families, which is tremendously important in terms of self-respect. They are also able to save money for their release, and they take it with them. They pay tax on their prison earnings.
  Those who have visited some of our prisons will realise that there is a strong contrast in the conditions which obtain in our prisons. I think that it is a very severe punishment, in addition to the punishment of putting people in prison, to lock them away for long periods. This affects both men and women. Fortunately women are more law-abiding, and there are far fewer women than men in prison. Only a tiny proportion of them are there for long sentences, so that their physical conditions are less severe. But

  1779
  the effect of keeping prisoners away from their families, separating them from husbands or wives and their children, are just as severe. Anxieties about family, including children, and the sexual deprivation which exists when people are in prison for a long time have an appalling effect on prisoners. Much of the tension ending in riots—in Hull and Parkhurst—stems from bottling up large numbers of men for long periods in grossly overcrowded conditions. Three men to a cell without any privacy and always with others there to see and hear everything is a terrible punishment which should be no part of a humane prison service.
  Such methods make no contribution to rehabilitation. I think we need to consider ways in which we can develop contacts for prisoners with the world outside, particularly with their families. In Sweden home leave is frequent, and unsupervised visits in both open and closed prisons are permitted. They have been a normal feature for the past 20 years. Therefore, if my right hon. Friend repeats the excuse of his predecessor that there are acute problems of security which are too difficult to overcome, I urge him to look at what Sweden has been doing, because the Swedes have overcome these difficulties.
  Special rooms, which are decently furnished, are available in the prisons. In open prisons, prisoners can receive visitors in their own rooms. They are not described as cells because they are properly furnished rooms. Prisoners are able to lock the door if they wish, thus providing complete privacy for a considerable period. What the prisoner and his visitor do during that time is their business.
  In the United States, conjugal visits are allowed in some States. In some States the visitor must be the wife or husband of the prisoner. In Sweden, however, that is not so. It is for the prisoner to nominate his common law wife or whoever he wants to come in. Many prisons in Sweden have visitors' accommodation separate from the prison wings. This is what the Estimates Committee suggested when it said that special accommodation should be provided near to the entrance to the prison so that visitors would not have to go near the prison block. Some prisons in Sweden have flats outside the prison for family
  1780
  visits. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member thinks that is so funny.
  Mr. Iain Sproat: It is ridiculous.
  Mrs. Short: I am describing a civilised régime within a prison system. If the hon. Member wants anything constructive from the system, in contrast to what we have now, he must accept that we must show an open mind and consider the experience of other countries that have done better than we have.
  Wherever unsupervised visits have been introduced, whether in Sweden, the United States or anywhere else, it is interesting to note that the prison governors involved have all reported a considerable improvement in the atmosphere in the prisons. There has been a considerable reduction of tension, and the prisoners are much easier to manage. The prisons have been better places to be in, for both prisoners and staff. In no circumstances would the governors want to go back to the system which existed before unsupervised visits were introduced.
  Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Lady said that the atmosphere in the prisons had improved because of these reforms. That may be the case. Is she saying that the crime figures—because this debate is about the prevention of crime—in Sweden and Holland are now lower than they were 10 years ago? If she is saying that, the source of her figures is at variance with all other international statistics on the subject.
  Mrs. Short: I do not know what statistics the hon. Gentleman has been looking at, but the fact is that more persons are out of prison in Sweden and Holland and there is no public outrage about that. It is accepted by the general public. I think that the hon. Member has omitted to look at the most common offences. For instance, in Sweden the most common are those connected with drinking and driving. They have increased in number. The offences that we regard as serious, however, have not increased. Therefore, the fact that offenders can be treated in a different way means that fewer people are brought within the university of crime—which is prison—and do not get into contact with other prisoners. That is a

  1781
  good thing, and it is different from the situation here.
  We cannot hope to reform men and women by putting them in wretched conditions under severe restraint. If prison is to be in any way positive or rehabilitative, the conditions have to be humane and not degrading. We need to take this on board to see how we can improve the system while probably saving ourselves a great deal of money.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): I am sure that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, (Mrs. Short) will not expect me to follow her into the jolly prisons of Sweden or Holland.
  Mrs. Renée Short: That is a typical attitude.
  Mr. Griffiths: I would very much like to congratulate the Home Secretary on his wide-ranging speech. He showed a combination of humanity and firmness which was most attractive. I deal primarily with the subject of crime, and in particular with the police, with whom, as the House knows, I have a special connection.
  I start with the dimensions. The Home Secretary quite reasonably said that it is possible to misjudge the situation simply by looking at the statistics, and I agree. But I do not think he would disagree that crime has increased 10 times in this country since 1940. Arrests for indictable offences have gone up from roughly 250,000 in 1939 to 500,000 in 1960, 750,000 in 1965, 1·5 million in 1970 and just over 2 million a year today. By contrast, the numbers of the police have increased by approximately 10 per cent. The other day Sir Robert Mark said:
  "I now have 400 men less than we had in 1921 when the Metropolitan Police area was smaller, the working week was longer and the crime rate was one-twentieth of its current levels."
  I put it to the Home Secretary that no amount of uncertainty about the figures can alter that basic fact.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman intended to pursue that point, but during the 10 years that I have been
  1782
  involved with the police I have seen the development of swift and direct means of communication. That is a central point and, without invalidating the argument, it means that we are not comparing like with like.
  Mr. Griffiths: But 2 million crimes compared with a quarter of a million is enormous growth, and police resources have not increased commensurately. Crimes such as fraud are now far more complex. There is more mobility and sophistication on the part of the criminal. Above all, there is more violence. I need give only two illustrations. One is urban terror with its consequent demands on the police. No one knows better than the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) about urban terror in our country. The most persistently murderous and terrorised portion of the Western world today is part of the United Kingdom. I refer, of course, to Ulster.
  The other example is the number of assaults on policemen, which are now running at the rate of about 15,000 a year. Although some assaults are less severe than others, between 25 and 30 policemen suffer assaults during the average working day that are serious enough to win their victims compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I understand, however, that in order to save money the Board is proposing to raise the minimum figure for damage for which compensation may be paid from £50 to £150. Cuts, bruises, broken noses and contusions suffered by the victims of criminal assault no longer will be compensated unless they happen to cause more than £150 worth of damage. I cannot think of a more miserable and unfeeling economy than that.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have been involved in the scheme in Northern Ireland, which is slightly different. But this increase was meant to deal with inflationary aspects. One cannot have it both ways. What was worth £50 is now worth £150. This is not meant to be picking on anybody.
  Mr. Griffiths: Weekly, many injuries are suffered by policemen at football matches that will fall below the new level but ought to be compensated as criminal injuries.

  1783
  Another element in the problem is juvenile crime, which is arguably our biggest growth industry. A quarter of a million young people are found guilty of criminal offences each year, 25,000 of them under the age of 15. Each year 50,000 juveniles are found guilty of serious offences by higher courts. There is a large proportion of juvenile crime in London, where juveniles are now responsible for half the recorded burglaries, two-fifths of the robberies and motoring offences and over one-third of shoplifting and personal thefts.
  So much for the growing threat of crime. I now turn to our defences and, in particular, the police. Police morale is not high today. There is more discontent in the police service now than at any time since the war. This has expressed itself in a number of ways—for example, at meetings of the Police Federation, some of which have been ugly and shown great passion. There has been, and still is, wide talk of industrial action.
  Every police force in the country is overworked and undermanned. The Home Secretary has quite reasonably pointed to the substantial increase in expenditure, and I acknowledge what he has done, but I must point out that we are now in a time of cuts. The notorious Home Office Circular 191 of 1976 will have an extremely bad effect. That fact has been underlined by the chief officers of police, and I understand that the Home Secretary is to meet them soon. The House will want to know what will result from the circular.
  By 1978, the total number of police cadets will be reduced to just over half of what it was in 1974. This means that the number of cadets will be cut by the end of the financial year to 3,500 compared with 5,000 in 1974. Many forces are faced with the virtual abandonment of cadet training schemes which have been built up over the years and which, as the Home Secretary fairly said, have proved their worth in supplying the service with thousands of excellent young police officers. It is absurd that at the same time as chief constables have been told to emasculate their cadet schemes they have also been told to find work for school leavers under the job creation scheme. This is ludicrous.
  1784
  There have never been so many youngsters looking to the police for careers as there are today. Last year the Metropolitan Police received more than 5,000 applications from youngsters wanting to join the cadets. Yet because of the cuts there will be no vacancies until January 1978, when, it is hoped, just 40 boys and girls will be accepted. In 1974 there were 1,000 Metropolitan Police cadets. In March next there will be only 413. The Home Secretary said fairly that he regretted the cuts, and so do I, very much.
  Traffic wardens will be reduced to 20 per cent. below the establishment level of 1974. I quote Mr. Jardine of the Police Federation, who put it well. He said
  "Fewer traffic wardens on the streets does not mean that there will be fewer vehicles. The only result will be that the police will be diverted from essential tasks to deal with traffic restraint."
  There will also be cuts in civilian aids to the police. The whole idea of having civilians working in the police force is to release trained and experienced police manpower to deal with the job of fighting crime. Inevitably, as civilian aid is reduced, more policemen will have to be taken off that work and put into clerical support services. The Home Secretary has no doubt fought to avoid such cuts. I accept his points about making judgments and about local authorities, but none of us should try to kid the country that these cuts will do anything other than reduce the level of police manpower involved in tackling crime.
  I now turn to police morale and, in particular, the row between the police and the Government. That row is not wholly about pay. There is a great deal more to it than that. But pay is, of course, at the heart of the matter, and I shall outline the bare essentials of the problem to the House.
  The heart of the police case is that they want to receive the same £6 pay increase as all other public servants had under phase 1 of the Government's agreement with the TUC. The Government's response is that most policemen had a double-figure increase in 1975 and that special arrangements were made for them to receive it. The Government also point out that this was actually paid during phase 1 while most other workers were limited to £6. On the

  1785
  other hand, the 1975 police pay settlement was agreed before the £6 limit was introduced and no allowance was made for it. The police also point out that their increase was retrospective in that it allowed the police pay to catch up with the salaries of miners, power workers, railwaymen and teachers—all of whom had received enormous rises during the present Government's first year in office. The police rise also reflected a comprehensive restructuring exercise worked out with Government support to reward the police for the erosion of their pay and conditions over the last 20 years.
  The ins and outs of the argument are complex. Essentially it is a conflict of one right with another—the right of the ordinary policeman who was expecting to get £6 and who is now offered £2 or £2·50 for constables or £4·50 for inspectors and, on the other hand, the right of the Government who are desperate to avoid special cases that might wreck their agreement with the TUC. What matters is how we get out of the impasse.
  The last thing I want is for the police to collide with the Government's incomes policy as the miners collided with the policy of the Conservative Government in 1974. I welcome the steadfast refusal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border to make party political capital out of the police pay dispute. I cannot say the same for the actions of some Labour Members in the past.
  After initial difficulties, which arose because of the insensitivity of some of his officials, the Home Secretary has intervened in the problem and there is now a faint sign of movement. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that the solution lies in a package deal based on the true facts.
  The work of the police is unique. They are subjected to frequent personal assaults because they stand between the lawbreaker and those who must be protected. They must accept restrictions on their personal life and they must work where and when they are told, night or day, weekend or bank holidays. They must live where they are told and give up any other form of employment. They
  1786
  are under discipline, and so, too, are their wives and families. Their oath of office keeps them on call for duty at all times. They must give up their civil liberties, they cannot join a union, take part in politics or take in a lodger without the approval of their chief constable, and in some forces they are not even allowed to grow a beard unless they are on night duty.
  Schedule 2 of the Police Regulations states that a policeman must:
  "at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression among members of the public that it may so interfere."
  That is a pretty onerous restriction on a man's personal life.
  The police accept these restrictions and the hazards of the job. But what rewards do they receive in return? I am obliged to Professor Nevins, who has done some detailed homework for the federation. I shall send the Home Secretary details of how his comparisons were drawn.
  In 1960 the Royal Commission established police pay at 4 per cent. above the average earnings of an adult male in industry. By 1974 police earnings had fallen to 83 per cent. of the average man's earnings in industry. The 1975 award put them back to the 1970 figure of about 93 per cent., but by October 1976 they were down again to 82 per cent. They are now about 80 per cent. So the police now receive about four-fifths of what the average adult male in industry earns. I do not believe that that is good enough.
  In order to restore their relative pay to the 1975 level, the police would require an increase of 14 per cent.—about £8 a week—to take their earnings to £63 a week. Under phase 2 they are being offered an average of £3·49 a week.
  The second comparison is with prices. Taking September 1969 as 100, real pay in industry remained virtually unchanged between 1975 and 1976. But the real pay of a police constable fell by 12·5 per cent. In real terms, his pay in 1976 was worth slightly less than it was in 1970. During that period the real pay of industrial workers rose by 11·6 per cent.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am sure that Professor Nevins has done his work correctly in making these comparisons, but can the hon. Gentleman confirm that like is

  1787
  being compared with like and that the comparisons take into account overtime in the police and in industry?
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes, the comparisons are of actual earnings. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject, so I need not weary the House any further with this technical argument. The police are in a unique position because of the nature of their job and the civil liberties which they must give up. Now they find that they are also falling behind in the income race.
  We all want a settlement, and I believe that it must be a package deal which has three main elements. One is acceptance by the Government that the Police Federation has taken a fundamental decision that it wants no further part of the Police Council. I know that the Home Secretary has expressed his regret at the decision, and I understand his view, but it is important that in any negotiations the Government start from a position that the federation is out of the Police Council and is not going back.
  I welcome the Home Secretary's intention to review the negotiating machinery. This is appreciated by the police, and the sooner it is started the better. However, in the meantime it will be for the Home Secretary to reach an interim settlement with the federation and to bring it here to the House for implementation.
  The second ingredient required in the settlement is a long-term review—what I have called a lofty review—of the rôle of the Police Federation. It was set up 58 years ago to meet the circumstances of the post-First World War period when social and political conditions were quite different. The federation must now be let off some of the leading strings to which it has been attached over the years. At a time when there is much talk of industrial democracy and worker directors, it is absurd for the federation to be operating on the basis of a 1920s' constitution.
  The third element of a settlement is, I suggest, fringe benefits. There is no reason why the police should not receive the same sympathetic treatment as was awarded to the seamen, the same forward commitments as those offered to some British Leyland workers, or similar concessions on pensions as have been worked out with the miners. There are
  1788
  a number of areas on which the Home Secretary should concentrate. One is standby duty. Why should a police officer, almost uniquely among public servants, not be compensated when he is required to give up family and social activities in order to be fit and ready for emergency duty?
  Another item is annual leave. With the present strains on the service, it is wrong that policemen with up to five or six years' service should receive only the same annual leave as that of men in their position 30 years ago. Police officers are under immense strain. If they lose their cool or their nerve snaps in a riot, all sorts of consequences could follow. It must be right to give them the opportunity to get away from it all for rather longer than is allowed at present. I also see no reason why the police should pay 7 per cent. of their salary towards a pension when civil servants and teachers pay only 6 per cent. of their salary.
  There are plenty of ways in which the Home Secretary could cobble together a reasonable and fair pay settlement to meet the reasonable claims of the police without damaging the incomes policy. What is required is a sympathetic and understanding approach, which is one of the Home Secretary's qualities, and, if I may say so, he should also try to limit some of the nit-picking by his Department which too often holds things up.
  Turning to other matters, one of the great frustrations of our professional police officers is that they do not have the resources to win on the job. They get immensely frustrated by the fact that in our big cities two out of every three robberies and four out of every five cases of housebreaking are never cleared up. The lesser criminal in London now has three chances out of four of getting away with his crime. The police are the first to feel frustrated and angry about that.
  Sometimes fairly and sometimes un- fairly, they also criticise some magistrates who impose lower fines on hooligans who beat up police cadets than on motorists who commit technical offences. The police become especially depressed when violent ruffians—dare I say like the Shrewsbury Two?—are elevated by political idealists into folk heroes and martyrs. The police are appalled by that wrong sort of example.

  1789
  The disillusionment of the police has recently broken out into some unexpected courses. There has been much talk about the police abandoning their neutrality and moving into the sphere of industrial action. There have been pressures, especially among younger men who perhaps have grown up in a newer generation in which the old loyalties are not so strong. There has been pressure from the younger men in the federation to join the TUC and to take unto itself the power of exerting industrial muscle.
  I believe that it would be a disaster for the federation to join the TUC. I say that not because of any opposition to the TUC but because the police ought not to be caught in a situation in which they were called upon to show fraternal solidarity with one side in an industrial dispute. If that were to happen, they would not be able to carry out their oath of office. They would lose their ability impartially to maintain the law. Equally, strike action by the police would be illegal. I hope and so far I believe that the federation will not go down that road.
  But I ask the House to recognise that the old constraints and loyalties that have exerted themselves upon the police service for so many years are diminishing rapidly. It may be that the Home Secretary has now moved into this situation personally just in the nick of time and that by his intervention he will be able to stop things getting out of hand. I beg of him to succeed, in the interests of the police service and the prevention of crime.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. John Lee: I find myself in considerable sympathy with a number of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). Perhaps I can supplement them by saying that on a number of occasions, as a practising member of the Bar I have come across cases where police officers have had to come straight off an arduous turn of night duty to give evidence in court, their whole day off being disrupted. That is another example of the many parts of their duties that make their lives much more difficult than those of many other people.
  1790
  The trouble is that we can make special cases out of so many different categories. I do not say that cynically. I appreciate that a genuine dilemma is involved.
  I propose to intervene in the debate, which is naturally wide-ranging—we are grateful to the Opposition for the fact that it is taking place—to draw attention to one or two rather narrow matters of law that, I think, are proper to raise on this occasion.
  The first matter is one that will not be unfamiliar to the Home Office coming from me because I have entered into debates upon it on several prior occasions. I refer to the operation of what to my mind is the ill-conceived Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, which has just taken effect. It has already produced yet one more absurdity. That must be taken in addition to those that I put forward when I fought the measure almost single-handed last year.
  We now have had the extraordinary situation illustrated in the case of William Thomas Hughes. By virtue of the fact that he was an alleged rapist, the fact that he was required for other offences could not be mentioned. A blanket of silence and secrecy had therefore to descend. This arose because the outrageous concept of the anonymity of witnesses was not originally extended to defendants as well, and the only way to mitigate that was to extend the provision of anonymity to the defendant as well as the complainant.
  The provision has already produced an absurd situation in respect of Hughes, although it did not give rise to any great harm because the man concerned was killed by police marksmen. In a way we can be grateful for that, although that might appear to be a grim remark to make, but I have in mind the damage that he had done. Almost certainly the woman would have been killed if Hughes had not been killed by those marksmen. One appreciates the appalling dilemma that faced the police. One can only commend them for the skill with which they performed what must have been a difficult task.
  My particular objection to the Act stems from the fact that, shortly before Christmas, when the measure came back from another place, I asked the Minister of State how we should consider the

  1791
  position where evidence is sought relating to a women's sexual relations with a third party. The effect of the new legislation is that cross-examination is not permitted of a complainant in respect of her sexual activities other than with the person who is accused. There is provision made where it is not in the interests of justice for exceptions to be admitted.
  I thought I obtained from the Home Office an assurance that in due course a practice direction would emanate, no doubt properly routed, from the Lord Chief Justice, that would enable these matters to be evaluated in "a trial within a trial", a procedure that is well known to members of the Bar and probably to others. It is a procedure whereby all the questions that would be put in front of the jury can be put to a witness in the absence of the jury. The judge can then decide whether it is a matter that is pertinent. I have in mind, for example, a situation where a woman has made a false accusation against someone else in the past. That seems to be a highly material matter which a jury should know when weighing whether a witness is to be believed.
  The other day, to my considerable surprise, I received a reply from the Attorney-General to the effect that it is not proper for the Lord Chancellor to give directions on these matters. That was the reply from the Attorney-General when I asked whether a decision had been reached. It seems that there has been a lacuna in communications between the Home Office and the Attorney-General. When my hon. Friend replies I want to know whether the matter can be resolved.
  I withdrew my opposition, which had been conducted jointly with a Conservative Member, who wanted to divide on the Lords amendment, on the understanding that an assurance would be given and honoured. I ask my hon. Friend to redeem the promise that I understood would be most clearly given. This was well known to the Solicitor-General and well known to the Minister of State.
  I now raise a matter of a different nature which has a bearing upon the matters to which I referred at the begining of my remarks, when I spoke of the Derbyshire mass murderer. Some years ago—I think it was in the wake of the terrible murder of three policemen in West London, the Harry Morris Roberts
  1792
  case—Sir Joseph Simpson, the then Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, made some remarks that in a sense may have been rather ill-advised although, no doubt, they were intended to be helpful to the public. He said that the public had a right to "have a go", meaning to have a go violently at a violent criminal to prevent a crime or, more particularly, to intercept and capture someone after a crime had been committed.
  This has been the subject of parliamentary Questions in which I have asked the Home Office to state the law as it stands and to enlarge upon its finer points. Sir Joseph's remarks were criticised at the time, not so much because of the motive behind them but because they were not really practicable as the law stood. The dividing line between the use of force that is permissible and not permissible in respect of the prevention of crime is not so clear as to enable a person to intercept, even supposing that they have the courage, skill and ability to do so. The situation could so easily arise—I mention this because crimes of terrorism and violence are in our minds now—where it would be almost the toss of a coin whether somebody, acting on the principle or precept of having a go, in the course of which the criminal is killed, should be recommended for the George Medal or should face a manslaughter charge.
  In the Derbyshire killing, there is no difficulty. I do not suppose that anybody would criticise the police, still less suggest that they were in any sense criminally culpable in relation to that matter. The position there was so extreme and the circumstances so dire that no one could contemplate any other method being used than that of firearms and violence. But there must be a grey area—instances where difficulties are likely to arise.
  I have asked the Home Office on a number of occasions to introduce legislation to make clear what just is justifiable homicide. In a number of instances action has had to be taken. For example, there was a shooting incident in West London involving a police officer who was on Special Branch patrol duties. He came upon a violent crime, used the weapon which was legally and justifiably in his possession, and killed the criminal. He was properly exonerated by the inquest that followed. It was held that that was a case of justifiable homicide. Again,

  1793
  as in the case of the Derbyshire killing, I make no criticism. In fact, the reverse. It was a commendable act to deal with a dangerous and drastic situation.
  The law is not clear on these matters. Unfortunately, we face an ever-increasing number—statistically, a small proportion of total crimes, but nevertheless an increasing number—of incidents of violence, particularly with the growth of international terrorism. Such situations present themselves with appalling suddenness to more and more people. The public have a right to know precisely where they stand in law so that, if they are in a situation of this kind, and are brave enough—it takes a very brave person to carry out such acts—have the skill and the opportunity and foresee the necessity for taking drastic action of the kind which I suggest, they will not face the possibility of a criminal charge.
  I leave that thought with the Minister. There are other matters which I could raise, but I think that is sufficient. This matter stands by itself. Therefore, I content myself with those remarks.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and the Secretary of State showed a refreshing awareness of the fact that the area covered by punishment is by no means the whole of the area covered by the prevention of crime.
  I think that too often we regard penal reform, for example, as covering the larger part of crime when in fact it is a smaller part than the numbers of cases brought to court, which are themselves a smaller part of the crimes committed. Convictions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, form a small part of all detected crimes, and detected crimes are a small part of the total of crimes committed.
  In dealing with the prevention of crime I think that we must look at the more fundamental, deep-seated causes of crime and the longer rather than the shorter-term remedies which are normally discussed under the heading of penal reform. In this regard what was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), who has left the Chamber, was very important. In Parliament
  1794
  we have often in past years appeared, on the one hand, to have taken steps to deter criminals by, for example, stoking up penalties. On the other hand, we have also passed social legislation which has weakened social discipline and brought about conditions in which crime has continued and almost been encouraged to flourish. The hon. Member for Handsworth gave one example. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act has by itself contributed to the debit side of the scale.
  In considering the deep-seated causes of crime we are entitled to look at all those matters that affect the strength of family life, the bond among members of a family, and the self-discipline which is expected of individuals in a society in which law and order are generally recognised as paramount.
  When we do that, we are bound to look at some of the legislation which has gone through this House with some doubt as to its wisdom—for example, the legislation which encourages the mothers of young children under school age to go out to work and, therefore, to neglect their children. I realise that if the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) were in her place she would angrily jump up—she is an old adversary of mine on this subject—and say that parents are assisted by nursery schools, playgroups, and so on, and that the State, the community, and the local authority have an important part to play in the training and education of young children of that age. If family life has a lot to contribute to the stability, order and health of society, then we are weakening it every time we weaken the bond between parents and children, especially mothers and young children. Therefore, I oppose any extension of the concept of nursery education provided simply to enable mothers to get rid of their parental responsibilities and to add to the family income—often unnecessarily. Unfortunately, the ability to do that weakens the social cohesion and discipline which we expect if we are to maintain law and order.
  We have a daily diet of violence on television—often in the most realistic setting, the home. That must have some effect upon the tender minds of children. We have not yet found an answer to that

  1795
  problem. However, it must have some effect on the causes of crime.
  In short, we have interfered with and almost abolished altogether the natural restraints on behaviour that we expect of our citizens in relation to the law. In so many cases we have actually legislated for and encouraged conditions that are completely contrary to it.
  In our methods of teaching in schools, the idea of self-discovery, for example, seems to assume that no framework of discipline is needed for young children and that they should grow up without feeling that there is a framework of discipline around them. In fact, that is vital for children. They should not feel themselves without the support that they should get from a discipline of some sort, whether in the home or the school. Although the tendency now is to say that some of our present methods of teaching are wrong, perhaps, and should be revised, methods that have received the opinion of expert educationists over the past decade or two, have done a great deal of social damage.
  Whereas these long-term causes of crime are very often things that cannot easily be remedied, certainly not in the short run, there are some things that can be identified specifically for which remedial measures can be taken by this House. I am thinking, for example, of easier divorce, which I believe has had a great influence upon family life, upon social cohesion and upon the simple lesson of keeping one's vows and promises. There are, for example, easier abortion and free contraceptives on the National Health Service, both of which must have encouraged sexual irresponsibility. These are measures that have been passed through this Parliament. We have, therefore, condoned them, but we have an opportunity of remedying that and, perhaps, pushing back the frontier of irresponsibility to some extent.
  For the same reason, when there is discussion about penal reform, about which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East spoke in humane terms, we have to remember that we can carry it too far, certainly in the mind of the citizen. With due respect to the hon. Lady, prison should be a deterrent. The whole point of imprisonment is that it ought to be a deterrent. Mankind has found
  1796
  no other method in the last resort of deterring violent criminals from crime. We can experiment with other methods, and we do that all the time, but ultimately there is no remedy save that of removing the individual from society and keeping him confined, isolated from society, and unable to fulfil his normal wishes, likes and tendencies during his period of imprisonment. That is the whole point of imprisonment.
  When the hon. Lady talks about the difficulties of prison for married prisoners, and uncomfortable conditions very often, unless she makes it clear that she is not saying that prisons should be comfortable places, she is not contributing to the cause of prevention of crime, because if in the public mind prison is no deterrent, there is less respect for the law and for measures for the prevention of crime. There is contempt for the law, because it appears to condone crime, and not to regard punishment for what it is—a thoroughly disagreeable thing, and rightly disagreeable.
  Justice in the administration of our law is, therefore, vital in the cause of crime prevention, but leniency to the wrongdoer is an affront to the innocent. I wish that we could remember that when we talk about penal reform, however much we are impressed by the arguments on behalf of prisoners. Personally, when talking about penal reform I am more concerned about the intolerable conditions that the present overcrowding of prisons imposes upon prison officers, because it is they, surely, who should be encouraged and who deserve our support.
  The aspect of the criminal law and the means of prevention of crime to which I want to refer specifically has been touched on already by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds—the police. In this respect the Secretary of State is entitled to credit for the fact that police recruitment has increased in recent years and particularly last year. I am concerned most about London. There the increase has been about 1,000. That is marvellous. It is excellent news. We know that the figure for vacancies overall—it was given by the Secretary of State—is 8,625. Unfortunately, London, with only one-fifth of the total establishment of the British police, still has half of those vacancies. There are still 4,000 vacancies in London.

  1797
  That leads me to ask how we know that the figure for the establishment, about 25,000, is a valid and appropriate figure for London, with its size and problems and the strength and intensity of the criminal effort in the capital city. We do not know. It was an arbitrary figure when it was fixed in, I think, 1919, shortly after the war. We have gone by that figure ever since then. We have never recruited police in London up to establishment. As has been pointed out, there have been times when the figure has been far greater than it is now. We are still 4,000 short.
  It occurs to me that so many of our problems in the capital city are due to this deficiency in police—not just the 4,000 vacancies, but adequate police to serve not merely as a law enforcement agency but as deterrents to crime, and in promoting social harmony and cohesion.
  I wonder how many people realise how much race relations—this is most important in London—could be improved with a greater number of police on the beat. One thing that one can say about the coloured population in London and the areas in which they live is that actual person-to-person contact is much more efficacious in producing understanding among them than any other method at all. That is my personal experience, and I do not think that it can be refuted.
  If there were more policemen on the beat in areas in which there is a natural distrust of law and order and authority, and, of course, of the police themselves, it would be shown so easily that the London bobby in particular is the friend, not the enemy, of young men and women in the so-called deprived areas of London, because he is an excellent public relations officer when left to himself. However, it is often the case that his division is so short of men that it cannot afford anyone on the beat, and it has to put all its men into motor cars to deal with urgent matters of crime, so they are not just strolling around the streets, as they should be in Notting Hill and Brixton. If they were doing that we would find that relations would improve enormously. No amount of community relations officers in the Metropolitan Police will get at the fundamental problem that arises from the lack of direct person-to-person contact between the coloured community and members of the police force.
  1798
  That leads me to the subject raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), when he was warning that streams of blood have already begun to run in our city centres. That is perfectly true of London at present. The figures for muggings and the use of knives have unfortunately increased tremendously and alarmingly. One wonders just how we should deal with that problem. One way of dealing with it is by simply having more police, more of them on the beat and available in close contact with the people from whom very often this class of offender is drawn.
  I believe it is unfortunate that so many Members of the House who represent inner urban areas in our cities do not live in their constituencies. I believe that to be the case with minor exceptions. That does not put those hon. Members in daily contact with their constituents. If they were to live in those central city areas they would be aware of the fact that many of their neighbours are afraid to go out at night because of the fear of being attacked. In many London inner urban areas—I shall not specify any in particular nor the party of the Members concerned—people are genuinely afraid to go out at night on their own. That applies especially to the elderly, but it is not confined to them. Generally speaking, the back streets of London off the main highways and shopping areas are dangerous at night.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to cast a slur on Members of this House. I must tell him that in regard to South London my hon. Friends the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) and Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) all live in their constituencies. Therefore, London has a very good representation of hon. Members who live in their constituencies. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish his remarks to be qualified by the facts.
  Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Gentleman comes from South-East London, as I do, and I exonerate him and the people he mentions, but I know several Members of Parliament who represent inner city areas—not just in London but elsewhere —who do not live in their constituencies and who are not in day-to-day contact with their problems. People in many inner city areas live in daily fear of their

  1799
  lives. If more hon. Members were in closer contact with their constituents they would know this, and perhaps conditions would improve, because there would be even greater pressure for the police—and I feel that this is the remedy—to be supplemented in those areas and on the beat.
  This brings me to the subject of public expenditure cuts. I cannot emphasise too often that it is entirely a question of priorities and of what one puts first. How can one decide whether too much money is being spent in one direction rather than another without having some sort of yardstick? Decisions on Government expenditure are arrived at at different times. Sometimes, when one is overcommitted, one cannot adjust the situation because orders have to be given and they take some time to be processed and delivered. Therefore, it is most important to achieve a rational, objective standard. What is certain is that expenditure on self-preservation, which is the fundamental instinct of human beings, must be the number one priority. This means defence against external aggression and internal attack.
  The argument in favour of more expenditure on the police, even in these times and taking those priorities into account, is unanswerable. We do not spend enough on the police, and policemen do not have sufficient equipment or pay. I wish to support what was said on the subject of pay by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The Secretary of State said a little earlier that the settlement achieved in 1975 was arrived at thanks to pressure from the then Secretary of State. The police were thought to deserve a bigger increment than usual because of their function, not as a group of wage earners, but as an essentially important element in law and order which should be given high priority. If that is so, that situation must be maintained. It is incredible that policemen, instead of now being paid at 105 per cent. of the average industrial wage, are now to be paid only 80 per cent., even with the larger increase achieved in 1975.
  The police force deserves far more than it is now being paid. In this respect I do not entirely agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds about pay not
  1800
  being the whole of the answer, because, in a sense, money comprises most of the answer to the problem. Money has a great bearing on the recruitment figures, and it is obvious that we must recruit more policemen.
  Furthermore, I am sure that if the police, especially those in London, could be assured of a five-day week without loss of overall earnings—at the moment they work almost every weekend and regard their overtime as part of their earnings—we should have much less difficulty in increasing the strength of the police and contributing to the happiness of individual policemen.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the machinery for settling terms and conditions in the police force is completely out of date and that it should be reviewed? Does he not also agree that some of the recent difficulties between police and Government have, in part, been due to the fact that pay is decided by a contract arrived at between the Government and the TUC, in which the Police Federation has had no part to play? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's attention and that of the Government could be directed at the question of allowing the police to affiliate to the TUC.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): The hon. Gentleman should have been here earlier when this was mentioned.
  Mr. Ogden: Would the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)—I do not direct this question to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) who seems for the moment to have left his bread round—not agree that the points I have raised should be borne in mind?
  Mr. Stanbrook: I am glad to have had that intervention because I agree that the negotiating machinery for the police is very much of a nonsense. It is a ludicrous idea that the police should negotiate as if policemen were another group of wage earners subject to the Government's incomes policy. Equally ludicrous is the idea that they should recognise themselves as such, join the TUC, and then be condemned by everybody as just another group of wage earners. They would be regarded as partisans allied to a political cause and would lose public support on that account. I hope that ludicrous proposal will not be pursued.

  1801
  At present we have the best police force in the world. We are lucky that the British policeman has a sangfroid and self-discipline that serves him in fair weather and foul, in emergencies and routine jobs as a custodian of the law. The police in this country, in face of a demonstration such as that which occurred in Grosvenor Square, solved the situation by manpower. This involves a large number of policemen using, as it were, brute force, and that is the remedy. On the other hand, police forces on the Continent handle such situations with a whiff of grapeshot. We are fortunate to have the kind of police force that exists in the United Kingdom. We do not praise them often enough in this House. I believe that we should disregard the incomes policy in respect of policemen and pay them what they deserve.
  8.19 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: I originally came to listen to the debate, but I am encouraged to intervene by the remarks made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I agree with him that the near certainty of being caught is a strong deterrent. Although there is a good chance of getting away with a crime, most people still abide by the law. Therefore, the minority who commit offences must have some special characteristics which distinguish them from the majority of people who are law-abiding.
  The hon. Gentleman said that had my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) been present she would have jumped to her feet at the notion that nursery schools might be connected with crime. There are not enough nursery schools. To say that nursery schools, the absence of which we have been complaining about, are responsible for crime is to stretch credulity too far.
  There was a time when children could be hanged for sheep stealing. Only comparatively recently have we raised the age of criminal responsibility. There were no nursery schools in days gone by, family life was deplorable and children lived in unacceptable conditions, as anyone who has read Dickens knows.
  I go a little way with the hon. Gentleman, although I draw different conclusions.
  1802
  Children and young people are living in an age of uncertainty, an age of enormous change. I think I am right in saying that more than half the couples who get divorced have children under the age of 10. I am not saying that divorce is wrong. I can think of nothing worse than children being brought up in a home in which the parents hate each other, whether or not they have taken vows. Nothing has a worse effect on a child than quarrels between parents. Often the child is the butt between the parents.
  Children suffer from divorce and a broken home life for many reasons. Often custody orders are not implemented and access is denied. If arrangements are not working properly and the children are suffering, there is a strong case for social workers to have the job of ensuring that proper facilities are available and adequate arrangements are made to protect the children. A broken home life has a shattering effect upon the emotions of children and on the way they regard adults and society in years to come.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) spoke of the need for more police. I do not dissent from that. Some people say that prisons, to be a deterrent, must be unattractive, but we never ask ourselves how we can prevent young people from becoming antisocial in the first place. We all know that a breakdown in family relationships, deprivation and constant change influence enormously the behaviour of a child when it becomes an adult. I have known children in care who have been taken from the institution back to the mother and back to the institution again as many as nine times within one or two years before a final decision is made. That is the sort of experience that leads to young people becoming anti-social in later life.
  It is a tragedy that public expenditure cuts are being made in the social services when more social workers and probation workers are needed to prevent problems developing into worse problems which cannot be solved. We hear a great deal about stronger deterrents and harsher prisons, but that is not the answer.
  It has been said that people who have come from abroad regard the police as their enemies rather than as their friends. It would be of assistance if more Asians and Indians joined the police force. If work on community relations is not to

  1803
  be undermined, more money must be spent on it. Last night a committee of Slough Council recommended that the council's contribution to the Community Relations Council should cease to be paid. That will render the CRC immobile, and that is a matter of great regret to me. Community relations, particularly in rural areas, will suffer enormously if financial assistance is not given to the CRC.
  Reference has been made to promiscuity and sexual freedom. I was brought up in an age when it was understood that men were promiscuous. They were lads and that was good, but it was not the thing for women. If they were promiscuous they were tarts. I asked myself with whom were the men promiscuous. I accept that there is more sexual freedom today and people talk a great deal more about sex, but I doubt whether the availability of contraception and abortion has caused a rise in the crime rate. In the past there was much hypocrisy. At least today we live in an era of frankness and do not pretend that things are not as they are.
  People talk about the breaking of bonds between parents and children, which I accept completely. The bonding of a parent with a child is an important thing for the future development of a child. But the other side of the question must also be put. Some people refer to nursery schools and the fact that mothers wanting to go out to work leave their children, with all the social consequences following from that. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that children from nursery schools have more criminal tendencies than others.
  I often wonder why people's hands do not go up in horror when children at the age of seven are sent to boarding school. Many such children have been with nannies since they were a few weeks old. I recently met a girl working in one of the areas of the mass media and I asked whether she had any children. She said that she had a child who was 10 days old. When I asked why she was back at work so soon, she said that she was working full time because she had a nanny. Presumably that is acceptable in our society, but it is not acceptable to me.
  I have looked at the history of what is taking place among all classes of children and not at the fact that women are asking
  1804
  for the opportunities to develop careers or, indeed, have to go to work.
  Stanbrookwill the hon. Lady allow me to say that I entirely agree with her?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Is the hon. Lady giving way?
  Miss Lestor: I am giving way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I have nearly finished.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I agree with the hon. Lady when she says that the abandonment of a child by a mother in its early days is reprehensible, whether it is done by someone who can afford it or by someone who has to do it in order to maintain her status.
  Miss Lestor: I was not saying that it was reprehensible. The point I am making is that many of us get angry when working-class women ask for facilities for their children. They are often told that because they are being neglected their children are likely to become criminal. But there is a whole class of people who can afford to do this, and not a word is said. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said and that he does not like it in any way.
  One of the big problems we face is that if we are to do anything positive about potential crime and people who have been in prison, the after-care service for prisoners must clearly be increased 100, 200 or 300-fold. In addition, the quality of the after-care service has to be enormously improved. We have also to concentrate a great deal more on making provision for the identifying of people who are likely to become antisocial because of the social circumstances surrounding them.
  Social workers—probation officers and others—are overworked. Their case loads are far too large. Often they come into a situation when it is almost too late to do anything about it. We need to look more closely, first, at getting agencies set up to try to help young people in particular before they become criminals. Secondly, we need to provide services for those who have been in prison, and who have behaved in an antisocial fashion, in order to offer them enough support and help when they leave

  1805
  prison so that they do not repeat the pattern which got them there in the first place.
  Some of the public care facilities which exist in this country are of very poor quality in terms of the amount of attention that can be given to people who are in real need. The quality is so poor and inadequate that those people get back into the cycle that was responsible for their situation.
  I would not pretend to know—no one knows—a great deal about the causes of crime. But if the overwhelming majority of people are not anti-social, and if we are all living in a society where the certainty of detection is perhaps becoming less, there must be special circumstances surrounding individuals who are anti-social. Some of them might be helped and prevented from becoming criminal if only we would put enough resources into finding out why they became anti-social in the first place.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I understand that all hon. Members present who have not already spoken are anxious to do so. That is possible. The winding-up speeches will begin at 9.20 p.m. All that is needed is a little self-denial, the limitation of speeches to five minutes. If hon. Members are not willing to co-operate, they know that all who wish to do so will not be able to take part in the debate.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: The breadth of the two opening speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and the Home Secretary emphasised the scope of the debate. I want to confine myself to one general comment and two short specific points, in view of what you have just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I very much appreciated the approach of my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary in a complicated situation. Both recognised that there were no short cuts. These are deeply difficult and complex problems. It is extremely valuable that we should maintain the present approach from both sides of the House, although there may be differences in emphasis as
  1806
  to what we should or should not be doing.
  My general point is that if within the next few years we do not manage to cure the rise in violence it will become increasingly difficult, because of public opinion, to avoid the temptation to fall into the ways of those who say that there are short cuts.
  I listened with interest, although not with full agreement, to the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). We heard an equally interesting speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) about prisons. The sort of approach that they described is possible only if we manage to eliminate the rise in personal violence, which rose by 11 per cent. between 1974 and 1975. Unless that can be stemmed, we shall be under great pressure, which will not lead to sensible and rational discussion.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and others have emphasised, more police on the ground are undoubtedly the heart of the matter. In Liverpool, for example, where special patrols have been set up, there has been a noticeable diminution in that type of crime.
  The Home Secretary said that he had been reading the 18 volumes of "Life and Labour in London". He said that violent crime existed in the last century as well as this century. The most startling reduction ever in such crime came when lighting was introduced into the streets, making it impossible for people to mug. Mugging is a crime of the back streets today, a crime of youth and the early twenties.
  I agree with what the hon. Member Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) said about early education. A structured education gives a child a good start, one which he will never have if he is left alone. In the economic circumstances of today, people often have to take two jobs, and such education gives an opportunity for the child from a deprived home to have a start he would not otherwise have.
  We must all recognise— although heaven only knows what we do about it— that at the heart of the rise in violence is the difficult situation, not in housing but in jobs, of many young people who are left on the streets and

  1807
  inevitably get into trouble. I do not believe that better housing, better this and that, will necessarily make people better people, but it would be foolish not to recognise that the unemployment of today is doing nothing to help.
  I come now to my two brief special points. The first follows on from what I have been saying about public opinion. On a number of occasions when the House was dealing with the punishment for murder I voted in the way that the House finally decided. But I have always recognised that public opinion has a great part to play in the matter and that if we are to maintain the course we have followed for the past 15 years it is important that public opinion does not become alienated. Many people disagree with the views of the House.
  I shall not go into special cases, but it must be made clear that when judges sentence people to specific long terms of imprisonment for murder they really mean those sentences and that life imprisonment really means life. Such sentences should be interfered with only in the most exceptional circumstances. If that is not made clear now, public opinion will veer away from its reluctant acceptance of the present position.
  The Home Secretary is rightly considering ways in which he can take people out of the prisons. I was encouraged by his statement that he was considering the short-sentence prisoner and examining ways of dealing with the alcoholic and other problems. I congratulate him on that. I hope that he will not go too far, because there are good grounds for thinking that in many cases prison is the only choice. I hope he will not expand but will try to contract the area in which courts are restricted in what they may do with young people.
  I am thinking particularly of sentencing difficulties with people between the ages of 17 and 20. Courts are limited in their sentencing— and the limitations mean that people go to prison rather than stay out. The Court of Appeal has ruled that if a sentence should be nearer three years than six months it must be three years. I believe that the court should be unfettered. That point has been made before, so I shall not weary the House with it again.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for taking only six minutes.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I am looking forward to the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott), who has done a good deal of research, not only in his own constituency but in Newcastle as a whole, which has drawn public attention to the problems in that city. That has some bearing on the matters we are discussing tonight. I am sure that we shall find a good deal of agreement on an approach to a problem that concerns us all.
  When discussing crime and its prevention, we must consider the machinery for dealing with it to see whether it is adequate for present social and economic conditions. There are four main processes in dealing with crime— first, the enactment in Parliament of the criminal law; second, its enforcement; third, the trial to determine guilt or innocence; and fourth, dealing with those found guilty. The work in those four categories is the responsibility of, respectively, politicians, police, lawyers and the Prison and Probation Services. The four categories often work separately, and one contribution I can make points to the need to harmonise all four elements with the object of understanding the problems of crime and its prevention.
  First, we must understand the problem so as to avoid the extreme views which are endemic in this kind of discussion, even outside the House. Some people who do not understand the problem want extreme penalties. Others, who do not want extreme penalties, want some other form of punishment which is not generally acceptable to most people in this country.
  When we consider the prison population, and I take only one example, I agree with my right hon. Friend who said earlier that we should watch carefully how we use statistics. That advice was wise. There is more to the problem than talking about a total prison population of more than 40,000 or talking about a programme to provide a further 5,000 places.
  The figures for the prison population at 14th July last year show that in Brixton

  1809
  the certified establishment was 649 but the actual population was 982. In Durham Prison the establishment was 665 but the population was 1,046. In Liverpool certified accommodation was 1,041 but the population was 1,544. In Manchester Borstal, there were 205 established places and a population of 306. In Wormwood Scrubs there were 1,007 certified places and a population of 1,548. In other words, we have a very serious problem of overcrowding, with many prisoners forced to live with two or three in a cell originally built for one.
  In 1969, out of about 10,000 prisoners who were sleeping in overcrowded cells, there were 7,653 sleeping three to a cell and 2,886 sleeping two to a cell. By last year the total number of prisoners sleeping in overcrowded cells had risen to 15,640, of whom 5,298 were sleeping three to a cell and 10,342 were sleeping two to a cell. Those figures are very alarming and show that the problem is serious in any discussion on crime.
  Because of shortage of time I must throw away many other observations which would have been useful to the debate but I close with a warning. We must be careful about the way we react to crime. We must not contravene the basic principle which has existed for centuries. I quote an observation which underlines my point:
  "There is, of course, always room for serious and constructive debate about our criminal law procedure. No one would pretend that it is perfect, but it does offer safeguards devised over the centuries for the protection of the innocent individual. We abandon those safeguards at our peril."
  We must look for ways of harmonising all areas of our criminal law, but we must also refrain from acting so swiftly that we come to the wrong conclusions. We must retain the intrinsic character of the law to ensure that we safeguard and protect the innocent.
  8.49 p.m.
  Sir William Elliott: I thank the hon. Member Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter)—who kept his remarks commendably brief—for his words about my research into crime in the city of Newcastle, to which I intend to refer. I would also have liked to refer to much of what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and
  1810
  Slough (Miss Lestor), who made a most interesting speech.
  Nothing makes me more depressed than to read about a criminal and the crime he has committed, and then to read in the report on him something about his background and to realise that he has come from a broken home—a home in which he has never known love and care and in which the parents were in many cases guilty of criminal offences. I agreed with the hon. Lady when she suggested that any expenditure within the welfare system that helps deprived children from unhappy homes is to be commended. One can only hope that when the economy recovers such services as she suggested will be fully supported.
  I draw attention to what I believe to be a major modern problem—crime within metropolitan areas of Britain. It is a new form of crime which we must face up to urgently. I listened with great appreciation to the Home Secretary, who made a comprehensive speech, and I took note of his comments that we all imagine that when we were younger things were not so bad. I have done a lot of research in my city of Newcastle and I shall make a few point about that.
  The records show that crime is getting worse. About 150 years ago it was unsafe for an individual to walk through the streets of Newcastle at night. After that it was not so bad. During the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s one could walk through the streets of Newcastle at nights with safety and with some pleasure. It is now unsafe again. I have looked at the problem myself. In recent days I spent two evenings in the centre of Newcastle, where I examined the problem for four or five hours each time. I was appalled at what I discovered.
  We have a problem, associated with youth in particular, in the centre of our city conurbations. It is most dangerous to society and it must be arrested as a matter of urgency. I was told by the manager of a new public house that three times in as many weeks fights which involved knives had started in his new and rather splendid pub. Another landlord said that on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights he expected to lose 200 glasses, either broken or stolen. Yet another landlord said that he never served

  1811
  a bottle over the top of the counter because the bottle might well be used as a weapon later on.
  I was also told about a drink called "snake bite". I take a drink myself, but I have never heard of it. Apparently it is a mixture of lager and cider, which sounds innocuous enough but has a disastrous effect on teenagers if they drink a large quantity. Also, there are gangs of young people who go around deliberately causing trouble in places of former entertainment. Everyone I consulted in my city agreed that we had a worsening social problem on our hands. It has become so much worse in recent times and it is now urgent that something should be done. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to draw attention to it.
  The causes of this problem are numerous. We have unemployment, which has been mentioned by several speakers tonight. We have far more unemployment in our region than I want to see, and it is urgent that we get it reduced. Of course it has a bearing on crime; in my area it always has. I do not believe, however, that unemployment has a major bearing on the present problem.
  I was told with some amazement by several managers of pubs and clubs that young people often set forth on Friday and Saturday evenings with as much as £30, £40 or £50 in their pockets to spend. That was the amazing information I received. Of course, they spend far too much of it on strong drink. As an example of what the Home Secretary indicated, violence is at its worst when Newcastle United is playing at home, and when the visiting team—including Leeds United—is making its way home the violence is there. But this sort of thing happens every Friday or Saturday night.
  Last Saturday night one of my constituents had his throat cut with a piece of broken glass outside a public house in the centre of Newcastle. He now lies ill in an intensive care unit. Last Saturday night an elderly widow in the North-East had the upper half of her glazed front door shattered by a milk bottle. Three youths entered, and their first action was to remove this crippled lady's walking stick and throw it into the road.
  1812
  They then robbed her and ran off. In addition, an elderly man was stabbed to death in the North-East last week.
  I was interested in what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) said about judges' recommendations on sentencing. I am sorry to say that a murderer who was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommendation by the judge that in the public interest he should not be released again was released and has committed another murder in the past few days in the North-East.
  We now need, therefore, to face this problem of urban crime in the centres of our major cities. It affects not just Newcastle but Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham, and, since my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is to wind up the debate, from this side, no doubt he will agree that it affects Glasgow as well. I ask the Home Secretary to strengthen our police force and give it every possible support.
  In the interests of brevity I shall omit much of what I was going to say about the police because that has been well said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). My answer, and that, I believe, of society, must be increased penalties. I believe that the young people who go out and terrorise and attack, who are guilty of mugging, robbing and violence and who upset the pleasures of decent people, should be much more heavily fined than they are at present. If they have £30, £40 or £50 of spending money in their pockets, as I am assured they have, let the courts take substantially more from them when they appear before the courts.
  Imprisonment must be introduced for the worst cases. I cannot go all the way with my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who wishes to see flogging reintroduced, although in the case of the three youths who robbed the elderly widow last weekend I am very tempted to do so.
  We must face the fact that our city centres have a new problem of crime and that it is a considerable one. I want brutality outlawed from the centre of the cities of our country because it is too prevalent.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Price: If I make certain comments which go against the general trend of remarks from the Opposition side of the House and, to a certain extent, from the Government Benches, it is because I think that in all this discussion of violence and crime, and of the responsibilities of the police, there is another side that must be put. A debate such as this is a proper occasion on which to put it.
  It is important to realise the change of atmosphere that has taken place in this House over the years. We have appalling problems in our inner cities. I represent an inner city constituency, and I agree that mugging is one of the worst of those problems, but in spite of that we have not had, even from the Conservative Front Bench, the sort of demands for capital and corporal punishment that, I believe, we would have witnessed 15, 20 or 30 years ago. We have not had them yet, and tribute should be paid at least to the Conservative Front Bench Members for holding out against the pressure that, I know, exists for them to become more tough and violent in the words they use from that Dispatch Box.
  I agree that mugging is an appalling problem. I shall say a word or two about drugs later, but the consumption of alcohol by young people is a serious contributory cause to crime and we should consider it more seriously. We have already come round to banning cigarette advertising on television. In many countries, particularly Scandinavian ones, much stricter advertising controls are applied, sometimes to only hard liquor and sometimes to all alcoholic drinks. We should have a closer look at this aspect in this country to discover whether it would be possible to go right to the core of some of these problems in that way.
  I would like to ask the Home Secretary a question about the proposed riot shields for the Metropolitan Police. If the Commissioner wants this equipment he should probably be allowed to have it, but it would be a pity for the Metropolitan Police to acquire a tough image in their recruiting that would cut the force off and make it different from police forces in other parts of the country.
  I keep in touch with the Commander of my local division of the Metropolitan
  1814
  Police. He is particularly encouraged not so much by the number of recruits now coming forward, but by the type of recruits. He told me that the other day he interviewed a particularly dishy woman sociology graduate who had applied to join the police force. He said that he would have thought that she would want to become a social worker, but she told him that that was not so. She had considered all the possibilities and wanted to join the police. I hope that since there is this new graduate intake the police will keep up with the times and will not become reactionary.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: If my hon. Friend reads my speech he will find that I spent a long time saying that I feel strongly on the point about riot shields, but I must allow the police to have them rather than allow the police to be put in the position of having to work with dutbin lids. That would be wrong.
  Mr. Price: I quite agree.
  I want to refer to the Confait case and the aftermath of that. A couple of years ago three young constituents of mine, who had been in gaol for three and a half years for murder and arson, were released because the Appeal Court had quashed the earlier verdicts and had found that my constituents had not committed the crimes for which they had been sentenced. As a result, there was a full private inquiry into the case and a report by Sir Henry Fisher will be published soon. Many questions are raised by the case and I want to put some of them to the Home Secretary. Even if he cannot answer them tonight I hope that he will bear them in mind.
  How are we progressing with the experiment in tape recording police interviews? It was recommended by a committee that the experiment should not be carried out in a widespread way but that it should be tried in one place to find out whether tape recording would work.
  When will my right hon. Friend consolidate the Judges' Rules? I have met many policemen who would like it to be clear to the police and the public what the mutual responsibilities and rights are when a person is arrested. That would be enormously helpful when, for instance, the police come into conflict with black

  1815
  youngsters in South and South-East London. I asked in a recent Written Question whether my right hon. Friend would publish the general orders of the Metropolitan Police which lay down this sort of thing and which are secret at present. Why can he not publish those orders in detail?
  Hon. Members opposite are urging me to conclude, so I shall not speak for too much longer.
  The Home Secretary's predecessor issued a circular to all police forces giving instructions on how to interview mentally retarded young people. I hope that these are consolidated in the Judges' Rules as soon as possible. Much of what we call crime in this country is committed by people who are suffering either mental retardation or problems of mental illness such as undisclosed schizophrenia. The more that our police are aware of that the more we shall be able to keep these people out of prisons—where they should not be sent, and to give them the help they need.
  I agree that we should take off the police wherever possible those jobs they should not properly be doing. On the whole, they should protect the public, and should inquire into private lives as little as possible. I have been disturbed by instances which have been drawn to my attention by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and in which the Home Office, when suspecting marriages of convenience among immigrants, use the police to ask unnecessary personal questions to find out whether people are properly living together. That odious job should not be left to the police. They have better things to do. I would develop this point as the Home Secretary is tempting me to do, but hon. Members opposite are pressing me to conclude.
  It may be an unpopular thing to say, but I believe that in 20 years' time the way in which we have allowed unlimited amounts of liquor to be sold while making the smoking of marijuana a crime will be considered crazy. Neither the House nor the country is yet in a position to take what I would regard as a sensible attitude towards drug addiction; it would balance tobacco, liquor and marijuana together.
  The more that we can relieve the police of investigating this sort of so-called
  1816
  crime, the more they can get on with the job, for which they are desperately needed, of protecting the public.
  I have been asked to keep my speech short, and though I have been tempted to speak on other matters, they are temptations which I shall resist.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Alan Clark—who has promised to be brief.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Clark: 1 hardly know whether to speak at twice my normal speed or to cut my text in half, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of all the subjects that we could be discussing, this is one of the greatest concerns of those whom we represent.
  I believe it is no exaggeration to say that the element of fear in our society has returned after an absence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) said, of over 150 years. There is fear on the part of old people, who are hesitant to go out in the evening. There is fear on the part of parents who have to collect their children from school when 30 years or 40 years ago parents would have allowed their children to walk home peaceably. There is fear on the part of householders, who have to take the most excessive precautions to prevent their home—often quite ordinary and humble homes—being broken into and burgled.
  Our public parks, sporting events and even libraries and museums are no longer places of solace and pleasure but are subject to the attentions of vandals and hooligans.
  It is very easy to ask "What are the Government going to do about this?" I do not think that the problem can be presented in those terms, but I believe that a certain responsibility lies with the Government for the present state of affairs. Certainly it lies with the Labour movement, with its constant encouragement of the undermining of authority. I know that that might have a perfectly respectable doctrinal origin in that the Labour movement associates authority and privilege as one, but the fact is that the Labour movement and the Left, the so-called progressives, are associated with a continuous picking at and undermining of authority in all forms, whether it be parental or that of teachers. They are

  1817
  responsible for the undermining of two key groups who are responsible for our security—namely, prison officers and the police.
  It is not only the pay and conditions of the prison officers and police that are involved. Several of my constituents are in the prison service. They work at Princetown and they compare their own conditions, including heating, food and working conditions, with the circumstances of the prisoners for whose custody they are responsible. It is not only the type of inquiry to which prison officers and the police are now subject, which means that their careers are in suspense for long periods. The fact is that they increasingly feel that the scales are weighted against them. It is not only a question of their personal safety.
  There appears to be a tacit understanding in the House this evening that we should not refer to capital punishment. If 76 per cent. of the population now favour a return to capital punishment, or if 81 per cent. now favour it, at what level might hon. Members consider changing their minds? Are they prepared to see the percentage rise to such a level that the only persons who are not in favour of reintroducing capital punishment are those who occupy seats in this Chamber? If we project the graph, it will lead almost to unanimity in the country at large within three to four years.
  The time has come when we must consider reviving the deterrent element in our penal code. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), who deployed at length the argument that rehabilitation, kindness and a congenial régime are factors that are likely to reduce the incidence of crime. When I intervened and questioned her, she seemed somewhat evasive.
  We hear so much today about releasing prisoners before the expiration of their sentences. We hear about weekend sentences and suspended sentences. The murderer Hughes was under a suspended sentence at the time he committed the offence for which he was being taken when he went berserk. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said that a prison sentence is the most severe penalty to
  1818
  which criminals are subject. Surely we are entitled to ask "How severe is it?" Most of the discomforts and inconveniences seem to arise out of administrative difficulties which lead, for example, to overcrowding.
  I agree that sentences should be shorter, because the accumulation of long-serving prisoners is one of the prime causes of overcrowding in prisons. There is universal agreement that after the first four or five weeks of a prison sentence the effect wears off and the rest of the sentence is simply a degrading, boring but relatively non-deterring experience.
  I should like the average length of sentence to be about three months, the maximum—other than for murderers—to be about seven years, and 12 months to be regarded as a very severe sentence. The corollary is that incarceration must be an experience such as would genuinely deter those who have it in prospect.
  We must consider the question of communication between prisoners, the question of freedom of assembly and so on. We should also consider—I recognise that Labour Members may find it extraordinary that this should be suggested, but I am echoing some of the recommendations which have been made to me by prison officers who see these things at first hand—the questions of food, diet, heating and light in prisons.
  I see a clear case for shorter sentences but sentences which are genuinely disagreeable and deterrent. I know that these views will be regarded by some as somewhat anti-progressive. They may even be regarded as reactionary. However, I am certain—I should like to develop this matter at length, but in deference to your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 1 shall not do so—that they are rational.
  9.17 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): I shall heed your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and speak for less than three minutes.
  In 1971 I made my maiden speech on the subject of law and order. During that speech I said that we should take a sharper sword to crime. I regret that since that time Parliament has failed to do that and crime has increased, particularly crimes of violence.

  1819
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred to streams of blood flowing in the streets. Two weekends ago—in fact, a fortnight tomorrow—blood indeed was spilt and flowed in my constituency. There were bloodstains in the snow when William Thomas Hughes was shot by the police as he viciously attacked his hostage. I have every respect and admiration for the police in the unpleasant but necessary action they took. I pay tribute to the Cheshire and Derbyshire Constabularies for the work they did in running this particular person to ground and saving one life. But we must not forget that four people lost their lives and that perhaps the life of the hostage, Mrs. Moran, which was saved, will be permanently blighted by the fact that her parents, husband and daughter were brutally murdered by William Thomas Hughes.
  In the visits which I have paid to the village of Rainow since that date—that tragic Friday—time and again people, some of whom were witnesses to the shooting and the ending of that dramatic saga, asked me to obtain from the Home Secretary a firm assurance that on all future occasions dangerous prisoners or people who are alleged to have committed crimes of physical violence, grievous bodily harm, rape or whatever it may be, will be transported from prison to prison or from prison to court in a police van or proper custodial vehicle, whatever the cost. I believe that that is a vital assurance which must be given to people. If that assurance is not forthcoming they will feel that their best interests are not being safeguarded and represented by Parliament and the Home Secretary. This undertaking is what I require of this debate tonight. I will certainly give way to the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: There are rules about handcuffing which I have carefully looked at. I do not wish to comment on the Leicester incident, because that is what is being investigated. I shall report on that matter to the House. The rules are there.
  Mr. Winterton:Too often the vocal liberal minority in this country—we have heard one or two offerings from the Labour Benches tonight along this line—have shown more concern for the offender or the prisoner than for the person
  1820
  against whom an offence has been committed. I believe that Parliament should be concerned about those who have had crimes committed against them and should represent the best interests, therefore, of the majority of law-abiding people in this country.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: In view of the time, I shall touch quickly on only one point. That is the question of juvenile crime. In anticipation of this debate I discussed the whole question with the chief superintendent of police in my area and other responsible people in the locality. They said that juvenile crime there was undoubtedly a major problem. About 47 per cent. of the crime is committed by children between the ages of 11 and 14.
  When I spoke to the police about what one could do about what was, after all, the basic problem of our whole criminal situation, they said that there was one positive thing that we could do, and it rather surprised me. They said "If you could really do something to stop the staggering increase in juvenile shoplifting in our stores you would go a long way to stopping young people embarking upon the slippery slope which, because of the ease with which they are able to perpetrate this crime, leads them inevitably to the view that they can commit much more serious crimes later."
  I took up this matter with the biggest store in my constituency. The Home Secretary, coming from Harrow, knows it well. That store reported that the increase in juvenile shoplifting had been staggering. We associate shoplifting with middle-aged ladies with problems, but that is not what it is all about. In my constituency the biggest increase in shoplifting has been that by children of the ages of 13 and 14. Only a week or two ago a youngster of 10 was apprehended. It was not just an isolated event. That youngster had indulged in a whole series of crimes in that store. That is the slippery slope.
  There is a great responsibility upon people who engage in trade of that nature to play a part themselves by mounting a major drive to stop this initial venture into the world of crime which can lead to so many serious problems later. I do not for a moment suggest that we

  1821
  should stop the admirable open display of goods, which, after all, is the main reason stores are in business, to attract customers. However, I hope that stores will take this matter very seriously indeed, because it involves much more than merely losing some goods.
  The police also inform me that in juvenile violence drink is undoubtedly a major cause. I am the last person to be puritanical in this respect. I get tired of do-gooders telling us that we must not do this and that, and that we must not drink, and so on. Nevertheless, the responsibility lies upon older people and those in positions of responsibility to take this matter very seriously. I am told that most juvenile crime stems from easy access to drink. In that respect I query why brewers and those who run public houses seem to consider it essential to have discos in pubs to attract youngsters into them, and whether they should be in the pub itself or put separately elsewhere. In short, summarising quickly—I am grateful for the time that I have been allowed—the responsibility for juvenile crime goes far beyond the police. We neglect the recruitment of police at our peril. I agree with what has been said about that. However, we are absolutely wrong if we suppose that we can pass the whole problem on to the police and just say that they ought to be able to do something about it, because they cannot.
  I believe that the Home Secretary will confirm that, when the system of crime prevention officers came into being, the suggestion was that they ought to be helped by the public. I believe that that is putting it the wrong way round. Crime should be the responsibility of the public, helped by the police. It is the responsibility of all of us, whether we be educationists or Members of Parliament, just as much as that of the police—and certainly if we are parents—to arrest what is a very serious canker within our society. If it is not arrested quickly, I fear that it will destroy society itself.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor:The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in a much-applauded speech, expressed the fear that there is a danger that in these debates we might be speaking to ourselves alone and that
  1822
  people outside would not listen. It would be a great shame if that were the case.
  This debate has been remarkable for a number of reasons. This is the first time for a long time that we have had Front Bench speeches which have been shorter than a number of speeches made by Back Benchers. We have also had a fascinating speech by the Home Secretary outlining his thoughts on Government policy.
  Some hon. Members—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark)—are desperately worried about the crime situation. Anybody who reads our debates might be a little concerned about whether Parliament and the Government are showing the right sense of urgency over the crime situation in Britain, which is desperately serious. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) was right to say that there appears to be no sense of urgency and no indication that anything of importance is being done about the situation. The sharp increase in crime, violence and vandalism will lead the public to demand much sterner measures—and indeed, sharp, short measures—to meet the serious problem we face.
  Many of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), said that the crime situation had worsened. We can all produce our own figures on the subject, and perhaps the Secretary of State was right to say that figures are not everything. Figures can produce some rather freak results. For example, I recently asked a parliamentary Question seeking the percentage increase in the number of murder convictions in Scotland over the past 20 years. I was told that the figure had increased by 3,600 per cent. In fact, the figure had increased from one to 36. That might explain the situation a little more clearly.
  Undoubtedly there has been a dramatic upsurge in crime, particularly crimes of violence, and crimes by young people. If we take the five-year period 1960 to 1964 and compare it with the five-year period 1970 to 1974 we see that in Scotland murder convictions rose from 28 to 166; attempted murders from 11 to 138; culpable homicides from 81 to 158.

  1823
  There has also been a dramatic increase in the number of offences involving vandalism and housebreaking.
  If we are looking for remedies I suggest that there are a number of basic causes. First, there is a case for saying—this point was made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)—that this is part of a general movement associated with the decline in moral standards. There is plenty of evidence that when moral standards fall, respect for the law and authority also fall.
  There are others, including Government spokesmen, who say "Let us get to the root of the problem". They advance the view that we need to give more opportunities to young people and to provide more playing fields, youth centres and all the rest of it. That solution is of no use at present because the Government are asking local authorities to cut back on youth projects, playing fields, recreational facilities, when, apparently, they are desperately needed.
  A further reason advanced for the increase in crime is the fact that the law has gone soft and that Government and Parliament, as a deliberate policy, have decided that we should have a soft and so-called enlightened policy on crime. When that is put to the Government they reply that such a view is nonsensical. However, it is only fair in a debate such as this that we should at least take account of such a view and not arrogantly dismiss it.
  There are many people, such as my hon. Friend for Macclesfield, who suggest that if we employ sterner penalties than we now impose we could reduce the amount of crime because that policy would be an effective deterrent. It is wrong to say that those arguments should be thrown out of the window as unscientific. There is a growing feeling that if one does not express so-called liberal, radical views one is in danger of being accused of being neither scientific nor correct. I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Lead-bitter) say that people demanded extreme penalties because they did not understand the problem. That is not a view based on scientific or other evidence. There are many indications flowing from research
  1824
  work—and no doubt the Home Secretary has studied this material—that sterner penalties have led to a reduction in crime, and thereby to the protection of the general public.
  In Glasgow some years ago there was an appalling outbreak of razor-slashing. People were scared to walk through the streets because of the prospect of being slashed with razors. One judge imposed very stiff penalties in a highly publicised way for the crime of razor-slashing, and that crime was virtually eliminated in Glasgow. I could quote many similar examples.
  Many agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that the time has come for a debate on corporal punishment, to establish whether it would deter violence and vandalism. There is ample evidence that it would, and there is a case for investigating whether stronger penalties would reduce crime.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the important rôle of the police. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot ignore the low morale in the police force. There are many reasons for this, one of which is pay.
  There are disturbing indications that, even at a time of high and rising unemployment, far too many policemen leave the service early. The annual report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland stated that, despite a marked improvement in recruitment last year, the number of officers leaving the police, prematurely was causing concern. The Secretary of State for Scotland will recall giving me in an answer yesterday figures showing the number of police officers who had left the service early over the past few years. The numbers were disturbingly high and rising. There is a case for looking into why so many police leave the service early at a time of high and rising unemployment. In 1971 the number of police officers who left before normal retirement age was 269. In 1976 the figure was 446—a disturbing figure, difficult to explain at a time when other jobs are not easy to get.
  A second indication of police morale is contained in a booklet entitled "Do you want law and order?" published by

  1825
  the Scottish Police Federation at the expense of Scottish policemen. In that document the police express their concern at the rising crime rate and the fact that Parliament and the Government are not doing enough about it. When the Police Federation takes trouble to publish documents to be read by the public and Members of Parliament we should be concerned about police affairs. If the Secretary of State would listen to the real experts, the people on the job, and less to other experts, he might find a better solution.
  Although the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary say that police manpower is not being cut, when there are cuts in the numbers of traffic wardens, and others who give assistance to the police, inevitably more work has to be done by the police. In my street there used to be a lollipop man who helped children to cross the road. Because of expenditure cuts that work is now being done temporarily by a police officer. Many more examples could be given of the time available to the police for doing important work being reduced because of cuts in ancillary services.
  Considerable emphasis has been placed on the need to review penalties. There is ample evidence for this. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North, said that there was a need to reconsider the penalties for murder. Political parties have never taken a view on capital punishment. It is a question on which individuals come to their own decision, but the penalty for murder should be reviewed to see whether the life sentence in its present form is right.
  Some hon. Members are not aware that in Scotland we have had a careful review of the whole situation by a committee under the chairmanship of the notable Scottish judge, Lord Emslie. He put forward a good argument in an excellent report calling for mandatory sentences to be given in all but exceptional cases within a life sentence. I think that, wrongly, the Government rejected that proposal. I think there is a case for looking at whether we should have a specified mandatory minimum sentence within a life sentence except in exceptional cases.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that a life sentence is not a life sentence, in that after a time prisoners are released on licence? Rarely is anyone kept in unless he is mentally insane. It would be far better if each crime were measured by the trial judge who heard the case.
  Mr. Taylor: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. There is also a case for looking again at Emslie in view of the increase in the number of killings and murders.
  There has also been an increase in the number of offences for the possession of weapons yet, under an out-of-date law of 1953, the penalty for the possession of an offensive weapon is £50 or three months in prison. That must be looked at.
  There is no doubt at all that because of the low capture rate we should look again at penalties for housebreaking. There may be a case for mandatory sentences.
  Surely, the Secretary of State will accept that because of the congestion in the Glasgow Sheriff Court there is a need to look at the possibility of a specific sentence for driving offences such as speeding and going through red lights. There were 12,000 motoring offences in the Glasgow Sheriff Court last year and an average of four to six witnesses in each case. The result has been quite scandalous delays, and the law is being brought into disrepute. There may even be a case for a separate court for motoring offences.
  In Scotland we have a special problem with regard to drink—for all kinds of reasons. It has been suggested that Scotland has a drink problem more than a crime problem. There are ample implications of very close links between drinking and crime in Scotland. To give one simple example, the hospital admission figures for alcoholism in Scotland are six or seven times more than they are south of the border. We have just passed a major licensing reform Bill to extend the hours in Scottish pubs and to allow them to open on a Sunday. It is unfortunate that when we had this major reform, which the Under-Secretary of State piloted through so gracefully, we did not take the opportunity of looking at the link between drink and crime and the

  1827
  need for more energetic propaganda exercises by the health and education unit of the Scottish Office.
  There have been references to juvenile crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) said this was something which was a very important problem. In Scotland we have taken the initiative. Since 1971 we have had a system of children's panels instead of the juvenile courts. I am afraid that after five years the indications are that the experiment has not been a great success. It has not been a success for many reasons.
  Because the facilities are not there the panels can either warn the youngster, or place the child under probation or send the youngster to a List D school, where the average cost is over £50 a week for maintenance. The Secretary of State unfortunately has to accept that there is immense pressure on the List D schools. The waiting lists that are published are meaningless, because the panels know that places are simply not available to send the youngsters to List D schools.
  We know that the social work departments are under immense pressure, particularly in the cities. In some cases the social work departments can offer what is virtually an emergency service only. There are ample indications, and open admissions by social work convenors, that supervision under the old system is not being done in many cases and that there are enormous gaps between visits, and that brings the whole system into disrepute.
  We are concerned about the system because the resources are not there and are unlikely to be there for some time. We have a shortage of social workers. We simply cannot turn on a tap. It takes many years to train a social worker.
  There is also the problem of field work replacements. There is also an indication that the social work panels have taken away a lot of the deterrent element from the system. In addition, taking away the whole concept of punishment from the system has not been a step forward. There is a case for a fundamental review of the whole system of social work panels and considering the possibility of reintroducing the concept of punishment, parents being fined for children's offences, and recreating a separate probation system in place of the integrated system.
  1828
  The time available for debate is very short. We have had many interesting speeches. The one message that my right hon. Friend gave at the beginning of his excellent speech and that I and all my right hon. and hon. Friends would repeat is that the top priority for Government should be defence and security at home and abroad. We believe that sufficient priority is not being given to the battle against crime at home, and that the time has come for higher priority and more attention to be given to a serious and worsening problem.
  9.41 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): This has been a very interesting debate, but I start with a slight complaint about its nature. It is unfortunate that the Opposition have chosen to make this a Great Britain debate, so that in response to a Scottish speech I am winding up on behalf of the Government, when there have been no speeches by other Scottish Members. This has been an English debate. I hope that English Members—[Interruption.] Not one Scottish Member even tried to enter the debate.
  Mr. Whitelaw rose—
  Mr. Millan: I shall not give way.
  Mr. Whitelaw: They were not here.
  Mr. Millan: That is precisely the point I am making. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If we do not have peace and quiet, we shall have to impose heavier penalties in the House.
  Mr. Millan: I had not finished what was saying. I should be happy to give way if I were allowed to finish making the point. We have the extraordinary situation of an English debate being wound up by Scottish speakers on both sides of the House. Many matters raised by English Members I am unable to answer, in the nature of things, but I shall do my best.
  I want first to refer to an English case. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would like me to make a comment about the Robinson case, which was raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott). He said that there had been criticism of the fact

  1829
  that Mr. Robinson was released when, according to newspaper reports, the judge at his trial in 1962 said that he should be detained in prison for the rest of his life.
  There is nothing in the Home Office records confirming the remarks that the trial judge, the late Mr. Justice Finnemore, is said to have made. Because Mr. Robinson did not appeal, no transcript of the proceedings at the trial was made. The judge died in 1974 and, therefore, cannot be consulted. The court stenographer is also dead and his notes have been destroyed. The judge did not write to the then Home Secretary after the trial, and no report of any statement by him was made by any official present in court.
  Sir W. Elliott: I was quoting from a newspaper report.
  Mr. Millan: I hope that what I have said has made the position clear. My right hon. Friend was anxious that this story, which is not accurate, should not be allowed to spread.
  Mr. Miscampbell: I am not sure whether in 1962 there was even the power to make a recommendation.
  Mr. Millan: I understand that the new arrangements came into operation in 1965. I have explained what is the accurate position. It is as well that it should be put on record.
  The debate generally takes place against the background of what everyone agrees to be extremely serious crime figures. There is no simple answer to the problem with which the House, the Government and the country are faced.
  I should like to start with a few comments made by the Scottish Council on Crime, a body headed by a senior judge and appointed by a Conservative predecessor of mine. Some of the conclusions in that body's report are apposite to this debate. For instance, the Council said:
  "We have discovered no universal panacea, nor, in our judgement, is there one to be discovered. What is required is action over a wide front."
  I would simply confirm that.
  The Council went on to say, having made some proposals:
  1830
  "We trust however that these proposals will not serve to create the totally false impression that the nation's crime problems can be solved by statutory authorities or by legislation."
  That is an important consideration which we should bear in mind, particularly since, as legislators, we are occasionally tempted to believe that, if only we get the legislation right, somehow we should be able to solve these problems. I do not believe that that is so.
  The Council went on to say:
  "It is important therefore that action also be taken to tackle the problems of crime where they have their roots, mainly in the home, the family and the community."
  That comment, of course, relates to the point made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw).
  In the same report, dealing with the relationship between crime and poverty, the Council said:
  "In the final analysis, the effectiveness of official measures for prevention of crime is likely to be affected as much by the amount of resources the nation can afford to devote to the general social health of its citizens as to those services—the police, the courts, the prisons—which are most directly linked in the public mind with crime and offenders."
  The report went on to deal with the particular problems of the deprived urban areas.
  It is, therefore, a false comparison in terms of priority to talk, as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border did, of cutting back public expendture generally but spending more on the police, the prison service and the rest. That is not a prescription for solving the problems caused by crime. We have to tackle this on a wide front and recognise that, although the simple connection between crime and poverty is perhaps no longer valid as an explanation for the problems in our society, there is still nevertheless a strong connection between crime and many other problems arising from deprivation, particularly urban deprivation.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the constituency of Cambridge, which has virtually no unemployment whatever, our crime statistics have got worse and worse over the last 10 years and that we have per capita one of the highest crime rates in the country? How is that explained?
  Mr. Milan: I accept that. I was saying that there is not a simple link, but it is still true that the most difficult areas for crime are the inner city areas, where there are other considerable social problems as well. We should keep that in mind and not separate the general problems of crime from the general social problems with which we must deal.
  I must repudiate immediately the claim of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border that this Government do not support the police in their efforts. There is absolutely no foundation for such an outrageous statement and I repudiate it completely. Of course we recognise that, in the fight against crime, the police have an extremely important —the most important—part to play. Nothing said or done by this Government or by previous Labour Governments can be demonstrated to be in any way detrimental to that proposition, in which we believe not just as a matter of principle but also as a matter of practice.
  It is not true, despite the criticisms made, that the number of policemen nas been reduced. That is not true in the case of England and Wales. In Scotland at the end of 1973 there were 11,452 policemen, but there were 12,317 at the end of 1976. That is a substantial increase in a period when many other services have shown no increase at all. Naturally, when we consider our present difficulties concerning public expenditure, the police service as a whole, including civilian workers, cannot wholly escape, but the figures show that there has been a considerable increase in the number of uniformed policemen and in the police service generally in recent years.
  I noted what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said about the various problems affecting the Police Federation, and I hope he will appreciate that I cannot go into matters of detail at present. I think that we share common ground about the need for a long-term review of the Police Federation and a review of the negotiating machinery. Some of the other matters that the hon. Member raised pose much more difficult questions. For example, the question of fringe benefits raises very delicate matters connected with the Government's overall pay policy.
  I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the last thing he wanted was a
  1832
  confrontation or collision between the Police Federation and the Government on this issue. He recognises that there are much wider issues involved. I repeat what was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and would point out that I, too, have been involved in the negotiations and the correspondence of recent weeks. We are anxious to defuse the present situation and to get some kind of acceptable solution. The matter is still under active consideration. It is not moribund. I hope that we shall be able to get out of the present impasse as quickly as possible.
  If the police are to do their job, they require considerable help from the community. It has been a feature of successive Governments that a good deal of effort has been put into crime prevention campaigns. In Scotland, in every year since 1968 we have financed crime prevention campaigns which have been run with the advice and co-operation of senior police officers. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) that many of the issues involved in crime prevention are simple matters. If most ordinary citizens took simple precautions, they could cut down some of the most disturbing crime increases such as housebreaking and car thefts. When talking about the difficult problem of the treatment of offenders, we must not forget that there are many simple actions that could be taken by the ordinary citizen and could considerably reduce the present crime rate.
  In Scotland we launched a special campaign against vandalism two or three years ago. Vandalism is a problem in all our cities. It is an extremely intractable problem, but it is not confined to urban areas. Here again the solution demands a high degree of co-operation between the citizens and the police. Unfortunately, the percentage of vandals arrested and convicted is one of the lowest compared with other crimes. These matters can be improved only if we get citizens helping the police.
  We should also consider police involvement with the community. In Scotland we have perhaps a rather better record in respect of community involvement, although there are many other areas where our record is worse. In Scotland there are many examples of policemen becoming involved, not as social workers but in

  1833
  spheres of activity much more like those of the youth and community service. The policeman, with the special authority that he carries, can achieve things that the community worker or social worker cannot achieve. In my own constituency, for example, in Glasgow, the police Community Division organises a school football competition during the school holidays, a time when the city often suffers an increase in crimes of vandalism and juvenile delinquency. There are many other instances that I could quote. I believe very strongly that the more the police are involved in community liaison work, the better it is for the tackling of these problems at the level at which they must continue to be tackled—that of prevention.
  I repudiate the allegation on sentencing policy made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in his winding-up speech. It is not true that the courts, in Scotland at least—and I do not believe it has happened in England either—have got softer over recent years. Nor is it true that legislation has become softer. The maximum fine limits are more than keeping pace with the cost of living, and the other penalties available to the courts generally have increased considerably in recent years.
  In Scotland we have a proportionately higher prison population than the rest of Britain. It has risen despite the fact that the severity of sentences has gone up in recent years. The average level of fines in 1975, in constant money value terms, was just about double the average in 1955. The average prison sentence has risen from 100 days in 1955 to 120 days in 1975. Therefore, it is not true that the courts are imposing lesser penalties in Scotland.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Millan: No, I will not give way. The problem in Scotland is not that there are too few people in prison but rather the opposite. We have too large a prison population, and I would like to see many more disposals of offenders which involved work in the community. This would be much better than constantly increasing the prison population.
  We are faced with a simple dilemma—namely, in the first instance that to
  1834
  introduce new community provisions is more expensive than to continue with the traditional system of sending people to prison. Within the financial restraints under which we operate, I hope to see a considerable improvement in Scotland's record in this respect, because this is an area where we are a good deal behind England and Wales.
  I disagree completely with the hon. Member for Cathcart about Scotland's record on children's hearings. The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 was welcomed by both sides of the House and was voted for unanimously by the Conservative Opposition of that time. As far as I am aware, they have not changed their minds about this. If the hon. Member's comments were a pronouncement of Conservative policy, I am very interested. I do not believe, however, that Scottish opinion would agree with it. Given the difficulties in which we operate I think that children's hearings have been a considerable success in Scotland.
  A number of points were raised by individual Members during the debate. There were many that I would have been happy to answer had there been time. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) raised the matter of the security industry, about which my right hon. Friend may write to him. The points he raised have been considered on other occasions in the past.
  We have had an interesting debate, which has ranged very widely and taken in many aspects of the crime problem. This is not a problem which is susceptible to easy solutions, but the more we can discuss it rationally and constructively in the House with the aim of achieving a constructive solution, the better progress we can make.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Motion relating to Children and Young Persons (No. 2) may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Ashton]

  ADOPTION
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. Roger Sims: I beg to move
  That this House takes note of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1796), dated 27th October 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November 1976 in the last Session of Parliament.
  The opening words of the instrument which we are considering refer to the Adoption Act 1958. Of course, this instrument implements part of the Children Act 1975, and the regulation itself covers two main points. First, it governs the registration and duties and the operation of adoption societies. The regulations are broadly in line with the proposals which were discussed when the Bill was going through Parliament, and I do not intend to go into them.
  The other aspect is that it gives adopted persons access to birth records. Regulations 13 and 14 of the instrument implement Section 26 of the 1975 Act. That is an important aspect of the Act, and it was fully discussed in the Committee stage of the Bill in July 1975. But the implications of the section have not been considered on the Floor of the House, and in the last 18 months more and more people have become aware of what is involved. It was because of this that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I felt it right that the House should have the opportunity to discuss this matter further.
  There is a strong case to be made for saying that when an adopted child reaches the age of maturity it has the right to know something of its origins. Only those who have been adopted can know the feelings of the adopted child, but it is not difficult to understand those feelings when a person wants to know who his or her natural parents were. The regulation therefore allows that a child who has been adopted will now have the right at the age of 18 to see his or her birth records.
  This right is normally set out in the memorandum, a specimen of which appears as Schedule 3 to the instrument. This is a copy of a document which will be handed to all natural parents who wish
  1836
  their children to be adopted. At the end of the document are the words
  "This means that when he is 18 he will be able to find out his original name as well as your name and the address you were living at when you registered his birth."
  So when in future a woman gives a child for adoption she knows perfectly well that it is likely that she can in due course be traced.
  However, the effect of the regulations is not simply that a child adopted in future can trace its origins but that children adopted in the past should have the same right. In the past some adopted children have been able by some means or another, to trace their parents, sometimes with rather unhappy results. But this is now no longer to be a matter of chance. It is to be their right. When a natural mother hitherto had her child adopted she was told that the transaction was completely confidential and anonymous. She was told that this confidentiality would be protected by law. The effect of the regulations will be that that protection will be swept away.
  It is a clear example of retrospective legislation, and it will have a real human impact. There have been cases where children have been adopted in particularly difficult circumstances—children who have resulted from an act of rape or incest or cases where one branch of the family has adopted an unexpected addition to another branch of the same family. Such arrangements were made under an assurance of anonymity. But that assurance is now completely removed.
  Far from assisting a child who may take advantage of this new opportunity, may it not be that we shall be administering a cruel blow by allowing that adopted person to find out the truth and to cause distress not only to himself but to others involved?
  Even in more straightforward types of adoption, adoption societies say that both sides are normally anxious to retain confidentiality. The essence of adoption is normally the provision of a secure background in the adopted home. This security is inevitably based on confidentiality. It was a Labour MP, Mrs. Leah Manning, who took a particular interest in adoption, who said:
  "The most important thing with regard to adoption is that the book should be closed and the curtain come down absolutely."

  1837
  We are now reopening the book and lifting the curtain.
  Of course, it will be said that children have a right to know their origins, but the natural mother also has rights. She has a right to security. There must be many women who, possibly as teenagers, have had brief affairs resulting in children and gave such children for adoption on the understanding that that was the end of the matter. Every woman who has done that no longer has faith in the law, for it has withdrawn that protection. The effects could be very distressing for her and for others.
  A woman who has got over some youthful indiscretion and is now happily married with a family and, possibly, some status in the community could suddenly be faced with the result of that indiscretion, perhaps with disastrous consequences. That is not just a hypothetical case. It happens now. I know of a woman who found on her doorstep a young man whom she was surprised to recognise as a person who had made a name for himself in a certain sphere of activity. She was even more surprised when he identified himself as her son. One does not need much imagination to realise the possible outcome of such an encounter. This can happen, and it does happen. In future, it is far more likely to happen.
  I will quote Brigadier Branwell Pratt, head of the Salvation Army's International Investigation Department. In The Times of 24th September 1975 he referred to the number of inquiries that his Department received from adopted people. He said that such people were told that the Salvation Army does not undertake that form of tracing because it is felt that it might cause embarrassment and grief. He said:
  "There are a great many natural parents who are terrified that the new law is going to uncover their secret … We have received letters and calls from them."
  He said that he had spoken to some adopted people who were not concerned that their arrival might cause unhappiness. The brigadier added:
  "They are in the minority but they have told me that they could never forgive their mother for 'giving them away', and they do not care if they hurt her now."
  1838
  Brigadier Pratt said that he would have preferred to change the law to apply to people who are adopted now, so that in 18 years' time they could have access to their birth certificates, rather than allow it to apply to people whose birth certificates were regarded as confidential by their natural parents in the past.
  I am sure that the Minister will say that the regulations bring the law of England and Wales into line with that of Scotland, where the right of access to birth records has existed for many years. But in Scotland, the mother always knew when she gave a child for adoption that she could be traced. Until now, the English mother has had the assurance that she could not be traced.
  I do not suggest that the Government are unaware of these difficulties. They have attempted to meet some of the objections by requiring in Section 26 of the Act that the Registrar-General, local authorities and adoption societies should provide a counselling service and that persons adopted after the date on which the Act came into force will be encouraged to use that service. Persons already adopted who wish to take advantage of the retrospective right to trace their birth records must use the counselling service, but there is no obligation on them to accept the advice that they are given.
  The leaflet which is given to counsellors says:
  "The counsellor does not have the right to withhold the basic information which will give the adopted person access to his birth records. This applies even in the exceptional cases where the counsellor is worried about possible consequences."
  I congratulate those in the Department who are responsible for the literature to be used by the counsellors and by adopted people. It will certainly help in the very difficult task of counselling.
  Is the Minister satisfied that there are enough qualified people to perform this important counselling service on the three levels that I have mentioned, bearing in mind that there are likely to be quite a large number of applicants in the next year or two? Obviously, the provision of such staff will cost money, but the Government have chosen to introduce this controversial part of the Act now and we should like an assurance from the

  1839
  Minister that, despite the pressure on public expenditure, the counselling service can be adequately maintained.
  I have made clear that my hon. Friends and I have the gravest reservations about the wisdom of implementing Regulation 13 of the Statutory Instrument. However, the Government have done so and we know that local authorities and adoption societies will do all they can to make it work smoothly. We hope that the Government will give them the fullest support.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I shall not detain the House for long, but it is appropriate that the Minister should hear the views of another member of the Standing Committee which considered the Children Bill, particularly since the views which I shall express were the majority views on these matters in Committee.
  Listening to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), I felt that we were almost having a Second Reading debate on the matters which were ultimately contained in Section 26 of the Act. The view which was a minority within a minority among hon. Members opposite at that time now appears to be elevated to the Front Bench. I do not know what the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) feels about these matters, but I seemed to hear echoes of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) in some of the things said by the hon. Member for Chislehurst.
  I take the contrary view, that the regulations keep faith with what those of us who introduced the Bill, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) intended—to allow the many people who wish to complete their process of self-identification to have access to the documents concerning their birth. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as has been said several times in the past in the House to those who have expressed the same reservations, that, although it is only in Scotland that there has been access to birth records, it has not been impossible for adopted children to get access to the birth certificate. Indeed, it has not been impossible for them to set out on the long and, as he put it, the sometimes
  1840
  vindictive quest to find the natural mother.
  I do not dispute that there may be odd occasions when someone is so psychologically harmed that he may wish to confront the natural mother with feelings of vindictiveness. However, I feel that those are exceptional cases. There is no evidence of anything of that sort in the Scottish practice, which has continued for over 40 years. Nor is there any such evidence from the vast correspondence that I have received that those searching for the records are intent upon such a course. Quite the contrary, they are intent upon finding out for themselves details about their past that will make them feel a whole personality and at one with all the other members of society with whom they move. Their motive is curiosity rather than malice.
  Where there are odd cases where Regulation 13 might be misused by someone who sets out upon the quest to trace his or her natural mother, all I can say is that in the past such people have laboured secretly and obsessively over the years in going through the records. I have heard of people who have spent years in some parish or registration district comparing all the people born in a particular month and year with themselves. They say to themselves "Could this be me? I must test that out. I must find out where that person went. Was that a legitimate birth? Was that person born out of wedlock? Where did he move? What does that mean?" I regard that sort of thing as unhealthy and unrewarding for the person concerned and possibly damaging for others.
  The whole point of the counselling procedure is to provide a screen for those who are psychologically harmed. They are a tiny minority of the very few people who seek access to the facility now available to them. Obviously, if there were no such procedure there would be the sort of dramatic confrontation to which the hon. Member for Chislehurst referred. It would take place without anyone knowing, without the possibility of warning, preventive action, advice or recourse to medical assistance if that were considered necessary.
  I have gone into that point in some detail purely because I do not want it to be thought that the reservations

  1841
  expressed by the hon. Member for Chislehurst are widely shared within the House in the knowledge of the facts as we know them. All the letters that I have received since this regulation came into effect in November last year have been written by those who are grateful that it has come to pass. They have told me that they have been through the counselling procedure and have the details of their birth certificate. That is all they can get. Not one of those who have written to me, men and women alike, has even mentioned going on to try to find the natural mother. I have evidence of only one person who was searching obsessively before this legislation came about. She went so far as to find her mother. It was a happy reunion, but I accept that it may not have been.
  Most of those who avail themselves of these facilities have obtained the facts and statistics. That seems to have been enough for them.
  Dr. Gerard Vaughan: We both served on the Committee, and the hon. Gentleman will recall that we all placed great reliance on the counselling service. What worried us was the quality of the counselling. This is really the crux of the matter. We were concerned that there should be sufficient experienced counsellors to do the work that we all wanted to see done.
  Mr. Whitehead: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that constructive intervention. It leads me to the next point —namely, that the quality of the counselling is of the essence. I have in mind where it is done, how it is done, the element of frustration involved in waiting for it, the element of satisfaction and the explanation involved in the advice when it is given, which makes all the difference between this legislation doing harm and doing good.
  It was clearly to be expected that there would be a backlog once the regulations came into effect in November. Many people had written to the General Record Office and to hon. Members as well before that time. Therefore, those applications descended upon the General Register Office.
  A number of people have written to me several times over saying that they are a
  1842
  little worried about the delay in getting appointments and going through these procedures. I do not have enough evidence to say whether the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) is right or wrong in his fears about the quality of the counselling. I have no reason to believe, from the letters which I have received, that when the counselling has been given, when a person's turn in the queue has come, it has been other than adequate and satisfactory. The letters that I have had afterwards have come from people who have been emotionally helped and sustained by the advice that they have received.
  I have another point to put to my hon. Friend as well as the worrying delay which some people have suffered. From correspondence and, on one occasion, a telephone call in the middle of the night, I have stumbled upon one category of person who cannot easily be helped by the counselling procedure. I refer to persons who were adopted under the previous legislation and have now moved beyond the jurisdiction because they are living abroad.
  One case—I have not referred it to the Department; I went directly to the General Register Office—concerns a lady who has moved for good to the United States. She was adopted in Wrexham many years ago. She wrote asking "What happens now?" She is married to an American subject and has no desire to come back to this country. She wants to avail herself of the right to access to her birth record. She is a mature person of 30 years of age and a student of law. She is unlikely to come back to this country on some mission of vengeance, whatever she may be told. She simply has the natural curiosity which many of us have had in the past. She was told that she should come here and an appointment would be made.
  In the comparatively rare cases of people who have emigrated and are now living in South Africa, Latin America, New York, or wherever it may be, and have heard of this legislation and would like to avail themselves of it, would it be possible for the counselling to be given by Her Majesty's diplomatic representatives abroad? It is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby a

  1843
  legislation or embassy abroad, in exceptional circumstances where the application is bona fide, should be available to give the necessary counselling advice.
  I have one final point to make on the regulations which does not relate to Regulation 13. That regulation refers to the preceding Regulations 11 and 12, which provide that adoption agencies shall maintain or otherwise transfer their records and should make available those records to the adopted person or the General Register Office. It also provides that an agency may
  "disclose information relating to the birth record of an adopted person".
  The layman reading those regulations might feel that he could go directly to an adoption agency and that the agency might, if he were still in touch with it —many people maintain contact with the agencies through which they were adopted—be an appropriate place for the counselling to be arranged. I understand that is not the position. People must go to the General Register Office. I should like clarification whether counselling can be arranged through adoption agencies in certain circumstances. I think that it might be a good thing.
  There is an element of understanding here which is typified in the attitude which Miss Jane Rowe and others have taken to the legislation. The adoption agencies at the outset were deeply worried about how the recommendations would be implement. I think that the agencies could in certain circumstances help in the work of counselling.
  The last point concerns the schedule of details which are to be required of potential adoptive parents under the new legislation. I wonder whether it is necessary in Part II, page 13, to have question No. 4, "Religious persuasion", as though adoptive parents are still expected to have a religious persuasion. Of course, many do not. Many potential adopters in the past, who have been very good and worthwhile people, have had mortifying experiences of being turned down by some adoption agencies that have a religious base. One does not blame the agencies for acting in accordance with their principles, but one does not want any people to be put off from going forward with an application to adopt because they must state that they have
  1844
  a religious persuasion in answer to question No. 4.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The work that has been done here in connection with the provisions of the Adoption Act 1958 and the many matters that have come to the attention of the House since then is to be welcomed. It will be a great relief to find that a piece of legislation will be very much appreciated throughout the country—unlike, perhaps, the normal run of wearying economic problems that we are prone to discuss to the point of boredom.
  However, I am still rather interested in why there is some reticence about this matter. We are living in a different age. It is an age of considerable frankness. I should have thought that if there had been any doubts at all, we could have drawn from the experience of Scotland with a great deal of confidence. I cannot recall many complaints being brought to my attention during discussions on this matter, by hon. Members in the House or by constituents, which have persuaded me that in Scotland there were any worries about consequences of the kind that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) mentioned. Therefore, I take it for granted that he has deduced a worry that is consequential on something new in England and Wales.
  Form personal experience, however, I can say that it is at the time of the discussion taking place with the natural parents and others involved about the need, perhaps, for adoption, at that point —never mind the years that follow—that there occur the most tragic suffering and experiences for parents, or a parent. I was not so much aware of the poignancy of that kind of situation until I met mothers, and others involved, recently.
  It occurs to me that, while it might be considered that the curtain should be drawn and that, once decided upon, the matter would be better closed, there may be occasions, even from the parents' point of view, when in years to come some would like to have the curtain pulled aside a little, because the law of nature is still very much present.
  Nevertheless, when a person reaches majority and at the age of 18 seeks to know where his natural parents are, it is not a question whether or not, on balance,

  1845
  that right should be exercised. I consider that it is a right. The few areas of difficulty that might occur are over disappointment at discovering that parents are not really what it was thought they would be like, or, on the other hand, that parents had closed the curtain 18 years previously feeling that the truth of the situation ought not to be known. These regulations, which have now been brought up to date, have made a sufficient contribution to producing a higher standard of counselling that in this kind of situation the consequential problems envisaged and expressed by the hon. Gentleman will not arise to the extent that he might think. The process would be so minimal that the counselling should remove any doubts.
  On the point of disclosure of information, the House should feel proud that it has caught up with public opinion, because we have lagged behind on this matter for some years.
  We must address our minds to one or two outstanding matters. One of them touches the subject of religious persuasion. I hope that the Government will examine that problem, and pay particular attention to the effect of the word "persuasion".
  We should also examine the situation involving transfer of documents when an agency closes. Because there is not yet a sufficient background of case work, I am not satisfied that a transfer will carry with it automatically the certainty that when an agency closes counselling will follow.
  I believe that the House, the Government, and members of the Standing Committee should be congratulated on catching up with public opinion. It is a pity so few hon. Members are present for this debate since this is an important measure which I am sure the public will appreciate.
  10.31 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: I apologise for having missed the early part of this debate, but I was unavoidably delayed elsewhere.
  I wish to make two main comments. The first relates to the question of religion, which always worries a large number of people. I believe that the problem should be approached from the angle of
  1846
  considering the age of the child. To what extent does the question of religious persuasion apply when one wishes to adopt a child soon after its birth or at a very early age? Is the lack of religion to be a deterrent to adoption? I should like to have some assurance on this matter. At one time one had to produce evidence or religious or a testimonial from a religious person, and lack of religion was regarded as a barrier to the adoption of a child. I should like to know why religious persuasion should be part of the procedure of adoption.
  I appreciate all the difficulties involving knowledge about a person's real parents. However, I believe that many of the fears of parents of adopted children flow from the very fact that they have kept from their adopted children some of the truth—in other words, they could have told the children the truth at an earlier stage. There is a fear among parents that they might lose their adopted children. I heard a television programme recently in which mothers expressed their fears when they discovered, having at first thought that their adopted child belonged to them, that the child in reality belonged to somebody else.
  I have two adopted children. I have no fear that when they grow up and want to know about their background their relationship with me will be damaged. It will be part of their natural curiosity. The safeguard is to tell children as much as they can understand as they grow up, and that should be explained in the counselling given to people who adopt children. Our children are not our property, be they adopted or natural children.
  I hope that adoptive parents tell their children that they are special and have been chosen. If children are told as much as possible about their real parents their curiosity is lessened. The evidence shows that some adopted children will want to know who their real parents are. If counselling is done properly at the beginning and if adoptive parents have access to counselling later, there is no reason why as much information as possible should not be given to the children with sympathy and understanding and without rancour on either side.
  When they reach the age of 18 children go through a period of rejecting their

  1847
  natural parents, but they go back to accepting them on a different level. The concept that the child is the property of the parent and can be directed in the way that the parent wants him to go is wrong. The adoptive parents sometimes fear that they will be diminished in the child's eyes if they tell him what his real mother and father were like. Adoptive parents should be generous when speaking about their adopted child's natural mother and father and try to ensure that the child does not feel he has been thrown away because he was unwanted. If that is done, there will be few occasions when the young adult will be damaged by being told about his origins.
  10.36 p.m.
  Dr. Gerard Vaughan: I should like to ask the Minister one question before he replies to the debate. It is related directly not to the contents of the regulations but to their background. The regulations implement part of the Children Act 1975. Since they were laid, we have learned that the Act is in error and does not accurately reflect the Bill as passed by the House. I have a letter from the Leader of the House confirming that there is an error in the Act.
  Does the mistake in the Act in any way invalidate the regulations, or will it affect the introduction of future regulations based on the Children Act? The error, though a minor one, affects the wording in the Act relating to the adoption of children.
  10.37 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): We should all be grateful to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for having raised this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said, we have been over the territory exhaustively during the passage of the Children Bill. A certain amount of disquiet has been expressed in the Press in recent weeks, and it is, therefore, helpful to go over the course and air some of the problems again to give the House a chance to reconsider some of the ideas.
  I thank the hon. Member for Chislehurst for his kind words about the DHSS leaflets. The Department has been taking a hammering in recent days over its
  1848
  propensity to produce leaflets. To be told that these leaflets are attractive and useful will help to sooth any raw wounds. Until my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North started to ask questions, I had wondered whether my presence was superfluous because he so expertly summarised the existing regulations.
  The hon. Member for Chislehurst referred to retrospective legislation being the main problem with the regulations. That is not technically true. Retrospective legislation has an operative date in advance of the date when the legislation is adopted in Parliament. In effect, although applications for details of ones birth certificate will operate only from the date of the application of the Act, people who were born some time ago under a different set of circumstances now have this right. There is just a balance of advantage in this.
  We have heard a lot recently about the difficulties of mothers who have had their children adopted and who are suddenly confronted with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) talked about the difficulties faced by people who had adopted children and suddenly found them taking an interest in their natural parents.
  On the other hand, there is a substantial argument that some adopted children do feel inadequate and incomplete personalities until they have found out the truth about their origins. But, as the Scottish experience shows, I do not think that many really follow up the information once their curiosity has been satisfied.
  I always remember the time—I had been an hon. Member not very long—when someone with the same surname as myself asked to see me in the Central Lobby. After a few minutes it was quite clear that he was trying to find out what his origins were. He hoped that I was a relative of his parents and that I might be able to tell him. Of course, I could not. But that young man was obviously going to considerable lengths to find out who his natural parents were. The sense of sympathy that I had with him has remained with me over the years.
  Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North said, the change in the law in 1975 was not as fundamental as some people seem to think. Access to

  1849
  information about the natural parents of adopted children was possible through every adopted person's adoption order.
  Under the law of England and Wales, as it stood before Section 26 and its attendant regulations came into force, an adopted person had only to get hold of a copy of the adoption order to get access to his birth records. So long as the person knew his original name he could obtain the birth certificate and all the information contained on it about his natural parents. There was ample machinery for someone who was really determined to get the details of his natural parents even under the law as it stood before we had a statement of right in Section 26 of the Act.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, were worried about the operation of the counselling system. That is a legitimate ground for the House to take an interest, since it was the assurance during the Committee stage of the Bill that there would be compulsory counselling which persuaded the Committee, and eventually the House, to accept what has been called the "retrospective" operation of the Act.
  A counselling system is now in existence for counselling people who are seeking details of their natural parents. There are two counsellors at the General Register Office in London, and, of course, as all inquiries come into that office eventually, counselling is guaranteed from that particular source. But, in addition, the adopted children can obtain counselling from their local authority social services department and also from the social services department, of the local authority for the area where the adoption order was made.
  All the counsellors concerned are social workers. The counsellors of the local authorities tend to be social workers who take a special interest in this particular work rather than social workers who are entirely devoted to working in this sphere. But they have guidance on the system and copies of leaflets, and they are aware of the problems. These are early days, but so far we have had no problems with inadequacy of experience and advice given by counsellors. No doubt we shall have a better picture of
  1850
  the situation as time goes by, but the counsellors will be acquiring experience and expertise at the same time.
  The physical provision in terms of numbers of counsellors, in which the hon. Member for Chislehurst was particularly interested, is adequate. Since the provisions came into operation the General Register Office has-received about 2,500 applications to know the adopted child's natural parents. I do not know whether the debate will stimulate more inquiries, but the present evidence is that they are beginning to fall off. The figure represents less than 1 per cent. of the total number of adopted children entitled to apply for the information. About 11 interviews with social workers have taken place, the majority at local authorities.
  The system is not under strain. About 25 mothers who do not wish to be traced have written to the General Register Office, and a few more letters have been received from mothers anxious to be contacted. The system which the House saw introduced by Section 26 is standing up to the problem quite well.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North possibly put his finger on a gap in the arrangements when he talked about those who are now living abroad and want counselling. Obviously, counselling by telephone or letter is inadequate. But as the General Register Office has no jurisdiction abroad it is unlikely to be able to delegate the counselling function to diplomatic representatives of this country who are in the country of those seeking assurance.
  The question of the religious persuasion of adopting parents was raised by all three of my hon. Friends and is obviously a matter of concern. In days gone by parents could make a condition that their child was adopted only if a certain religious instruction or upbringing was followed. It was against that background that the problem was debated by the House when the Act was going through. The solution chosen was that every effort should be made to follow the religious persuasions of the natural parents so far as that was possible. Therefore, there is a great deal of flexibility to deal with individual circumstances under the law as it stands.
  I foresee no prospect of the law's being amended in any way in the immediate future. It was altered to its present form

  1851
  as a result of strong representations from a number of religious bodies, including in particular the Roman Catholic Church.
  Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend is stapling together two requirements. The requirement which we accepted in Committee—I think rightly, in view of the pressure from the religious organisations—was that a child could be put into the care only of adopted parents of a particular religion. I do not think that it is necessary, because of that, to state in quite this way that any potential adopter must state a religion. I believe that many will be put off by this. We do not need to know the religion of all prospective adopters. We need to know the religion only of those who wish to state it and might well wish to adopt a child of the same religious persuasion.
  Mr. Moyle: I had not misunderstood my hon. Friend's point: I was coming to it next. Some people might think that the statement "I have no orthodox or traditional religious persuasion" was in fact a statement of a religious persuasion. But many people might be put off by a question in this form. In the circumstances, I will look into the problem.
  The hon. Member for Reading South mentioned the validity of the Children Act. I answered a parliamentary Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent South (Mr. Pavitt) the other day on this problem. This little mistake does not say a great deal for the revising powers of the other place. It is that Chamber which made the mistake, not only this time but on another occasion. It seems that the House of Commons can adequately draft its own legislation if it is left alone.
  Although it is not strictly relevant to this debate, perhaps I might be allowed to give the background to the matter. The mistake occurred when the 308 amendments made by this House to the Bill were transmitted to the other place. Unfortunately, the Bill Office listed an earlier version of an amendment tabled to Section 34A(3) of the Adoption Act 1958 instead of a later version of the amendment agreed by this House. The purpose of this subsection is to prevent a
  1852
  local authority, except with the leave of the court, from removing a foster child from prospective adopters who have looked after the child for at least five years before the court has heard their application. Whereas the amendment approved by this House would have applied to a child who had been in the care of one local authority and was subsequently taken into care by another authority, the verson now in Section 29 of the Children Act may—we are not quite sure—restrict only the local authority which first took the child into care. Although the version which is now in the Act is slightly less flexible than we would like, it will cover most of the very few cases in which it is likely to be invoked. As the section as it stands is workable, we do not think it necessary to propose amending legislation.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I might refer again to the question of religion. He said that there is little likelihood of amending legislation, but he assured my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) that he would do what he could to be helpful. Regulation 8(a) says that an adoption shall not proceed until
  "the adoption agency has, so far as is reasonably practicable, ascertained the particulars set out in Schedule 4".
  One knows from past experience that in these circumstances it is important to communicate the will of the House that there should be flexibility, and that if the religious persuasion cannot be determined the adoption should not be allowed to fall on that account. Otherwise, those who are seeking to comply with the regulations might confound the will of the House. Could the Department, perhaps by an advice note to the adoption agencies, make clear the general feelings of the House or in some other way as I have suggested?
  Mr. Moyle: My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has further succeeded in illuminating another corner of this problem. I think he has merely confirmed the position explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North. I will take on board all

  1853
  these points in considering the form of any future questions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1796), dated 27th October 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November 1976 in the last Session of Parliament.

  EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Standing Order of 18th November 1974 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on European Legislation, &c. be
  1854
  amended, by leaving out Mr. Max Madden and inserting Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.—[Mr. Snape.]

  PRIVILEGES
  Ordered,
  That the Recommendations of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, in their Report of 1st December 1967 (House of Commons Paper No. 34, 1967–68), be referred to the Committee of Privileges.—[Mr. Snape.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Construction Exports Advisory Board
  Construction Exports Advisory Board
  Public Inquiries
  Public Inquiries
  Planning (Policy Guidelines)
  Planning (Policy Guidelines)
  Rent Rebates and Allowances (Report)
  Rent Rebates and Allowances (Report)
  Post Codes (Ordnance Survey Gridding)
  Post Codes (Ordnance Survey Gridding)
  Pipe Manufacturing Industry
  Pipe Manufacturing Industry
  Aerosol Sprays
  Aerosol Sprays
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Fuel Conservation
  Fuel Conservation
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Sitting Days
  Sitting Days
  PRIME MINISTER.(ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER.(ENGAGEMENTS)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  SCALLOWAY
  SCALLOWAY
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF (REPORTS)
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF (REPORTS)
  ETON
  ETON
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (INDUSTRIAL ACTION)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (INDUSTRIAL ACTION)
  MINISTERIAL SPEECHES
  MINISTERIAL SPEECHES
  PRESIDENT CARTER
  PRESIDENT CARTER
  CBI
  CBI
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  COLNE
  COLNE
  ABERAERON
  ABERAERON
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
  CBI, TUC, AUEW and TEWU
  CBI, TUC, AUEW and TEWU
  PRIME MINISTER (APPOINTMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (APPOINTMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (HOSPITALITY)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (HOSPITALITY)
  PROFITS (PRIVATE SECTOR)
  PROFITS (PRIVATE SECTOR)
  CARDIFF, SOUTH-EAST
  CARDIFF, SOUTH-EAST
  EX-PRIME MINISTERS
  EX-PRIME MINISTERS
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Cruelty to Animals Act 1876
  Cruelty to Animals Act 1876
  Clubs
  Clubs
  Dartmoor Prison
  Dartmoor Prison
  Children and Young Persons Act 1969
  Children and Young Persons Act 1969
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Prisons, and Prisoners
  Prisons, and Prisoners
  "The Cost of Industrial Change"
  "The Cost of Industrial Change"
  Community Development Projects
  Community Development Projects
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Royal Observer Corps
  Royal Observer Corps
  Drunkenness
  Drunkenness
  Merseyside Nuclear War Communications Centre
  Merseyside Nuclear War Communications Centre
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Voluntary Services Unit
  Voluntary Services Unit
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
  Liverpool (Fire)
  Liverpool (Fire)
  Prisoners (Paroles)
  Prisoners (Paroles)
  John Robinson
  John Robinson
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Licence Duty
  Vehicle Licence Duty
  Foreign Vehicles (Entry)
  Foreign Vehicles (Entry)
  Motorists (Postal Code Census)
  Motorists (Postal Code Census)
  Railways and National Freight Corporation
  Railways and National Freight Corporation
  M1 (Safety Measures)
  M1 (Safety Measures)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Community Grants
  European Community Grants
  Rice
  Rice
  Frozen Chickens
  Frozen Chickens
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Bacon
  Bacon
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Eggs
  Eggs
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Insurance Fund
  National Insurance Fund
  Alcoholics
  Alcoholics
  Fraudulent Claims
  Fraudulent Claims
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Immunisation
  Immunisation
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Royal Commissions
  Royal Commissions
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Gonorrhoea and Syphilis
  Gonorrhoea and Syphilis
  Norfolk (Population)
  Norfolk (Population)
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  Supplementary Pensions and Allowances
  Supplementary Pensions and Allowances
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Low Income Families (Taxation)
  Low Income Families (Taxation)
  Toxocara Canis
  Toxocara Canis
  Unemployment Benefit (Disallowed)
  Unemployment Benefit (Disallowed)
  Nursing (Recruitment)
  Nursing (Recruitment)
  Family Allowance
  Family Allowance
  Abuses (Television Programme)
  Abuses (Television Programme)
  Supplementary Benefit and Personal Incomes
  Supplementary Benefit and Personal Incomes
  Pensioners in Hospital
  Pensioners in Hospital
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Washington and Dublin Embassies
  Washington and Dublin Embassies
  NATO Forces (MBFR Negotiations)
  NATO Forces (MBFR Negotiations)
SCOTLAND
  Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976
  Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976
  Statutes and Statutory Instruments
  Statutes and Statutory Instruments
  Luce Bay (Plutonium Level)
  Luce Bay (Plutonium Level)
  Theatres Trust Act 1976
  Theatres Trust Act 1976
  Cruikshank and Co. Ltd., Denny
  Cruikshank and Co. Ltd., Denny
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  May Day 1978
  May Day 1978
DEFENCE
  Buckingham Palace Guard
  Buckingham Palace Guard
  Civilian Employment
  Civilian Employment
  Arms Sales
  Arms Sales
  Television Services (Germany)
  Television Services (Germany)
  Quality Assurance
  Quality Assurance
  Services Welfare (Germany)
  Services Welfare (Germany)
TRADE
  Germany
  Germany
  European Community
  European Community
ENERGY
  ANCIT Process
  ANCIT Process
  Gas and Electricity Bills
  Gas and Electricity Bills
  Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing
  Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing
  Mining Subsidence
  Mining Subsidence
  Tritium
  Tritium
CIVIL SERVICE
  Parliamentary Papers
  Parliamentary Papers
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Prime Minister (Official Car)
  Prime Minister (Official Car)
INDUSTRY
  Courtaulds Ltd. (Skelmersdale)
  Courtaulds Ltd. (Skelmersdale)
  Postage Stamp (Design)
  Postage Stamp (Design)
  London
  London
  Info-Line Ltd.
  Info-Line Ltd.
  British Goods (Qualification for Designation)
  British Goods (Qualification for Designation)
  British Aerospace
  British Aerospace
  Cruikshank and Co. Ltd., Denny
  Cruikshank and Co. Ltd., Denny
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Voluntary Price Agreements
  Voluntary Price Agreements
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Metrication Board
  Metrication Board
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Office of Fair Trading
  Office of Fair Trading
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Departmental Headquarters
  Departmental Headquarters
  National Consumer Council
  National Consumer Council
  Price Check Scheme
  Price Check Scheme
  Retail Prices
  Retail Prices
  Food Subsidies
  Food Subsidies
  Tea and Coffee
  Tea and Coffee
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Electric Plugs
  Electric Plugs
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Exemption Certificates (Construction Contractors)
  Tax Exemption Certificates (Construction Contractors)
  Public Schools
  Public Schools
  Institute of Taxation
  Institute of Taxation
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Farm Vehicles
  Farm Vehicles
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Farm Buildings
  Farm Buildings
  Exports
  Exports
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Pension Funds
  Pension Funds
  Agriculture and Horticulture
  Agriculture and Horticulture
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Hotels
  Hotels
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Industrial Strategy
  Industrial Strategy
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Multinational Companies
  Multinational Companies
  Child Tax Allowances
  Child Tax Allowances
  Alimony
  Alimony
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Investments
  Investments
  Budget
  Budget
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
  Wine
  Wine
  Customs and Excise Yields
  Customs and Excise Yields
  CBI
  CBI
  Growth and Use of Resources
  Growth and Use of Resources
  Goods and Services and Transfer Payments
  Goods and Services and Transfer Payments
  Wages and Salaries (Public Sector)
  Wages and Salaries (Public Sector)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Contingency Reserve
  Contingency Reserve
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
EMPLOYMENT
  Bank Holidays
  Bank Holidays
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Technological Advances (Training)
  Technological Advances (Training)
  Yorkshire
  Yorkshire
  Surrey
  Surrey
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Training Opportunities Scheme (Wales)
  Training Opportunities Scheme (Wales)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Colleges of Education.(West Midlands)
  Colleges of Education.(West Midlands)
  School Building (Hampshire)
  School Building (Hampshire)
  Teachers (Wales)
  Teachers (Wales)
  Building Trades
  Building Trades
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
WALES
  Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme
  Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme
  Devolution (Pressure Groups)
  Devolution (Pressure Groups)
  X-ray Equipment
  X-ray Equipment
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Department of Housing and the Housing Executive
  Department of Housing and the Housing Executive
  Armed Forces and Police (Co-ordination)
  Armed Forces and Police (Co-ordination)
  Statutes
  Statutes
  Heating Allowance
  Heating Allowance
  Security Statistics
  Security Statistics
  STATISTICS ON SECURITY
  STATISTICS ON SECURITY

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack

AIRLINES: OVERBOOKING COMPENSATION SCHEME
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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 are now in a position to make a Statement upon the result of the discussions between the Civil Aviation Authority and British airlines concerning the application of the overbooking compensation scheme to return flights resulting from an original booking made in the United Kingdom on British airlines so that a passenger may be covered for the whole of his ticket and not, as at present, for half of it.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as I told my noble friend in answer to a similar Question on 16th November, the Civil Aviation Authority is seeking ways of extending the scheme to all passengers on United Kingdom and foreign airlines on inward flights, irrespective of where they bought their tickets. Since then the International Air Transport Association has voted on a draft resolution which provided that, where two countries agreed, their respective airlines could make arrangements for the payment of compensation for flights in either direction between those two countries. Unhappily I understand that the resolution was lost because of a substantial number of negative votes.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, does the Minister also recall telling me on 16th November that there were many people in important places who agreed with me, and that the question
622
was to find the best route and decide the best speed at which progress could be made? In view of what he said, is it not obvious that the route is blocked and that progress is nil? Could he consider this suggestion? Does he agree that the best hope of getting such an extension lies in flights from Europe to the United Kingdom? And as British Airways has expressed itself in agreement to such an extension, could the airline not be asked to make bilateral arrangements with various countries?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I remember saying what my noble friend recalls. As a result of the representations that she has made, the activity that I have indicated has taken place in IATA since our exchange in November. I agree with her that the negative result of those approaches means that we have come rather to a full-stop in the IATA connection and that therefore we should think afresh. I have noted what she said about a possible new move, and I shall certainly convey that to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade to see whether there is any initiative which he would be willing to take.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer. Does he recall that over the matter of the small agencies, when IATA took action, it was possible through procedures in this House to stop IATA behaving in that way? Is it really necessary that British Airways, wishing to take such action, should entirely accept what IATA rules? Can they not protest?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my noble friend rightly recalls a precedent in relation to IATA rules. Nevertheless, it is important that our airlines should remain within that organisation. We would not want that precedent to be followed too frequently. Nevertheless, I note my noble friend's various suggestions.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that over-booking—a discouragement to airlines—although admirable in every way, to some extent at least increases airlines' costs? Is that sort of pressure appropriate at a time when many organisations, including the committee on which the noble

623
Baroness serves so gallantly, are pressurising for lower fares, particularly in Europe?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it is recognised that there is an economic necessity for overbooking, but my noble friend is trying to pursue ways of diminishing the adverse effect of that process.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has his points mixed? Is he also aware that I am not referring to the recent fares seminar but to the common sense suggestion that if compensation is paid for being overbooked on an airline, it should apply to the whole of a ticket and not to half of it?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, that question seems to be directed to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, rather than to me.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that sometimes the telephone bell will ring over 50 times when one calls British Airways before anyone troubles to lift the receiver? Would not the degree of overbooking be very much heavier if the telephones were answered more promptly?

TAXATION AND THE EXPORT DRIVE
3.5 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I draw attention to a typographical error. The date should read 15th December and not 13th December.
The Question as printed was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer approved the Consultative Paper issued by the Inland Revenue on 13th December, which, instead of improving the tax treatment of those working abroad, penalises them.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did approve the Consultative
624
Paper and the Government would not accept that the proposals penalise the majority of those working overseas.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Chancellor said that he would try to improve the tax arrangements for United Kingdom based people who, in Britain's interest, are striving to increase our exports, and that the idea in this paper that they would have to spend 30 consecutive days abroad before getting any tax benefit is totally unrealistic and should be instantly withdrawn because it is a strong disincentive rather than an incentive to better and more productive effort?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the noble Lord is no doubt aware, the changes in the 1974 Act were brought about because of the "unacceptable face of capitalism" occasioned by the Lonrho scandal. That is absolutely true; that is the fact. This happened similtaneously with the Chancellor's statement and it is a matter that has been repeatedly picked up in most of the hundreds of representations made to the Inland Revenue regarding this Consultative Paper and in discussions with the interested bodies. I am delighted that the noble Lord has added his voice to the representations. Clearly they must be taken into account in the Government's consideration of the form the proposed legislation should take. That is the point of a Consultative Paper.
Lord POLWARTH: My Lords, while declaring my interest as one who carries out duties of this kind, hopefully in the interests of the country as well as of my own businesses, may I ask whether the Government will listen to the opinion of those engaged in these operations, which is that the carrying out of half-a-dozen or so brief visits abroad, often over long distances, is frequently not only more productive in return to the country but definitely more arduous and disruptive of home life?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the Government are now totally aware of this. This matter has been underlined many times, and again this afternoon.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Section 189 of the Income Tax Act 1970

625
is extremely tightly drawn and, indeed, has been tightly drawn, including the Acts from which it was originally consolidated, for well over a quarter of a century. Is she aware that application in the strict sense of Section 189 of the Income Tax Act affects a far wider spectrum of employees than were incorporated in the original Question? Will my noble friend bring some pressure to bear on the Government to ensure that this matter is examined in depth?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, that is a different question but I note what my noble friend says.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, the noble Baroness's assurance that this matter will be re-examined is comforting. However, it is strange that the Government should issue a paper which is so totally out of touch with the reality of industrial life. I hope that in the re-examination they will take into consideration that the winning of exports is a difficult business, and that it is desperately important that our salesmen should come back and report to head office and get matters moving as a result of these measures and should not be encouraged to stay overseas for one hour longer than is necessary—apart from the fact that by staying abroad for extra time they are spending further foreign currency, which is undesirable.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I can say no more than repeat that the point has been made forcefully, clearly, succinctly and articulately from all quarters. The Government are very well aware of this and are bent on increasing our export trade; the noble Lord can be absolutely satisfied.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness send a copy of yesterday's debate to her Cabinet?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, yes.

BREAD DELIVERIES: DRIVERS' COMMISSION
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 will confirm that the drivers of the United Road Transport Union, who deliver bread, are paid a commission on the total value of the bread in the vehicle.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I understand that it is the practice of the larger companies in the baking industry for drivers to be paid some form of commission based on sales rather than on the value of the bread in the vehicle. The form of commission varies between companies but precise details are not available as negotiators are not required to notify details of their pay settlements to the Government.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Would the Government not agree that possibly because of the fact that a commission is paid on the amount of sales to the bakers, a monopoly of van drivers are holding the British housewife, and particularly the small bakers' shops, to ransom, and that this must be wrong particularly at a time like this? Would the Government not agree that this is monstrously wrong when economies are needed at a time of inflation?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend Mr. Hattersley has indicated in another place the Government's attitude to this action; that we regret it. I do not think that it is so much the question of commission that is the concern of the drivers as their concern for possible loss of jobs if the number of outlets is reduced. I think that that is their fear, understandable though mistaken we believe it to be. Since the noble Earl has raised this matter generally, may I just indicate that my right honourable friend is this afternoon covening a meeting of all the parties concerned to examine thoroughly this vexed question.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in a broadcast this morning a bakery official pointed out that the drivers' action had been counter-productive, and that the net result had been an overall fall in the total sales of bread which he did not feel would be likely to be recovered?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I was not aware of that, but I am not surprised with that outcome. We think that the drivers' action was mistaken, and we hope that they will be persuaded of the Tightness of my right honourable friend's legislative action.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the drivers' action is mistaken. Is it not a little worse than that? Does not the noble Lord agree that if it had been done by the companies it would have been a restrictive trade practice and illegal? Can the noble Lord justify the discrimination of the law in this respect?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I agree that this is resale price maintenance by trade unions, and I personally am opposed to resale price maintenance whether it is done by unions or by any other means. I think that the legal position on this particular action we had better leave until this afternoon's meeting has been concluded.

DUMBARTON DISTRICT COUNCIL RENTS
3.12 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the inquiry into the failure of Dumbarton District Council to raise standard rents of council houses, thereby losing Government grant and adding to the already excessive burden on their rate-payers.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, the matter is currently under investigation by the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland following the submission to them of a special report by the Controller of Audit. It may then come to my right honourable friend the
628
Secretary of State for Scotland for decision. I am therefore not in a position to make a statement at this stage.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for informing the House of the latest position. Does the noble Lord recognise that this is a serious situation, and that it is also a test case of the effectiveness of the present legislation? With the rent rebate scheme introduced five years ago, does the noble Lord agree that there cannot be any justification whatever for placing this intolerable burden on the rates there, now estimated to be the highest in the country?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I would not at this stage care to comment on the observations which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just made to your Lordships' House. I can say that the Commission intend to hold a public hearing tomorrow, 28th January.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any other cases are under examination at the present time?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there was a crowded meeting of ratepayers in the area last night and that they look to the Government for support for due redress? Is he also aware that this is a disincentive to industry, which is much needed in that area?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, as I have explained to the House, the Commission may well report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the circumstances, I cannot be expected to say more in your Lordships' House than I have already this afternoon.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, cannot the noble Lord give us an assurance that if they continue to disobey the law there will not be a repetition of the Clay Cross scandal?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I am not aware at this stage that anyone has broken the law.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones);My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility; and to facilitate the citation of statutes. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—[Lord Harris of Greenwich.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 14 [Preliminary]:
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 11, line 6, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Brockway. It would perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicated that it would be my intention to speak not only to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 and to Clause 15 but also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 72 since they are all connected with the main purpose which it is my desire to achieve in moving these Amendments. The general purport of the Amendments is to restore to people
630
that right of election to trial by jury which is eliminated within this particular section of the Bill. I am, of course, not a lawyer, and I am well aware that the particular wording and the detailed course of action that I have proposed may not, on closer examination, accomplish precisely the purpose that I have in mind. If that be the case, it would be my intention at a later stage, and after having heard the Government's reply, if necessary to withdraw, with the leave of my noble friend, certain of the Amendments that I have put down.
The main purpose is to secure restoration into the Bill of the right to election to trial by jury. This is an important constitutional question which goes far beyond the mere legal applications which one would expect to find in a Bill of this kind. So important are they that one might almost have thought that they merited a Bill of their own rather than having been put into the existing Bill which covers a whole series of matters which, although important, are less than the fundamental principle that I should like to lay before the Committee.
I stand on the opinion that no person charged with an offence which, if he is convicted of it, carries the risk of imprisonment or the risk of damage to his honour or good name, ought to have taken away from him the right to elect trial by jury. I am much reinforced in this view by a leader which your Lordships may have read in The Times on 6th January, which said:
"Trial by jury to the British is more than a procedural device for deciding whether a person accused of crime is guilty or not. It is deeply embedded in the national consciousness as a bulwark against tyranny, a safeguard for the individual against oppression by the State and one of the distinguishing features of a free society. It has worked well in the past and, for the most part, continues to do so. It must therefore not be restricted severely unless that is, absolutely necessary for the fair and efficient functioning of the system of criminal justice."
My respectful submission is that The Times was right. As The Times indicated, it is enshrined in our history and its origins go back to the Magna Carta, which stated:
"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or dissesized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go on him nor will we send upon him…except by the legal judgment of his peers and/or the law of the land."

631
Even later than that, one of the most eminent legal authorities, so I am instructed, who has ever illumined the Bench, Sir William Blackstone, said:
"…in criminal law… Our law has therefore wisely placed this twofold barrier of a presentiment and a trial by jury between the liberties of the people and the prerogative of the Crown. So that the liberties of the people cannot but subsist so long as this palladium remains sacred and inviolable."
It is true that since then the Grand Jury, which was incorporated in Sir William Blackstone's remarks, has been abandoned, but the single jury system still remains and I draw the attention of the Committee to the words of Lord Camden, another very eminent legal authority in the land, who said:
"Trial by jury is indeed the fabric of our free constitution; take that away and the whole fabric will soon whittle away into dust."
Why, after all this time and when the jury system has, according to The Times, functioned so well, should it have been decided to modify it by scheduling certain offences for which in future there will be no right to elect trial by jury? These are incorporated in Schedule I to the Bill. No real reason has been given for this, save that the Crown Court lists are well in arrears; it has been said there are 3,000 cases well behind timetable in the Crown Courts. I invite the Committee to evaluate whether that reason alone is sufficient to abandon this cherished right which has existed for centuries.
What would be required in the ordinary practical sense of the term to reduce the lists of cases seriously behind time in the Crown Courts? Obviously more Crown Courts would have to be built and of course that would cost money. Also, I am informed, another reason for not embarking on this extra cost is that there is some doubt whether, from the existing resources available to the Lord Chancellor or whoever is responsible for appointing judges, we have sufficient judicial talent within the Bar to man the new courts if they were built and if the administrative staff and all the other facilities were made available.
Of this last argument I am not entirely convinced. As in so many other things, I think that in this distinguished profession of the law and in particular that part of it devoted to advocacy, we probably have
632
some of the best talent in the civilised world and I am most reluctant to think that there are not available among our leading barristers of many years' standing sufficient people to man the extra courts that are required. We therefore come back to the question of cost and I suggest that this must be evaluated against the fundamental principle involved.
At present we spend, in association with others, thousands of millions of pounds on the defence of our country. I am not complaining about the nature or extent of that considerable burden which the taxpayer has to meet in keeping our shores inviolate, but what are we seeking to protect—only property? As one who, like many inside and outside your Lordships' House, participated in the last Great War, I was not fighting for the preservation of property. Essentially we were fighting, as I understood it and as most people throughout Britain believed, for the preservation of British liberty. Are we to say that we are prepared to spend all this money on our defence yet we are not prepared to spend the few million pounds that would be involved in establishing a satisfactory number of Crown Courts so that their business could be adequately disposed of? Are we to say that purely because of the expense we are prepared to tamper with what I regard, and what has hitherto been regarded, as one of the bastions of individual liberty in this country?
There can be no doubt that there are defects in the administration of justice; it can hardly be otherwise when all the participants are human beings; however sincere their efforts, all are subject to human error. But if the right to trial by jury is taken away over the range of offences set out in Schedule 2, it will mean that mistakes may occur in the magistrates' court, without a jury, which might not have occurred had the case gone for trial by jury. Indeed, that is the reason for having trial by jury; "twelve good men and true" are probably more likely on balance to arrive at a correct evaluation of the facts than is a judge or magistrate sitting alone.
One of the most remarkable things is that the clauses that I seek to amend were based on the findings of the James Committee and one thing that that Committee admitted at, I believe, paragraph 32 was:

633
"Our terms of reference did not permit us to embark on a comprehensive survey of summary trials in magistrates' courts. In the absence of such a survey any conclusion to be drawn from the evidence referred to above can be only tentative and general".
So these provisions for the abolition of the right of election to trial by jury in certain cases were reached without any real examination in depth as to what happens in magistrates' courts. It may well be that, following this Bill, possibly in the near future, an inquiry will be embarked upon, in which case I hope that the people who embark upon it go into some magistrates' courts incognito so that those administering justice and those giving evidence are not aware of the importance of the occasion or of the surveillance to which they are being subjected.
I have had some experience of witnessing proceedings in magistrates' courts and I must say that, in very many instances, it would be impossible to complain of the treatment of defendants, whether or not pleading guilty, that takes place in front of the magistrates. However, I regret to say that I have been present at one or two cases where, in my view, the entire proceedings involved a miscarriage of justice without any shadow of doubt.
There is a tendency which is referred to in the James Committee's Report, for magistrates to get to know the police who are giving evidence before them. Their association may develop over months and, very naturally, a relationship, however unconscious it may be and however lacking in sinister purpose or nature, nevertheless builds up and there develops over a period of time a degree of rapport between magistrates and police which, in some cases I am convinced and in two cases to my certain knowledge, has resulted in the interests of the defendant not being properly safeguarded as they would have been at a trial in front of a jury.
In amplification of that point, I should like to refer to the James Report which discusses these matters on page 113. It says in paragraph 257,
"It is inevitable, particularly in the smaller courts where the same police officer or the same solicitor regularly appears to conduct prosecutions, that he should be well known to the magistrates in that role. It is understandable therefore that unless care is taken to avoid the impression of an established relationship the defendant may feel at a disadvantage".
634
I rather like the way in which that is phrased. The James Report does not say that it is unfortunate if the relationship it has described exists; it says that it is desirable to avoid the impression that it does so. To say the least of it, I find that a little disingenuous. The report goes on:
"It is of the greatest importance that magistrates, advocates and court clerks should be scrupulous in ensuring that cases are conducted in a manner that treats and obviously treats prosecution and defence alike. The importance of this factor should be recognised".
The report goes on in a way that supports the argument that I have ventured to advance to your Lordships:
"But from the evidence that we have received it would appear that there are magistrates' courts in which it is forgotten".
I am second to none in the admiration which I have for the police of this country, for their honesty, integrity and impartiality. I would make the same comment about the vast majority of magistrates, who, I am quite convinced, in performing their, in many cases, honorary functions, discharge their duties with the utmost conscientiousness. However, if I say that about the police and the magistrates, I must remind the Committee that the same observations apply to the mass of the people of this country as a whole. The bulk of them are honest people and people of integrity. Therefore, while it may not matter overmuch in the cause of justice if a guilty person is convicted on the basis of evidence brought by police who are biassed or, indeed, in some cases, untruthful, and before magistrates who are incompetent, what is to happen in the event of a person not being guilty? It is with the person who may not be guilty that we are concerned.
If your Lordships will turn to Schedule 1, you will find a whole series of offences which it is proposed shall in future be tried only summarily. I shall not weary the Committee by going through them all because I have no doubt that your Lordships have read the Schedule; but there are, for instance, offences under the Public Meeting Act 1908, the Children and Young Persons' Act 1933—which deals with allowing persons under 16 to be in brothels—offences under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 (conduct conducive to breaches of the peace) and so on. There is a whole series of offences

635
here which carry the risk on conviction of a sentence of imprisonment or, where they do not carry that risk, carry with them, on conviction, a besmirching of the honour and the good name of the person concerned. I think it important that the Committee should come to the conclusion that, on matters of that kind and, certainly, pending a far more detailed investigation of what actually takes place in magistrates' courts than has been carried out up till now, the law should be left as it is.
During the past two months your Lordships' House, with whatever justification, has been widely described in the national Press of our country as the protector of the people and their liberties. Many of us may modestly disclaim the fulsome nature of some of the praise that has been lavished on us. But if ever there was an opportunity for this House to indicate to the country that we are deeply sensible of the liberties of the subject and are deeply conscious of the historic nature and safeguards implied in trial by jury, then this is it. If we can show the country and the other place that, then we shall be setting an excellent example which one hopes the other place will follow.
3.40 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I intervene briefly at this stage only for the purpose of trying to elicit from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, his views as to how this and subsequent debates should be conducted. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, will not be delayed long by what I have to ask, unless we embark upon a long discussion of this aspect of the matter. We have a number of Amendments on Part III, all of them involving in one way or another the question of the method of trial and the penalties attaching to the method of trial. If we were to embark at this stage on a general discussion of the merits or demerits of trial by jury as against summary trial, I think that we should involve ourselves in a long process of swimming in treacle and never come to an end at all.
I happen to think—I may be wrong about this, and I invite the opinion of the
636
Government on it—that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to whose very interesting speech we have just listened, has in fact misapprehended much of the nature both of his Amendment and of Clause 15 in relation to the Schedule. But if we are not to spend a lot of time unnecessarily, we must try to have some plan of campaign for today's proceedings. I rise solely for the purpose of inviting either the Lord Chancellor or the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill to let us have the Government view as to how we should proceed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord has invited me to intervene. While not wishing in any way to seek to encroach upon the liberty of action of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, I should say that at some later stages in the Committee stage—for instance, in Amendment No. 40 to leave out the provisions in Clause 23 (1) (a) removing the right of trial by jury for small thefts—there would be an occasion where the heart and essence of this problem can perhaps be most conveniently debated and discussed. Of course that would cover only a segment of the offences and it is quite true that Schedule 1, with which my noble friend is now dealing, would not be expressly covered by a debate relating to that segment of criminal offences.
For my part, I confess that I was rather hoping that on this Amendment there would be merely a general discussion. I have prepared to deal in some detail with the question of the relative merits of proceedings before magistrates' courts and trial by jury and the grave problems in regard to the pressure on the courts which arises in relation to proceedings in respect of both Schedule 1 offences and Schedule 4 offences, and I would prefer a course of dealing with the substance of the matter, on the issues that I have mentioned, at a later stage. But, as I say, I certainly do not wish to queer the pitch of my noble friend in any way in which he sees fit to deal with his own Amendment.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: It seems to me that my noble friend is going a good deal further in his Amendment than his speech implied—at any rate certain parts of it. He is proposing that there should be only two methods of

637
trial, trial on indictment and trial by either way, and not any cases at all which are triable only summarily. But he also said in his speech that he wished to have the law as it was. If he leaves the law as it was, there will still be some cases triable summarily only, and I do not know whether my noble friend is seriously suggesting that every time somebody leaves his car on a parking meter longer than he should it should be a matter for trial by jury. But I think that if I read his Amendment correctly that would be implied.
3.45 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I begin by saying that my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger has got the matter precisely right in terms of her approach to my noble friend's Amendment. Before I come to the actual terms of what my noble friend is suggesting, I should like to say a few words about magistrates' courts. My noble and learned friend has indicated that he will be dealing with the wider question of the pressure on Crown Courts when he speaks at a later stage in our deliberations this afternoon. I am bound to say one thing to my noble friend. I noted that at one stage he paid a tribute to lay justices for the work they do. As is well known, they take the overwhelming majority of criminal proceedings in this country. In a country in which sometimes I think we spend a substantial amount of time—perfectly understandably in the present situation—discussing what is wrong with the country, one thing which we should sometimes bear in mind is that the system which has evolved here is widely admired in this country for the speed and despatch with which business is conducted.
Turning to one particular criticism which my noble friend subsequently made about the work of magistrates and magistrates' courts, I wonder whether he has had an opportunity of reading the Written Answer which I gave in reply to my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker which appeared in yesterday's Official Report. In my view that does not seem to justify the suggestion that magistrates' courts are prosecution minded and that one stands an infinitely better chance of being acquitted if one goes for trial by jury. I should like to refer to columns 617 and 618 of the Official Report of yesterday and take one or two examples.
638
With regard to offences under Section 51(1) of the Police Act 1964, in magistrates' courts the proportion of those pleading not guilty who were acquitted was 27 per cent.; in the Crown Court it was 20 per cent. Under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, Section 32, 77 per cent. were acquitted in magistrates' courts; in the Crown Court the figure was 61 per cent. In relation to the Public Order Act 1936 and the Public Meetings Act 1908, 57 per cent. of those pleading not guilty in the magistrates' courts were acquitted while the figure in the Crown Court was 28 per cent. All I would say, with great respect to my noble friend, is chat it does not appear to me that figures of that kind justify his belief, and indeed it is only fair to say the belief of many others who have commented on this matter, that the magistrates' courts are sometimes obsessively prosecution minded. The figures appear to be capable of being interpreted in a wholly different way.
I should like to touch on one other point which my noble friend made. He referred to one or two situations where he had been in court when he observed what he believed to be a miscarriage of justice. But of course the way in which one deals with a miscarriage of justice is not, with great respect, by the kind of Amendment that he has put down today. The way to deal with it is by an appeal. There can of course sometimes be miscarriages of justice. We have all been aware of a number of cases recently arising as a result of proceedings in Crown Courts, and again this matter is properly handled by the system of appeals. I do not believe that my noble friend justified today in the speech that he made, the very substantial changes in the administration of criminal justice in this country which his Amendment would involve.
Undoubtedly if the changes which he has recommended to the Committee today were to be accepted they would have the most dramatic and the most far-reaching consequences on the Crown Courts. Stated quite simply, the effect of what they propose is that the accused should have a right to elect trial by jury in the Crown Court in respect of every single criminal offence, however trivial and whatever the maximum penalty may be. That is because the Amendments would abolish the category of purely summary

639
offences—that is, those offences which under the Bill can be tried only in the magistrates' court—and make all such offences triable either way in accordance with the new procedure laid down in Part III of the Bill for determining the mode of trial for such offences. Under that procedure the accused has the right, subject to the provision of Clause 23, to elect trial by jury in the Crown Court.
This, of course, would have precisely the opposite effect to one of those intended by Part III of the Bill; that is, to reduce the burden on the Crown Court. It is a matter for speculation how many defendants, in addition to those who at the moment go to the Crown Court for trial—and in 1975 there were around 75,000 such cases—would choose to be tried by jury if the right to elect was available in every case, but in fact we estimate that the number of purely summary offences which at present do not carry the right to jury trial (that is, the situation at the moment) is probably in the region of 1,200,000 cases in a year. If only a small proportion of those elected jury trial—let us take one example and say 10 per cent.—the Crown Court would immediately face an increase in workload of 100,000 cases a year, or well over twice the present workload faced by the Crown Courts. The effect of this would plainly be exceptionally serious.
Let us examine just for a moment what this means in terms of the type of offence which would carry an absolute right for the accused to elect a jury trial. It means, for example, that all minor traffic offences, such as parking offences and obstruction, which alone accounted for more than one million of the cases tried in magistrates' courts in 1975, could go for jury trial if the accused so elected. It means that a person charged with failure to have a dog licence, for which the maximum penalty is £10, could elect trial by jury. There were 4,000 such cases in 1975. It means that failure to have a motor vehicle licence or a television licence, totalling some 136,000 cases in 1975, would carry a right to jury trial; and it means that the full panoply of trial by judge and jury would be available to a person charged with having a chimney on fire, where there is a maximum penalty of £50.
640
As the James Committee observed, one of the main reasons for the distinction between offences triable summarily and those triable on indictment is to signify the widely differing levels of gravity with which society regards them, and in the light of the James Committee's views, which the Government share, I do not believe that an Amendment of the kind which my noble friend has moved today would in fact in any way improve the situation. In my view it would have the most far-reaching and grave consequences in terms of the administration of justice in this country.
3.54 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Following the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, I appreciate that we do not want a long and protracted debate on trial by jury versus trial by magistrates, but I felt that my noble friend—and I very rarely disagree with him—seemed to have a very curious and old-fashioned idea of magistrates' courts. He seemed to suggest that the judges, by sheer definition, would have the objectivity which was necessary, whereas that would not be the case with the magistrates, who would be totally immersed and involved, as I understood it, with the police. As a magistrate of some many years' standing, I see now that I have missed many opportunities; I have had no relationship with the police, sadly, either of a social or of any other character. But what my noble friend seemed to overlook is that it is common among advocates when advising clients to suggest that a certain judge has a certain quirk, and that if the client would like to wait for the case to come before that judge he may get different treatment. I do not know whether or not this is true, but I would say that the magistrates—and I sit about every other week—are drawn from the whole of the community.
Today, when people talk about the abolition of the House of Lords, we are suffering, I think, from a very curious and old-fashioned idea of a stereotype Lord who has a castle with a moat round it and a couple of dragons, and who lives on his fortune, when in fact we are people drawn from the whole wide spectrum of the community. So it is with the magistrates. My noble friend mentioned a possible miscarriage of justice.

641
Let us face the fact that the lay magistrates do not sit too often, so they come to their task with a freshness and an objectivity which I think is second to none.
It rather sounds as if I am defending something of which I am a part, but one cannot fail to be a part of the magisterial system without acquiring a great admiration for our system of justice. You have somebody in front of you who you instinctively feel may be a rogue, and often it is found that he has a very long string of previous convictions; but he cannot say that he has not had the full opportunity of British justice and three or four hours in which to present his case. I would suggest that this common idea that you get better treatment from your own peers is to reject the fact that your own peers are now the three lay magistrates, who will sit listening carefully, patiently and objectively to the evidence. I hope that my noble friend will appreciate that no longer is there a situation of "them" and "us". The magistrates are the peers of the people they try.
Lord WIGODER: I should like, if I may, to keep my main observations on this whole issue until we come to Amendment No. 40, but it might perhaps be of slight assistance if I first of all indicated how grateful I know all noble Lords will be to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for producing those most interesting figures, the statistics of the acquittal rates in magistrates' courts and Crown Courts for the same class of offence. When this Bill was before your Lordships on Second Reading I ventured to say, without access to statistics of any sort, that I had no reason to doubt that the overwhelming majority of cases would in fact be decided in precisely the same way in a magistrates' court as in a Crown Court. I believe that the argument, when it comes, will come not in any way over the question of where one is likely to get an acquittal; and I hope very much that the rest of the proceedings on this part of the Bill will not be bedevilled by what I think would be a wholly false argument as to which is or is not the superior means of ascertaining the truth.
I think the issue, when we come to it, will be as to whether there are certain categories of case where it is not in the public interest that the decision should be
642
made, not by a small, select group of people who appear to represent, in one form or another, authority, but by the fellow citizens of the defendant. That raises issues of principle on which, as I say, I do not desire to embark at this stage; but on these particular Amendments I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would help about this.
I rather suspect, after listening to him, that he is not seeking to give the right of jury trial to motorists who are charged with parking on double yellow lines. What he is seeking to do is to give the right of jury trial to all the offences set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. If we are to deal with this on a matter of principle, then I would suggest to the noble Lord that this is not the right approach and that it is quite impossible to say what the principle is by which a person should be entitled to trial by jury if he is charged, for example, with the offence of failing to comply with his obligations in relation to the obtaining of information as to underground water, which is one of the offences in the Schedule; or as to polluting from liquids resulting from the manufacture of gas, which is another one. I would respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that the proper course would be, perhaps, that we should deal, not with the Schedule en bloc in this way but with the specific improvements that are proposed in later Amendments, when we can apply the relevant principles to the problems.
Lord BROCKWAY: I should like first to express agreement with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has said regarding the danger of this discussion overlapping that on later Amendments, and I hope very much that we shall not be causing a delay in the consideration of this Bill by repeating ourselves in the two discussions.
I added my name to this Amendment because I felt that its purpose was to limit the restrictions on persons applying for jury consideration. I think that all of us would accept the view put by my noble friend Lord Harris that some charges should be dealt with immediately by a magistrates' court. On the other hand, the Bill as it stands would mean that a number of charges, very serious for the offenders, would be limited to the

643
magistrates' court and there would be no opportunity of consideration by a jury. For example, this would apply to charges of theft up to £20. The very serious effect upon an individual charged with such a theft, not only upon his or her status but, even perhaps, on employment—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I do not want to interrupt, but would it not be better if we dealt with these small thefts under Clause 23 which directly relates to them? I hope that we can get rid of this general Amendment which is bound to lead to trouble. I know that I shall listen to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, with even greater pleasure if we can wait until then.
Lord BROCKWAY: I think that I have already accepted that point of view. I do not want to delay consideration of these separate points, but when my noble friend Lord Harris has suggested that a whole series of small charges which could be dealt with in the magistrates' court—
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: Are already dealt with!;
Lord BROCKWAY: Yes, I agree. But when he suggested that that is a reason for rejecting the view that there should be an opportunity to go for decision by a jury, then I think one has the right to point out that it also means that much more serious charges would be limited under the Bill.
I want to make this my major appeal: that I regard trial by jury as an absolutely fundamental instrument of a free society. The right to say, when one is charged with an offence, that the decision as to whether one is guilty shall be by juries of ordinary men and women seems to me to be in the very fabric of a society of liberty. It is mainly on that ground that I hope there will be a real consideration of the plea which has been made by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington.
I want to say at once that I am tremendously appreciative of the services of the magistrates. One knows that it is out of dedication to service to the public; one knows how seriously so many of them are seeking for decisions which are
644
best not only for society but for the offender himself; but the fundamental principle, when one is charged with an offence which is not trivial, that one should have the decision by fellow citizens in juries seems to me to be absolutely basic in our sense of a libertarian and democratic society. I think that it is clear from the discussion that the Amendment in its present form is not water-tight and acceptable even for the purposes which we have in view; but I hope very much that as a result of this discussion it will be possible to reconsider the whole issue when we reach the Report stage.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: Could we not shorten this discussion a little if we were to ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment if he understands that it really means that all these trivial offences would be given a right of trial by jury?
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: I am obliged to my noble friend for the remarks she made earlier in connection with this Amendment. I explained at the outset the purpose which I was trying to achieve. It is the purpose which I think was precisely identified by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I cannot complain, however, that my noble friend Lord Harris dealt with the argument that appeared from the strict reading of the Amendment. After all, that is what he is required to do. It was not my intention to have the law constructed in such a way that every traffic offence would require trial by jury. I explained in my earlier remarks that the principle upon which I stand is that no person who is charged with an offence which, if he is found guilty, carries a risk of imprisonment or, alternatively, of serious damage to his honour or reputation, should have taken away from him the right to elect for trial by jury. Upon that I stand.
I apologise to the Committee that the form of my Amendments did not accomplish that purpose. I agree with my noble friend Lord Harris that if the Amendments had been carried in their existing form all the ridiculous consequences in regard to traffic offences or water offences would have ensued. But this was not my purpose. I trust that the Committee will

645
forgive the fact that I am not a Parliamentary draftsman. I sought advice on the drafting to accomplish the purpose but I probably misunderstood that advice. In any event, I was certain that the Committee would avail itself of the opportunity of considering the whole matter. I was hopeful that if we did not get the precision that we wanted at this stage, by the time the Report stage was reached we should have become so skilled in the arts which your Lordships are kind enough to communicate to those of us not of the legal profession that we should be able to get greater precision then.
I agree with what my noble friend Lady Phillips said about this. I endorse every expression of her views about magistrates; save that I do not think it can correctly be said that a Bench of three magistrates or a magistrate sitting alone can be taken in substitution for 12 good men and true. Subject to that, and thanking the Committee for their considerable indulgence on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
Provision as to proceedings not instituted by police or other authority
. The offences mentioned in Schedule 2 to this Act shall not be triable summarily, except with the consent of the accused, where the proceedings are not instituted by or with the consent of the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.
The noble and learned Lord said: I must apologise to the Committee for this Amendment. Something has gone wrong with it. I am not sure what it is, so I do not propose to move it.
4.9 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
Safeguards for the defence in summary trials
.—(1) In all cases to which Schedule 2 to this Act applies and the prosecution intends to apply for summary trial, and in any case to which section 23 of this Act applies, the following provisions of this section shall apply.
(2) Not less than forty-eight hours before the date of the hearing, the prosecution shall—

(a) give notice to the accused that it is proposed that the case should be tried summarily, or that the case is one to which section 23 applies, as the case may be; and

(b) send to the accused copies of any statement by any witness or witnesses which it is proposed to call for the prosecution.

(3) The accused, or the person representing him, shall have the right to a second speech at the conclusion of the evidence in any case where the evidence given for the defence consists in oral evidence by any witness other than the accused himself and other than any witness to his character and antecedents.
(4) In any case during the hearing of which it is proposed to change from committal proceedings to summary trial, the accused shall have the right to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section with such modifications as may be required by the nature of the case and as the court may direct.
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is more serious. Again, I want to be rather careful not to embark on general topics of an exciting kind, and I may at once say that this Amendment at this stage of the proceedings on this Bill is not going to be pressed to a Division as, in due course, whatever the Government may say about it, I can at this stage, without prejudice to what I may do at a later stage, withdraw it. One of the reasons, at least, for this is that I have had to draft it, owing to its position in the Bill, on the supposition that Clause 23 remains intact. I do not think that it will remain intact, although I need not anticipate any discussion that we may have upon it. I think it will be altered in some way as a result of later discussion.
I want to reintroduce, if I may respectfully say so, a note of realism into this discussion. I fully endorse what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, about magistrates. They deal with 98 per cent. of the offences in this country which are committed, and they do so to general satisfaction. I should also like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said about the acquittal rate which appears in today's Hansard, of which the noble Lord very kindly sent me a copy. The acquittal rate is higher in magistrates' courts than in jury cases.
Moreover, I should like to add to the documentation on this matter the reference made in the piece of Oxford research called The Jury at Work, which was published two or three years ago; namely, a table which shows the reasons, so far as they can be ascertained, for the acquittal of defendants by the jurors who actually acquitted them. I will trouble the Committee with only one figure. In those cases where the acquittal was attributed by the researchers to a plausible explanation by the accused, 75 per cent. of them (which is more than a random selection) had a long list of previous convictions. So the fact that 12 good men and true acquit does not always mean that they are wise to do so. On the contrary, I should like to try and point out that there are advantages and disadvantages of trial before magistrates and juries which have not been fully explored.
My Amendment will try to deal with two of the disadvantages, although a third—which I will mention—cannot be dealt with for a reason I will give. If effect were given to the suggestion that I am making, the disadvantages would, to some extent, disappear. Some of these disadvantages have been mentioned at an earlier stage in the progress of the Bill. One is that when you appear as an advocate in a magistrates' court, you do not know in detail the case for the prosecution. You know when you appear before the Crown Court because you have the depositions, or whatever substitute there is for the depositions under 1967 Section 1 procedure. You get either the depositions or the statements. The result is that you have been able to advise on evidence and have been able to take instructions from your client dealing with the detail of the case for the prosecution.
I must say from over 40 years' experience as an advocate, in part before magistrates' courts, that there is that considerable disadvantage. The purpose of this Amendment would achieve, I hope, that where the prosecution want to take advantage of a summary trial in a serious case—I am not talking about parking offences and what-have-you, but where there is a serious case of a dispute—they would be under an obligation to disclose what the case was which may, as a matter of fact, be to their disadvantage.
I should like to tell a slightly bowdlerised rude story in this connection, to show how it could have been a disadvantage to the prosecution in a case in which I was once engaged many years ago. In the good old days when there was nothing but a full dress committal, I was defending a man for the impairment offence of driving under the influence of alcohol. It seemed to me, on his instructions, to be a marginal case and I was instructed to save his licence. As these things are largely a matter of opinion, I advised, for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that he should go to a jury. I went to the magistrates' court in order to inform myself of the case against me, to take instructions from my client and to advise on evidence so that we should get off. The police doctor gave evidence at the magistrates' court. He said the following words, more or less:
"When I got into the police station, the accused was lying on the floor, supine. I said to him, 'Are you ill?'. He said, 'Why, yes, doctor, I am. I am suffering from mumps, whooping cough, scarlet fever and a roaring dose of—'".
And then he added a very rude disease indeed!
If I had only known that this evidence was going to be given, the prosecution would have been saved a great deal of time and trouble, and the jury would not have had to be sworn at a later stage. Instead, I had to endure the unendurable humiliation of having this story told again in front of 12 laughing jurors, looking an almost incredible fool, as a result of the advice which I had given, which would have coincided of course with the best principles enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I suggest that it is not only for the advantage of the defence, but also for the administration of justice that you might be allowed to know what the case is before you are driven to advise your client to elect to go before a jury, and before the prosecution are entitled to avail themselves of summary trial.
The other point is also dealt with by the Amendment. When I used to practise in the magistrates' court—and it is nearly seven years ago now since I became Lord Chancellor—you were not allowed a second speech. What is more, a great number of magistrates' courts in different parts of the country prescribed to you

649
whether you were to speak before or after calling your evidence, which might not have been the same order of priorities that you would have chosen for yourself. It is elementary that if you are going to call a lot of evidence and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the lines of the evidence that you are going to call, you must have a chance at the end of the debate of summing-up the matter. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable that to happen.
There is a third disadvantage of trial before magistrates with which I have not tried to deal because it can only be dealt with administratively. It is this: it does not matter whether a case is trivial or serious, if it is going to last over the day you cannot reconstitute a magistrates' court very easily, even when it comprises a single magistrate sitting in the London area. You may have to wait a fortnight or a great deal longer. My experience—and I do speak from experience of these things—is that by the time the court is reconstituted, either a professional magistrate or a bench of magistrates has forgotten the evidence. I can tell another ridiculous story about that, but it would bore the Committee. The fact is that justice is neither done nor seen to be done when that happens.
Whether it is triable on indictment, triable either way or triable summarily, does not matter—it does not matter, for instance, if it is deceiving the railway company over your ticket, which is only triable summarily. If you have a case which is going to last predictably over the day, the important point is that the clerk of the court, the Lord Chancellor or somebody else, shall see to it that a special bench is constituted in order to sit continuously until the case is over, otherwise justice will not be done. That is not something that you can deal with by legislation; but it is something I mention because I am anxious that this debate should proceed, in a very flat-footed way, to discuss what actually happens in the courts instead, with great respect to some of the brightest luminaries at the Bar, the editor of The Times and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, of going back to Magna Carta and talking as if the whole of the liberties of the subject were at stake.
I notice that in the James Report there was in fact a good quote which I have taken to heart. In paragraph 47 it says:
"Gilbert a'Becket wrote of the jury in 1844 that it was 'difficult to get the British bosom into a sufficiently tranquil state to discuss this great subject—"
namely, trial by jury
"—for every Englishman's heart will begin bounding like a tremendous bonce at its bare mention'."
My heart is not bounding like a tremendous bonce, but I suggest that I have made a case for two modest improvements. At this stage, it cannot possibly be forced to a Division, but I invite the Government, through either the noble and learned Lord or the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to comment on what I have said. I beg to move.
Lord FOOT: Before the noble Lord replies, might I say just one or two words in support of what the noble and learned Lord has said. I make these comments as one who has been practising as a mere solicitor in the magistrates' courts for some 40 years, and I should like to bear out and support everything that the noble and learned Lord has put forward. It would be a great pity, I think, if we were to get into a wrangle about the way in which the magistrates perform their duties. I entirely agree that magistrates generally perform their duties in an admirable and immaculate way. As the noble and learned Lord said, the weaknesses, if there are any—and there are some weaknesses in the proceedings of a trial before the magistrates—arise not from incapacity or inability of the magistrates or from any prejudice on their part but from these procedural difficulties which you have in the magistrates' court but with which you are not confronted in the Crown Court.
Not only is the noble and learned Lord right in saying that if you were to introduce these reforms which are the intention behind his Amendment you would thereby improve the quality of the justice which is administered in the magistrates' court, but it would have the other advantage that it would make trial in the magistrates' courts more attractive to the potential defendant than it is today. You would therefore be going some way to accomplishing the whole purpose of the James Committee, which is to prevent some of those cases going to the Crown

651
Court which now go there and which could properly be tried in the magistrates' courts. The more you can increase public confidence in the administration of the law before the magistates, the more you will persuade defendants, of their own accord, not to elect to go for trial.
I have had experience time and time again—and this particularly occurs in the case of a busy solicitor practising in the magistrates' court—that a defendant comes to you, gives you the summons he has received and you take his instructions. Then, if it is a case where he has a right to elect for trial, you have to decide whether or not to advise him to do so. It is perfectly true that you can, on an "old boy" basis, very often go to the solicitor or prosecuting authority and say, "Would you mind telling me what the case is about?" and he can, if he wants to, tell you the substance of the case. He is under no obligation to do that, but he can do so if he wishes.
It is very much more satisfactory, from the point of view of the solicitor, to be able to say to the client, "Let us go to trial: then we shall have the depositions and shall be able to consider the whole thing calmly and quietly before it gets to the Crown Court, and we shall be able to manage the whole thing very much more satisfactorily." There is a very great temptation to give that advice to the client at the moment. That temptation would be very much reduced if, 24 hours before the hearing, you were presented with the evidence that is going to be put in.
The job of a solicitor defending in the magistrates' court is often very much more difficult than that of a barrister defending in the Crown Court, because he does not know the case that he has to meet. He has to think on his feet and try to foresee what witnesses may be called. For example, in a shoplifting case, if there is a straight controversy as to what happened and what the detective saw, and so on, when you come to cross-examine the first witness for the prosecution—it may be the detective—and he or she gives an account of what he or she saw take place, you do not know at that time what other witnesses will later be called. Therefore, you do not know how fully you ought to go into the cross-examination of that witness in order
652
later on to be able to point to inconsistencies in the evidence of the other witnesses. Therefore, you are forced to go into a prolonged cross-examination of that witness, upon every aspect of his or her evidence, in the hope that you may be finding out something which will prove inconsistent with what is going to be said later by another witness. In the Crown Court, all that is eliminated, because you know precisely what the other witnesses are going to say.
The Government have accepted the recommendations of the James Committee on these matters that we shall be coming to later, that in cases of so-called trivial theft there shall be no right of trial, with the express object of reducing the burden of the Crown Court. Therefore it seems to me most remarkable that that same Government have rejected the recommendation of the James Committee which would have provided what the noble and learned Lord wants to do and that would, as the James Committee say, have had a significant influence in reducing the number of cases going to the Crown Court.
The difference, of course, is that when you deny a defendant accused of a small theft the right to go to trial, you are denying him a right that he previously had. If you can induce him, by making trial before the magistrates more attractive and safer, in his view, than it is now, then you have achieved the same object, but you have done it without having to change the law as is proposed under Clause 23, in the very serious way which we shall doubtless later come to discuss.
Therefore, I would urge on the Government that they should give serious consideration to this. I recognise what the noble and learned Lord means when he says he will not press his Amendment at this stage, because Clause 23 may itself, hopefully, be altered. But whether or not that takes place, I hope that at a later stage we shall return to the general question as to whether there should be this right of foreknowledge as to the case against the defendant, at any rate upon those charges which are triable either way.
Lord WIGODER: Might I just ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whether it would be thought desirable that we should at the

653
present moment also consider Amendments Nos. 56 and 57, which deal with substantially the same issue of pre-trial disclosure at the magistrates' courts, or whether it would be thought more helpful if we came to those in the ordinary way?
4.30 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Lord has anticipated the point I was about to make; namely, that I was able to give a guarantee almost immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that we shall indeed be able to come back to this because the issue is dealt with by the noble Lord's Amendment later and also in the Amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. I think perhaps it might be more tidy, given the fact that we have now had this short debate, for me to deal briefly with the narrower question raised in this particular Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
I will touch briefly on the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, which is the point of substance, and then next Tuesday, when we shall be taking up this matter further, we shall be able to have a debate in the knowledge of what the Government's position is on this matter. If that is to the convenience of the noble Lord, I am much obliged.
May I begin by making one point to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, about his last Amendment? We spent a formidable amount of time this morning on his Amendment, because it occurred to me that perhaps we were not able to follow what was in the noble and learned Lord's mind. I am bound to tell him that I was more than mildly alarmed at the prospect that there was some exceptionally subtle point, which was entirely escaping all the Home Office advisers who were surrounding me at that moment. So I was particularly grateful that he decided not to move it, and I look forward to seeing it at a later stage, perhaps in an amended form.
The Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has just moved deals with two issues: first, the point of disclosure—although his Amendment deals with disclosure only in certain cases—and, secondly, the right of the accused, or of the person representing him, to make a second speech. These are two separate compartments of his argument, and I
654
will deal with them in that way. As I have just said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, there are three Amendments which deal with the disclosure point—the one which we are now discussing and those of the noble Lord and of my noble and learned friend. All of these deal with various proposals, which would require the prosecution to disclose to the defence in advance of a hearing the nature of the evidence which they intended to offer. Of the three, the one nearest to what the James Committee recommended is that which has been put down by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner.
The effect of my noble and learned friend's Amendment would be, in substance, that a person charged with an offence triable either way would be entitled to receive, on request, copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, or, where such statements had not been prepared, a summary of the facts upon which the prosecution intended to rely. The present Amendment by the noble and learned Lord applies to a much more limited type of case, as he has recognised, but this would also have much the same effect in relation to that limited category of case. The third Amendment, No. 57, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, would instead give a regulation-making power to the Secretary of State to provide for the supply of copies of prosecution witnesses' statements "so far as is practicable", which is the language of his Amendment. Because the Government's view on this Amendment is closely related to some extent to their attitude on the other two, I will briefly touch on the other Amendments, particularly that of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner.
The major problem about my noble and learned friend's Amendment is where we would get the resources to implement it. We had yesterday a debate on the economic situation. I did not have the good fortune to be here, nor, I fear, have I yet had an opportunity of studying the speeches which were made, but I have a suspicion that a formidable number of speeches were made about the need to restrict public expenditure and, in the present situation, that is clearly of paramount importance. I must tell my noble and learned friend that the problem about his Amendment is that, in

655
our judgment, it would cost about £4 million a year to implement it. Of course, we can have an argument about how that figure is arrived at. The way in which we approached this matter was to get a study carried out by a large provincial police force, not far from London, to make a judgment about the effect in the area of that force and then to try to apply the lessons to the country as a whole. As I said, the figure would be £4 million and, quite bluntly, I fear that there are not the resources available to contemplate additional expenditure of that kind in the current economic situation.
I know that this will be a matter of some sadness to my noble and learned friend, but, at a time when we are having to make very substantial cuts, it would be very difficult to justify additional expenditure of this kind. The expenditure would particularly arise in police forces which are already under substantial pressure to limit their civilian manpower, and, in my view, it would be quite impossible to contemplate a situation where we add additional responsibility to the responsibilities which they already have. I am sorry to take such a negative view, because I know it will certainly displease my noble and learned friend, but I am afraid that at the moment, for the reason I have given, it would not be possible to contemplate expenditure of that order.
I come now to the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, which deals with a narrower question and has nothing like the resource implications. The proposal from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is much more limited, because it applies only to the offences mentioned in Schedule 2—that is, offences which at present are triable only on indictment, but which under the Bill would become triable summarily with the consent of the accused—and the offences to which Clause 23 applies. That is the second category. It follows, as I have indicated, that acceptance of an Amendment on those lines would have substantially smaller cost implications than would be the case with my noble and learned friend's Amendment. We estimate that about 700 people a year will choose to be tried summarily for offences now triable only on indictment, and the sum of money involved in providing the witness statements would therefore be quite small, and would not,
656
in any case, be extra expenditure. The provision about small thefts, which we shall be coming to later, and small criminal damage would involve some expenditure—around £200,000 a year, of which about two-thirds would be attributable to small thefts and one-third to small criminal damage.
However, the difficulty which we see about the noble and learned Lord's Amendment does not relate so much to the financial implications, as to the difficulty of finding a logical justification for dealing with this type of offence. If the information is of help to the defence in these cases, it is difficult to build a case for restricting it in this manner. I can see some argument for cases formerly triable only on indictment, because these are offences which have hitherto been considered as particularly grave ones—though the reason why the James Committee recommended that they should be transferred to the either way category is that they are no longer regarded as being quite so grave as at the time the Statutes creating them were first enacted. However, it would be particularly difficult to argue that there should be full disclosure of statements by prosecution witnesses where a small theft or a small degree of criminal damage was involved, but that there should be no statutory requirement if the theft or criminal damage was large. I listened with great care to what the noble and learned Lord said. I would not, for the reason I have indicated, want to give him any encouragement at the moment for thinking that we shall be able to change our position, but, obviously, I will reflect with my colleagues on what he has said today.
I can, I think, be slightly more accommodating on the second point that he raised; namely, the right of the defence to a second speech. We have a number of doubts about this subsection of the new clause. First, we are not sure about the logic of restricting the change, if a change is to be made, to these offences. If there is a case for the provision, we think it should properly apply to all offences which under the Bill will be triable either way. Secondly, whatever the merits of the proposal may be, we do not think it is necessary to have fresh legislation, because this is a matter which can be dealt with by an amendment of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, which are made by my noble

657
and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Rule Committee.
Thirdly, so far as the merits of this proposal are concerned, I do not think that it introduces a very radical change. Nevertheless, we should certainly want to consult a number of other bodies about the proposal which the noble and learned Lord has made. Therefore, before we take a firm view on this part of his proposal, we should like to consult the various organisations concerned with court proceedings, such as the Magistrates' Association, the Justices' Clerks Society and, of course, the Law Society and the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar. Certainly we shall do that but, as I have indicated, it could be done without legislation. However, if the noble and learned Lord has any more views on the matter in the light of what I have said, I will certainly consider them.
Lord GARDINER: I do not desire to address the Committee now on my Amendment. Naturally, I want to have an opportunity to consider carefully what my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has said. However, may I ask him one question. Not unnaturally, a large proportion of all our crime takes place in the great metropolis. As we know, the James problem is a London problem so far as the Crown Courts are concerned. Also, the magistrates' courts are in difficulties in London. When we are dealing with London, are we really thinking about a choice between 12 ordinary citizens and the justice of the peace, or are we talking about the choice between 12 ordinary citizens and one upper class professional lawyer who does the same kind of work with the same briefs day after day, week after week, month after month? I do not know. What is the proportion of London cases which are heard by justices of the peace and what is the proportion of London cases which are heard by stipendiary magistrates?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, two questions which arise from the Amendment of my noble and learned friend. It may be that at a later stage it could help to produce some kind of generally agreed Amendment. I have considered the Amendment, I hope fairly carefully. It seems to me that the result of
658
subsection (1) of his Amendment would be this: that in, for instance, a case of shoplifting—what we might call at this stage a Section 23 case—the inevitable effect would be that, at the very earliest, no case could be tried until 48 hours after the arrest had taken place in order that the procedures under subsection (2) (that is to say, notice that the prosecution intend that the case should proceed in a summary fashion and the preparation and serving on the accused of copies of any statement) could be carried out.
In the Chambers where I was practising, young members of the Bar started their career by prosecuting shoplifters in very large numbers. On many weary days I repaired to Marlborough Street at ten o'clock and the assorted humanity from Oxford Street was duly brought in. As anybody who reads the newspapers knows, a great many of these people are, first, foreign; secondly, on holiday; and, thirdly, subject to some kind of timetable. Therefore, with the best will in the world so far as my noble and learned friend is concerned, this provision, which is designed to help the accused in such instances, would in many cases be far less than warmly welcomed, if only from the point of view that a case to which they intend to plead guilty at the end, anyway, if they can summon up enough English or an interpreter so to do, is going to be delayed for 48 hours for the service of documents in which they are probably not interested. That seems to me to be a certain drawback so far as the first part of the Amendment is concerned.
So far as the second part of the Amendment is concerned, which deals with a second speech by the defence in a magistrates' court, I am not going to join in the general debate on the virtues and vices of one form of trial or another. Anybody who has practised in these courts has stories, both funny and tragic, to relate about what goes on in them. If I were prosecuting a case in a magistrates' court, especially that of a shoplifter, certainly I should not relish two speeches on the part of the advocate or solicitor representing the defendant.
I think it was in 1962 that an Act was enacted, as a result of the pressure applied by Mr.Ogden at the Bar, by which the defence has the last word. I should have thought that if there were any question in

659
the magistrates' court of the defence not having the last word then, either by some kind of an enactment which could possibly be imposed on the Bill or else by Rules of Court, the same effect could be achieved.
Lord WIGODER: While the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is preparing to answer a number of questions may I ask him one more? In calculating the additional expenditure that would be caused by the need to provide the defence with copies of prosecution witness statements made in the magistrates' courts, has any corresponding deduction been made first of all for the number of cases that as a result would be triable summarily and not on indictment? Secondly, has any deduction been made for the number of cases that would then result in pleas of guilty at the magistrates' court instead of lengthy committal proceedings, followed by trials, again at the Crown Court? Unless one is able in some way to envisage the results of Amendments such as those we are discussing on the balance of work, it seems to me that any figure which is given that merely relates to the existing balance of work is going to be wholly artificial.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: May I endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said about the large number of shoplifting cases where any delay in obtaining documents would be greatly resented by the accused. My experience of hearing a great many shoplifting cases in the West End of London is that the typical case is the visitor from overseas who has £5 left in his pocket and who has a place booked on a plane to go home on Tuesday. Not only do you have to get the case taken quickly, but there is no effective penalty which you can impose.
4.48 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: A large number of points have been raised and I will try to deal with them to the best of my ability. The first was raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. It was a statistical question relating to London. If I possibly can, I shall try to find the answer to that point before we come to the noble and learned Lord's Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, then raised two questions. First, he asked about the possibility of
660
delay. There is that possibility, particularly in terms of this Amendment. I would not want to place too much emphasis on this point because, as I indicated when I spoke, the number of cases which would be covered by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord is fairly limited. The delay problem would possibly be much greater if we were to incorporate the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in his Amendment. However, I do not regard that as a very persuasive argument in terms of the Amendment that we are discussing now.
The noble Earl then came to the second speech point. Obviously, as I indicated, there are going to be differences of opinion relating to the second speech. That is why the Government wish to consult the various organisations, such as the Law Society and the other bodies which I mentioned. We want to take the view of those practitioners and others who are involved in the matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has put it forward and certainly we wish to be accommodating. Therefore we shall endeavour to find out what are the views of those who are primarily concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, then asked a question. I had indicated that it was going to cost possibly as much as £4 million a year if we adopted the proposal of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. In our view, that is certain additional expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked if we could make a calculation of whether people would choose summary trial if the Amendment were to be incorporated in the Bill. I fear that the answer is, No, it is quite impossible. It may be that more people would do so, but there is not certainty about it.
In our judgment, the one certain fact at the moment is that the Amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, if adopted, would cost an additional £4 million and there would be substantial additional resource implications so far as the Police Service is concerned. I must repeat that in the present economic situation it is quite impossible to envisage changing the law in this way with resource implications of that character. It would have a profound

661
effect on the Police Service and we cannot just brush this away at a time when there is such stringent—and properly stringent—control of public expenditure.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: At the outset I promised that I was going to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment; but before I actually carry out my promise—which of course I shall do—I should like to comment to some extent upon the debate which has taken place. I hope the Committee feels that it has been useful. I personally think it is important. These matters have been on my mind for a long time and I am glad to know that experienced practitioners like the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, have shared my anxieties about it. They remain anxieties, and I am bound to admit frankly, to begin with, that they are not limited to the limited class of case which I sought to introduce.
I do not think I require justification for limiting in this way. I always have instructions—or at least petitions almost amounting to instructions—from my Commons colleagues that I should not propose things involving additional expenditure, because your Lordships know what things are down there. They say, "The Tories are insincere. Every time they ask for less Government expenditure they do nothing but put forward Motions involving increased expenditure". Of course that is all rubbish. But at the same time I am a most punctiliously loyal member of my Party, and I thought the thing could be justified in a good way because the class of case to which I have limited my proposals is precisely the class of case in which the Government are proposing to take away the right to trial by jury. If you are taking away a right, then in my view an additional safeguard in place of it is justified.
I fully agree with the general approach to this problem made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, if it can be carried out; and I would say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich: it is all very well to say that it will cost £4 million, but there are people in this country—and I am not sure that I am not one of them—who think that we ought to put a priority on justice as the first of the social services. It is not really satisfactory to say that you are going to
662
try people, whether summarily or otherwise, for offences which have hitherto been triable on indictment, and you really cannot afford to give them a fair trial in the new method.
It seems to me that £4 million could be saved somehow, on the noble Lord's expenditure or perhaps on the expenditure in some other Government Department, so that there would not be a net increase at all. In £50,000 million, which is what we are spending every year, I should expect to find at least £4 million worth of "fat" to be able to spend on providing elementary justice for the subject. Therefore I am not altogether impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, despite the instructions which I have received from my colleagues in the Commons. I have justified so far as I can my choice of the narrow segment to which this particular Amendment refers, and I have done it on the basis that you are taking away a right and I am entitled to insert a safeguard in place of the right you are taking away.
Secondly, I would say both to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and to my noble friend Lord Mansfield, that I would not altogether be satisfied with the last word when I was calling a lot of witnesses in a case involving the reputation of my client. Take the case of Docherty, for instance, which was a shoplifting case. In that case there were 53 potential witnesses for the defence, all of whom would have testified to the innocence of the accused; and not to be able to comment as well as open in in such a case, I should have thought would have been an injustice, and although I do not remember what was the amount of the property lifted, it might well have been less than £20 and it would have had the same result if it had been. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who will remember the case very well, does remember what the amount was. So my noble friend's suggestion would not wholly satisfy me although of course it would be an improvement on the existing situation.
I really do not think it would be wholly satisfactory to go round the Bar Council and the solicitors and the magistrates, and so on. It would take a great deal of time. This is the first time in my experience in Parliament, which goes back now to 1938, that we have been able to discuss this problem at all. Will it be

663
another 40 years before we get another chance, if the Government do not do what we want? I hope not. And when we come to this subject again, as we shall do on the Committee stage and probably later on Report, I should relish the Government being a little more forthcoming with positive assurances that, either here or in another place, they will themselves undertake to make Amendments, at any rate in the sense, if not in the terms, that I have proposed.
There was a good point about delays made by my noble friend. It is possible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, said, that in some shoplifting cases, where ladies out of the harem "lift" something in Oxford Street because they go berserk when they see how rich we are in this country, that can be got over by means of a drafting Amendment. I think one only need put in an Amendment that these provisions could be waived where necessary, and that problem could be got round. I think the debate has been a useful one. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for not turning me down flat, and, as I promised to do, I now ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Initial procedure on information for offence triable either way]:
4.58 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 13, line 13, leave out from ("proceed") to ("if") in line 14 and insert ("in the absence of the accused in accordance with such of the provisions of sections 20 to 23 below as are applicable in the circumstances").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely procedural Amendment and I hope it will not give the Committee much trouble. Perhaps I may first comment on the economic plans of the noble and learned Lord opposite for raising £4 million. I cannot resist saying that it is an argument I use about twice a month, but I have not so far been very successful!
The object of these two Amendments is to relieve the court of the necessity of going through a rather elaborate procedure which is suitable when the
664
defendant is present but which is not suitable when he is not present. Clause 19 (3) enables a magistrates' court to proceed with the determination of mode of trial in the absence of the accused where he has been removed from the courtroom for noisy behaviour, which increasingly one finds happening, certainly in a number of Irish cases. As the subsection is drafted, the court is required to work through each of the various procedural steps set out in Clauses 20 to 23. But if the defendant has had to be removed and is not legally represented there is clearly little point in doing all this.
The only possible outcome in these circumstances, if the accused will not answer, or answer sensibly, is committal proceedings. Therefore the court should be able to move straight to Clause 21(3)(b), which provides that it shall proceed, as examining justices, to inquire into the information. Similarly, where in any case trial on indictment appears to the court to be more suitable, the procedures in Clause 22(2)—which require the court, before so deciding, to explain to the accused that he has a right to make any representations in favour of summary trial and to give him the opportunity to do so—serve no purpose where an unrepresented accused has been removed from the court-room by reason of disorderly conduct and is not prepared to listen or to answer rationally. The Amendment to Clause 19(3) would allow the court to miss out the stages of the procedure which were clearly inapplicable in these circumstances.
The Second Amendment, to which, by leave of the Committee, I will also speak, is an Amendment to Clause 24(2) and is consequential. Clause 24(2) at present provides that where an accused is represented by counsel or solicitor, who in the absence of the accused signifies the accused is consent to the mode of trial proceedings being conducted in his absence, the court may (if satisfied that there is good reason for doing so) proceed in the absence of the accused—
"in accordance with such of the provisions of sections 20 to 23…as apply in the circumstances".
The word "apply" is used simply to take account of the fact that Clauses 21 and 22 are mutually exclusive. But the rather subtle suggestion is that it would be better,

665
if Clause 19(3) is accepted, to use the word "applicable" instead of "apply", and that is what the second Amendment attempts to do. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.2 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 13, line 38, at end insert (", but the foregoing provision shall not be taken to authorise the summary trial of an information by a magistrates' court composed of less than two justices.").
The noble Lord said: This again is an Amendment about procedure, though rather more weighty than the last. Under the existing law a single justice may commit an accused for trial at the Crown Court but may not try him summarily. When an accused charged with an indictable offence first appears, the justices are examining justices, and the functions of examining justices may be discharged by a single justice. The examining justice or justices must then commit for trial at the Crown Court unless, either the offence is listed in the First Schedule to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 as triable summarily with the accused's consent, or, secondly, the accused asks for summary trial and the justice or justices agree to this course.
However, if the accused does ask for summary trial and the examining magistrate, if sitting alone, agrees, he then cannot proceed to try the case summarily because Section 98 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 provides that a magistrates' court may not try an information summarily except when composed of at least two justices. The examining magistrate, therefore, has to adjourn to enable a full court to be brought together. This will also apply under the Bill. Clause 19(5) enables the mode of trial proceedings to be conducted by a single justice, but if the justice decides that the case is more suitable for trial in the magistrates' court (and the accused consents to summary trial) he will have to adjourn the proceedings to enable a full court to be brought together. The purpose of this Amendment is to make this possible. I beg to move.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I am very grateful to my noble friend for having moved this Amendment. It covers a point which I raised on Second Reading, As the Bill now stands, it reads:
666
"The functions of a magistrates' court under sections 20 to 24 below may be discharged by a single justice."
The functions described below in Clauses 20 to 24 do include the hearing of summary trial, and no reference is made to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 which prevents a single justice from performing this function. I did, therefore, feel that any simple lay person reading this would believe that a single justice could do it. I am very grateful to my noble friend for having cleared up the point.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: May I ask the noble Lord a question. I am not absolutely certain whether it fits under this particular Amendment. As I have been a magistrate for a very long time, I am naturally interested in all the discussion going on. As this Bill—when we have decided upon the Amendments we are going to include—has to go through both the Commons and the Lords, it would be extremely useful if we knew who are magistrates, because most of these things have to be discussed, of course, with the Magistrates' Association and all the various bodies. It is going to be extremely difficult for people who have never been a magistrate to understand all the complications which can arise.
When I was in another place for such a long time there hardly seemed to be any magistrates at all. Whenever there was a General Election a large number of people would come rushing round asking me whether I would sign their election expenses; of course, I was delighted to do it. When we are dealing with a very complicated Bill like this, which has to be passed by the Commons and the Lords and has to be implemented afterwards, it seems to me that it will be very difficult for Members of another place, as well as perhaps Members in this place, to know all the complications if they have never had any magisterial experience.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think magistrates' labels is a matter which we may come to. In dairy farming it is usually considered that the better dairyman does not need to number his cows; he knows them by their faces and their performances. So I do not feel certain that this is really necessary. I do not think the Government would take a view against it. It would be up

667
to the Magistrates' Association. I, unfortunately, never having been a magistrate, would be unable to wear a badge.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Court to begin by considering which mode of trial appears more suitable]:
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount DILHORNE: There is one point I should like to raise in regard to this clause. This concerns where we get to the position where the court is required to make decisions not on evidence but on representations. It provides that the court is to have regard to representations in deciding which is the more suitable mode of trial, summary trial or trial on indictment. Subsection (2) specifies the matters to which the court—which may be a single justice—must have regard; the nature of the case, whether the circumstances make the offence one of a serious character, whether the punishment which the magistrates' court would have power to inflict would be adequate, and any other circumstances which appear to the court to make it more suitable for the offence to be tried in one way rather than the other.
That must involve a very considerable investigation into the full character of the case; that is, its gravity. It may be a serious charge or not such a serious charge but a serious case because of the circumstances in which the offence was committed. I am not objecting to such an inquiry or to it being based upon representations. But what does worry me a little is this: is it really right that the magistrate who conducts that deep investigation before hearing any evidence should then go on and hear that case? May it not be the position that a magistrate will have his mind affected, when he comes to hear the evidence, by what he has heard already from both sides in the way of representations, and particularly perhaps representations by the prosecution as to the gravity of the offence. I say this because I think it arises out of what Lord Donaldson said just now; that is, that a single magistrate could not sit but would have to adjourn and be joined by someone else. I think it would be very desirable
668
if you could provide that the magistrates who conduct this inquiry, in settling the mode of trial, should not be the magistrates who would preside over the trial if the decision was that it should be a summary trial. I should have thought that that would not involve £4 million in expenditure. It would not involve undue delay and, therefore, I hope that the suggestion will be favourably considered. This occurred to me when I read the Bill, but having regard to the fate of so many of my Amendments I did not take the trouble to table one.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Certainly I have no intention of censuring the noble and learned Viscount for not having done so. He has made the point and I should like to consider it. His suggestion could have significant implications and I should like to reflect on it.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Certain offences triable either way to be tried summarily if value involved is small]:
5.11 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 15, line 40, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Lord said: The proposal contained in the first part of Clause 23 of the Bill is one that has been viewed with very great concern by wide sections of the public. Having listened to the interesting speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Brockway, perhaps it might be convenient if, in a sentence or two, I indicate my general approach to Part III of the Bill—an approach which is perhaps shared by other noble Lords who are associated with this Amendment.
Undoubtedly in the year 1973 there was a case for considering whether pressure on the Crown Courts might be relieved by a distribution of work so that more work went to the magistrates' courts, taking away to that extent from the Crown Courts. It was right to have looked into the matter and it was eminently right for the Committee to have been appointed. The public owe a great debt of gratitude to the late Lord Justice James and his

669
colleagues for the wonderful report that they produced. I, and many other noble Lords, gratefully accept the major part of all the recommendations. We believe that there was a case to distribute business and that it is right to allocate business so that many matters are now made triable only summarily. Where some of us have great alarm at this first part of Clause 23, and where the dividing line comes, is where there are offences which, because they involve honesty; involve the honour and the reputation of the accused. We believe that there is, in principle, a dividing line and that we should be taking a retrograde step if were we to put those cases into the category of cases that can be tried only summarily, thereby withdrawing the right to trial by jury.
As your Lordships well know, the effect of the first part of Clause 23 as it stands would be to take away from someone charged with the theft of property of a value not exceeding £20 a right which he has always enjoyed—the right to have the charge tried by a jury of his countrymen. Many charges that at present would entitle someone to have trial by jury, many of us feel could now, rightly, be put in the other category. However, I submit, for reasons which I shall endeavour to outline to your Lordships, that the case for changing the law by withdrawing the right in the case of charges of theft because the property is of a value under £20 has not been made out. I submit that that step would be a retrograde step.
A real question of principle is involved here and I very much hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. If it is accepted it will restore and so maintain the existing right and would withdraw the strange and illogical fetter which this clause would impose. If we are considering whether a charge is or is not serious or whether an offence is or is not trivial, can we possibly say that it is serious if the amount is £21 but it is trivial if the amount is £19? Honour and reputation are not to be measured by such irrelevant and barren tests.
The right to trial by jury on the charge of theft has always existed. And why? Because inherent in our system is the procedure that serious charges are to be tried by a jury. Until the middle of the last century the normal mode of trial for
670
criminal offences was trial on indictment by a judge and jury. Justices had of course extensive criminal jurisdiction when sitting in quarter sessions with a jury, but their summary jurisdiction was very limited. Then as time went on many offences deemed by the community to be minor offences were made triable only summarily. There are, of course, a very great number of them. Then came certain provisions enabling some indictable offences to be triable summarily. There were some provisions which enabled justices to try some cases of theft with the consent of the accused.
However, ever since 1879 there has been a general statutory right to claim trial by jury where the maximum sentence on summary conviction exceeds three months' imprisonment. Why then should we change that existing right? It is said: "Oh well, the courts are rather pressed." So they are. But it is acknowledged that cases that involve serious charges should be tried in the higher courts. Is it said that now and for the future charges of stealing when the value is under £20 must be regarded as less serious than they used to be? What are the criteria? Great consideration was given to them in the James Report.
I point out, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, pointed out, that the terms of reference of the James Committee involved a consideration, within the framework of the existing court structure, of what should be the distribution of criminal business. It was no inquiry as to whether we want to change the framework of the existing court structure; as to whether there are any improvements to be made in methods of trial. It was merely whether we can now put some offences in the category that they can only be tried summarily, whereas before they were offences in the category that enabled the accused to have a jury if he so wished.
Over and again in the report it is recognised that the more serious offences should be tried in the Crown Court and the less serious offences in the magistrates' courts. Paragraph 35 of the James Report:
"The present system, in which there are two levels of courts of trial, is based upon the premise that the most serious offences should be tried by the Crown Court and the less serious by the magistrates' courts."

671
With respect, I would say that is absolutely right. Paragraph 41 of the report deals with the criteria that should be under consideration. It poses the question:
"What are the criteria for deciding whether an offence should be tried on indictment in the Crown Court or at least be capable of trial there?"
Then they point out that the test of what is serious involves considering what is serious from the point of view of the country, the community, or what is serious from true point of view of the individual. Towards the end of that paragraph they say:
"But they need not coincide: a trivial theft is not a serious threat to society, but it may be of great importance to the defendant if conviction is liable to result in the loss of his reputation or livelihood."
And they finish:
"For the purpose of determining whether an offence should be triable on indictment the primary consideration must be the seriousness of the offence in the eyes of society. It is right that society's view of the most serious offences should be signified by their being tried in the higher level of court."
They say:
"It would be impracticable, even if it were desirable, to categorize offences in accordance with their importance to the defendant…"
I would not, with great respect, wholly agree with that. I should think that surely in the interests of the country it would be right to consider the individual and his position.
If you are taking the test of what is serious from the point of view of the country, in paragraph 74 of the Report it is said:
"The aim of the system for regulating the distribution of criminal business between the Crown Court and magistrates' courts must, therefore, be to ensure that, as far as possible, the offences tried in the Crown Court are the most serious two to three per cent. of offences. (As we have said, in this context the primary consideration must be the seriousness of the offence in the eyes of society.")
If one takes that test, has anything changed in the year 1977? Up to now on the charge of theft the accused has had the right, and always had the right, to go for trial before a jury if he so wished. Is it now to be said that stealing is to be regarded as less serious than it was? The Commandment tells us, "Thou shalt not steal". Would anyone wish to say that in 1977 you can add a little addendum,
672
"but you need not worry so much if the amount is under £20"?
If the test is seriousness in the eyes of society are we really to say that in 1977 the eyes of society are prepared to blink? Take the case of a man charged with stealing a £5 note. Supposing he says, "I am entirely innocent, and I want this matter investigated in the way in which it has always been possible for someone placed as I am to have it investigated". He may say, "I can well understand that there were circumstances which caused some people to take a mistaken view. I can well understand how it comes about that I was charged, but I am absolutely innocent, and I want to run no risk what-so-ever. I want to have this case fully investigated. I want to have the case for the prosecution developed so that I know fully what it is. If I go for trial I will have a professional judge, and there will be 12 of my countrymen who will be deciding whether I am guilty or not. I am convinced that they will, without doubt, say that I am innocent". Will not he say, "What does it matter whether it is a £5 note or a £10 note, my reputation is involved just the same. Five pounds does not matter.
'who steals my purse, steals trash;
'its something, nothing;'—
It was his; it was mine—
'and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed '."
It may be said, "But would not such a man be acquitted by the magistrates?" Very likely he would. But he has always known that he has the right to a different trial. He has known that the charge of stealing has been a serious charge. In wishing to go before a jury and to exercise his right he is not reflecting in any way on the trial before magistrates.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, cited a leader that was in The Times newspaper, and the opening words extol belief in this country of trial by jury. I thought that was a very effective passage. Not one single word will I utter by way of criticism of magistrates. I have infinite respect for their work. I have the advantage of a period of 30 years as deputy chairman and 26 years as chairman of quarter sessions. I had infinite opportunity to observe the work of

673
magistrates. I know how zealously they discharge their duties, how anxiously they face their responsibilities. They take a lot of trouble. They go to courses and they are well advised by skilled advisers. But it is a different system. The trial before the jury will be a continuous trial. The accused will know what the case against him is, and he is fully entitled to say, "Well, that is the kind of trial that I want, and I have always been entitled to it". Why should it be taken away from him?
Of course I am prepared to recognise that there are cases where an accused person has elected to go before a jury for unworthy reasons. He may think, "Well, I know I am guilty but you never know with a jury; they may return a sympathetic verdict. I cannot lose very much by going", and so he goes—an unworthy motive. The wit and charm of the Irish people were much in evidence in the remark made by a judge who had been trying criminal cases many years ago in Limerick. The jury returned a verdict of "Not guilty" and the judge said to the prisoner: "You are discharged. You may go. And I may add that you leave this court without a stain on your character, beyond that you have been acquitted by a Limerick jury!" There is no situation where the argument is entirely one way; I have never known any debate in your Lordships' House where it can be said that all the argument directs one conclusion, and it would be foolish not to acknowledge that there are different points. However, I submit that in this respect the arguments against a charge are overwhelming.
We should also be told more about the figures involved, apart altogether from the principle. We do not yet know how many cases are involved in this suggested change. I had from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, this morning the figures that other noble Lords have had and I thank him for his courtesy in letting us have them. Do we anywhere find in those figures the number of cases that would be affected by this proposal? We can see from the figures that in regard to all cases of theft—I exclude theft from the person because that is exluded from the Bill—if my mathematics are right, 215,000 or more cases of theft go to the magistrates' court, and it is significant that, of those, no fewer than 196,000 plead
674
guilty. None of that will be changed if the Committee accepts the Amendment because many of the people will say "Far better for me to get this over", or "Of course I am guilty", or "They have found me out and there is nothing I can do". Of shoplifting cases, if my additions are correct, and likely they are not, about 67,000 cases go before the magistrates and over 61,000 of them plead guilty.
Consider the Crown Court. We have some figures of cases where the amount is under £5. It seems that the number is very small, under 2,000. I would be glad to know, when the time comes for us to be given information, whether that figure is about right. No figures are available where the figure is under £20. Should we not know before we are invited to make this change? It is said that there are other cases where honour is affected and where there is at present no right to go to a jury; a case of travelling on the railway without paying fare and with intent to cheat is one. It may be that cases where honour is so affected are cases where there should be the right but where there is no right at present. Then it is sometimes said that there is always an appeal and that the man who is convicted can appeal and have a re-hearing. I suggest that that is a forlorn argument; though a successful appeal will to a great extent remove stigma, it cannot wholly remove it.
Then we must face up to the question as to why this change is proposed, and it is summarised in the report at paragraph 87 under the heading of "The Choice to be made" in these words:
"We think that small theft should not be triable on indictment. We have come to this conclusion only after long and careful consideration of the cogent arguments for and against the proposal. In the last analysis society has to choose between two conflicting aims. On the one hand is the existing right of the citizen to be tried by a judge and jury on any charge of theft of criminal damage"—
My Amendment deals only with theft; I am not demurring to the new proposal in regard to criminal damage because I do not think questions of honour and reputation are similarly involved—
"however small the amount involved. On the other is the right, especially important to anyone defending a serious charge, to be tried as soon as possible. These two requirements have to be met with resources which are finite and cannot be

675
further expanded without limit. At present, defendants on serious charges are suffering the injustice of long-delayed trial while the time of the Crown Court is partly occupied with minor cases of low monetary value."
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his very powerful speech on Second Reading, asked: where is the possibility in this part of the country of putting more work into the magistrates' court? Where is the greatest pressure and where are the greatest delays? The noble Lord asked a number of questions as to whether it really was practical politics in this part of the country to put further work on magistrates when it is very difficult already to get dates. Thus, his argument, which I thought was so powerful, was that this really involves tampering with a principle of importance in the interests of a non-existent expediency; and that the change is being made for reasons of expediency cannot be denied.
My noble and learned friend Lord Edmund-Davies has asked me to say that he regrets not being able to be here this afternoon owing to a commitment made a long time ago which he could not possibly avoid. In his Second Reading speech, in reference to this argument of the report, he said that the attainment of speed for the second man must not be purchased by denying the first man a right which has been his for centuries. I am thinking of the absent-minded scholar who goes into a shop, picks up a book and takes it away with him without paying for it. I am thinking of the absent-minded housewife who takes something but who never intended to steal it. I am thinking of the honest person who, in agony, says, "The defence that I will put forward is the sort of defence that will have been heard time and again. Will they believe it?". I am thinking of the employee who is charged with taking something from a fellow employee. I am thinking of the man whose post will be lost if he is convicted of theft, whatever the amount. I am thinking of the man who may lose his pension if he is convicted of theft of a small amount. I am thinking of the man whose place in society will be irretrievably lost if he is convicted of an offence involving dishonesty.
Why is this change being made? I have great sympathy with the difficulties of every Lord Chancellor, each one of whom has
676
done so much in recent years to try to cope with the problem. They have provided new judge power and they have been able to produce accommodation in places in which one would at first have been surprised to think that a criminal trial was taking place. They have done everything possible, but I am thinking of the point of view of the accused who says, "I want to go for trial: why can't I?". Do we say, "We are very sorry, we really are rather pressed because there is a lot of crime and we cannot allow you to have the trial you would always have had in the past?" Would the accused not be entitled to say, "I am sorry, it isn't my fault that there is all this crime. I am an innocent man and if the charge is presented against me surely I must be allowed to defend myself in the way people in my position have always been able to defend themselves?" I suggest that there are many ways of shortening trials that might well relieve the present position. I submit that here is an important point of principle and that the case for a change involving the withdrawal of a cherished right has not been made out.
Viscount DILHORNE: But—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: In view of what I propose to say, it may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this moment if the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, will permit me to do so. This is clearly a crucial part of the Bill and it raises a very important question. As I see it, the question we have to consider on this Amendment is whether small thefts are to be treated as of so serious a nature as to justify giving those accused the right to elect trial by jury, assuming, as we have to assume, that the resources available to the Crown Court where the accused would have to be tried will continue to be limited while the volume of work coming forward for jury trial continues to increase. That is the problem.
I have said that we must assume limited resources. What does that mean in terms of the administration of justice? The fact is that we are facing an increase in crime that inevitably results in an increase in the case loads for the courts at all levels. This creates a demand for judge power, for more court buildings, for more court staff and for other resources. So far as judge power is

677
concerned, I cannot appoint a new circuit judge every time 200 more cases come to be tried in the Crown Court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, has asked what numbers we are concerned with in this matter. Twenty-two thousand persons a year now opt for jury trial in charges involving thefts of property under the value of £20. That equals the work of 10 full-time circuit judges. Court rooms, as Lord Chancellors present here and I well know, are a pressing problem. Leaving aside accommodation which is now coming forward for completion, there is no question of new permanent accommodation for the Crown Court becoming available in the foreseeable future. The possibility of temporary or shared accommodation has been pretty well exhausted. At the same time, the court service is now subject to expenditure limits and limits on staffing like all other Government Departments.
This is not only a matter of resources, but a matter of principle which, I believe, was faced up to by the James Committee when it said,
"We have approached the issues from the standpoint of principle."
Of course it is that standpoint upon which the noble and learned Lord has also stood. However, this is how the James Committee approached it:
"Our aim has been to determine what distribution of criminal business between the Crown Court and the magistrates' courts is most consistent with the interests of justice, balancing the interests of defendant, the prosecution, the public and the courts to which the public entrusts the administration of the criminal law, and taking account of the need in any system of criminal justice to ensure that accused persons are brought to trial quickly and efficiently. The demands made on the Crown Court by the volume of criminal business and the considerable expense of trial in the Crown Court are important factors to be taken into account, but they are not the only factors."
When the House debated the matter on Second Reading, there was some doubt—and this has been expressed today by the noble and learned Lord—as to whether the James Committee was right when it said that the primary consideration in determining whether an offence should be dealt with in the Crown Court was the seriousness of the offence in the objective sense—that is to say, the seriousness with which society regards the offence rather than the seriousness to the defendant
678
himself in terms of the consequences of conviction for him. I suppose that the argument against the view taken by the James Committee was eloquently expressed in the portion of Shakespeare that the noble and learned Lord quoted to us, though whether it comforts him to know that it was a speech of Iago, not Othello, is a matter for his impeccable judgment. However, the conclusion at any rate of the James Committee was that thefts of small value did not justify the elaborate and expensive method of Crown Court trial. The Committee decided that they could properly be tried summarily in the magistrates' court, from which, as the Committee emphasised—and I feel that this has not been sufficiently emphasised in the discussion of this matter—an appeal lies to the Crown Court and that, as your Lordships will know, involves a complete retrial of the case and an opportunity to call any fresh evidence that may be needed and to correct errors that may have occurred at the trial. Of course that facility is not available on an appeal from the Crown Court.
The clause, as drafted, gives effect to what the James Committee recommended. It was a Committee which was set up under the last Administration by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to consider the very problems that I have summarised. Its chairman, Lord Justice James, whose death we lament, was an able, humane, compassionate and respected judge who, I am quite sure, would not have sought to undermine the rights of those who were innocent or who claimed innocence. He had a great knowledge of the courts at all levels and I feel sure that, like myself, he would have been dismayed and concerned at the denigration of the quality of the justice administered in the magistrates' courts which has accompanied much of the comment on the issues which we are discussing. Of course this has not been the case in your Lordships' House; on the contrary, noble Lords have explicitly refuted those suggestions.
I am not saying that the administration of justice in the magistrates' courts is perfect and, if I may say so, I have a good deal of sympathy with the procedural suggestions mentioned earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. But I think that it is of very high quality.

679
Ever since the war, successive Lord Chancellors of both Parties have achieved through the appointments system and the training schemes for magistrates very considerable improvements in the standards of the magistracy. Of course magistrates do not claim that they produce uniformly ideal standards. Indeed, the reference to the Limerick judge indicates that the noble and learned Lord does not claim that for all jury decisions. It is said—quite unfairly, I think—about juries in my Principality of Wales, "Welsh juries are against crime but they are not dogmatic about it!" I do not accept that, of course, but there is no perfection, at any rate in regard to the administration of justice in the jury system.
I think that it is regrettable that so much public and printed discussion of this issue has in several instances been conducted in terms which denigrate the magistracy. It is worth reminding ourselves—I do this perhaps more for the benefit of those outside than for your Lordships who are familiar with the facts of the situation—of some basic facts. In 1975 no less than 87 per cent. of the 380,000 people charged with indictable offences triable summarily with the consent of the accused elected to be tried in the magistrates' courts. In the case of offences of theft—that is, what we are talking about today—which constitute by far the largest single category, the proportion of those who could have gone on trial by indictment but who chose to be tried summarily was 91 per cent. What confidence is shown there in the magistrate system.
When it is said that one does not have such a good chance of getting off (if that is the right way to put it) it is very interesting to note the success rate of appeals from magistrates, on the one hand, and from the Crown Court, on the other, to illustrate that the appeal systems operate. The success rate for those appealing from magistrates' courts to the Crown Court and for those granted leave to appeal from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal is not significantly different, so the appellate system would seem to be functioning with equal efficiency in both ranges of our courts.
With regard to the proposition which seems to be taken for granted by some learned leaders of the legal profession
680
in their correspondence with the newspapers—namely, that magistrates are less likely to acquit than are juries—my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has cited some of the remarkable figures that are published in Hansard today which present an opposite picture. So far as the theft aspect is concerned they show—and I encourage noble Lords to look at those interesting statistics—that for shoplifting offences of property of less than £5 52 per cent. of those pleading not guilty were acquitted by magistrates and 57 per cent. by the Crown Court. That is a little better performance—not much—by the Crown Court. Where the amount involved was £5 and over magistrates acquitted 50 per cent. where they pleaded "not guilty" and the Crown Court, 38 per cent.
Under the large general heading of Other Theft, magistrates acquitted 64 per cent. in fought cases involving less than £5, while the Crown Court acquitted 61 per cent. Where the amount involved was £5 and over magistrates acquitted 61 per cent. and the Crown Court 56 per cent. Where the principal offence charged—this is a matter of interest—was an assault on a constable, magistrates acquitted in 27 per cent. of contested cases and juries in 20 per cent. So one does not exactly get a view emerging from these statistics that magistrates are more prosecution-minded than are juries.
I now wish to press your Lordships to consider before we come to a conclusion on this matter what are the practical implications of removing Clause 23 from the Bill. As I have said already and on another occasion, we are suffering from continuing, increasing and cumulative delays of the bringing of cases to trial in the Crown Court. There are at present some 20,000 people awaiting trial. The situation in Brixton prison, which is the remand prison, was graphically described in a letter from a prisoner there which was published in the Guardian a few days ago, in which he said, incidentally, that he was not very impressed with my tears on their behalf. I do not blame him. The position is that, so far as he complained of overcrowding, of course there it is true. During 1976 Brixton was continually and heavily overcrowded, holding around 1,000 prisoners—we are talking about remand prisoners awaiting trial—in accommodation normally intended to hold 500.

681
The great majority of those prisoners were on remand from the courts or committed for trial. It is wrong to call them prisoners; they are people awaiting trial. Many of them will be acquitted and a larger number will never go to a custodial sentence at all. But when the prison there is full more than 309 men are trebled up in cells intended for one person and some of the 500 are doubled up. The strain on physical resources and on visiting conditions is considerable; so of course is the strain on those in custody there.
It has been suggested on Second Reading that the problem of delay in the Crown Court is largely confined to London. That is not so. It is true that the position in London is noticeably worse than it is in the rest of the country. The current average waiting time between committal and trial for all defendants, whether on bail or in custody, is 19·3 weeks in London, 13·1 weeks in the rest of the South-Eastern Circuit, which is a large circuit with a large number of courts, and 7·5 weeks for England and Wales excluding the South-Eastern Circuit. To this must be added the time, that is often substantial, spent in custody before committal.
But the problem goes beyond London for two reasons. First of all we have been holding down London waiting times by transferring business from there to the rest of the South-Eastern Circuit, whose figures have deteriorated steadily from 1972 up to now as a result. Secondly, although the figures for the rest of the country, apart from the South-Eastern Circuit, are noticeably lower than for London, there are clear signs of a deterioration in the rest of the country, in which following a reduction in waiting time in 1973 and 1974, there has since been a constant increase, so that the present position is worse than it was in 1972 when the Courts Act came into force.
It has been suggested, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, raised it in his speech, that delays before summary trials in magistrates' courts are no less than delays in the Crown Court, but that is not so. First it should be noted that waiting times in the Crown Court are computed from committal and until trial, and take no account of the period from arrest until
682
committal which tends to be far longer in Crown Court cases than in magistrates' court cases. Any comparison between waiting times for trial before magistrates and the Crown Court should take account of that fact.
It is unfortunately not possible to produce overall figures for waiting times in the magistrates' courts. Nevertheless the current estimates, from what I believe to be representative courts, show that outside London magistrates can offer notably speedier justice than the Crown Court. In London admittedly the situation in the magistrates' court is bad, but bearing in mind particularly the time between arrest and committal it is only half as bad as it is in the Crown Court. Those are the facts.
I have to face your Lordships with the fact that the proposed transfer of business from the Crown Court to the magistrates' court would involve a worthwhile reduction in delays in the administration of justice. This is what we shall be casting aside if we approve and pass the Amendment. It would involve, as I have said, the saving of the need of 10 circuit judges full time, and I must tell your Lordships that while I appreciated the kindly references of my noble friend at the beginning of the debate about the high quality of the Bar, nevertheless there must be a limit in capacity of the Bar and solicitors to provide the right quality of judges to man the Crown Court at the rate of increase that has been taking place in recent years. Then there is the question of courts, of court accommodation and of finance that I have mentioned. If I may say so without unkindness, those who are claiming total virtue and high principle for their opposition to what is proposed in Clause 23 will not so readily be acclaimed by those who, as a result, will have to wait longer in prison for their trial.
Nevertheless, I have not been unmindful of the strength of feeling which was expressed in all parts of your Lordships' House on Second Reading, and which has been expressed strongly in another place and also in public comment from all quarters of the political compass, that apparently at all costs this right to trial by jury for small thefts must be maintained.
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!
The LORD CHANCELLOR: And I see that, in spite of my statement as to the cost of doing so, this is immediately echoed in this Chamber. I am very conscious, holding my office of Lord Chancellor, that public confidence in our system and administration of justice is of crucial importance; and if insistence on what is proposed in Clause 23 does risk diminishing that confidence, I acknowledge that the better course would seem to be to permit the Amendment to be carried. But when I put it in that way I am bound to tell the Committee that, if we do so, it will be at the price of increasing anxiety about the administration of justice in our higher courts which it would indeed be irresponsible to ignore.
Viscount DILHORNE: If I may—I think my name is down to the Amendment—I should like to say a few words in reply to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I said that my name is down to the Amendment: there is no significance, I think, to be attached to the fact that it appears between the names of two of my noble and learned friends who both come from the Principality. The eloquence can be left to them. Indeed, my noble and learned friend Lord Morris moved this Amendment with a very great degree of eloquence. There was only one phrase he used which disturbed me. He paid a great tribute to Lords Chancellors, and then he added, "in recent years". The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made a very powerful speech which deserves very careful consideration. I must confess to him that, while he has put forward very grave arguments, he has not convinced me yet that it would be right for the Bill to stay as it is, and, if I may, I will quite shortly tell him why—and I will do so, not seeking to emulate the eloquence of those who come from the Principality.
It was not so very many years ago that we were seeking means of relieving the pressure on magistrates' courts, and we did so, as the noble and learned Lord will recollect, by relieving magistrates of the burden of sitting day after day hearing depositions being taken. We provided a short-circuit system for that; and that has meant that a great deal of the time of magistrates has been saved. But the pressure on magistrates is now again great. As I understand it—and I have
684
had a fair number of communications from those who know much more about how it is working than I do—the system which we then devised for relieving magistrates is not operating as it was intended, and that system is in itself one of the major reasons why there are so many cases awaiting trial. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke about the numbers of persons opting for trial.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble and learned Viscount forgive me for interrupting him? I am told that by a slip of the tongue I gave the figure of 22,000. It should have been 2,200. I am so sorry.
Viscount DILHORNE: I was going to come to that in a moment. It was a slightly major slip; but I was dealing with the figures of persons who are committed for trial under the new procedure. I am told (and I think it ought to be looked into) that what is happening in many cases is that the statements on which the police are going to ask for committal for trial are produced, and the defence do not question them at all—they just agree to it being done on those statements—whereas in the old days, when there was an examination before the magistrates, a great many of those cases would not have been committed at all. Indeed, I have been told of a case by someone who knows about it—and I know this is true—of a man who was committed for trial for murder. On the case coming up for trial there was not a shred of evidence in support of that charge. When the person concerned with securing the committal was asked why he had obtained the committal of that accused person, the answer was, "The defence did not object ".
That is all very wrong. I do not want to cast aspersions, but I am told that one of the real causes of the present congestion in London and in the South-East, where it is particularly heavy, is this committal for trial of cases which would not have been committed under the old examination procedure. Of course, these are not cases where there is an opting for trial; that is the distinction. But this part of this Bill assumes, so far as I can see, that the congestion is due to people electing to go for trial when they ought to be tried in the magistrates' court. I doubt

685
whether the problem is solely due to election. That is the first point I want to make.
Secondly, I do not think there is anyone who objects to a great number of the cases in which you can now go for trial being dealt with summarily. There has been no objection to the provisions of Clauses 15 and 16, although in due course we shall be looking at the Schedules attached thereto with regard to particular offences. I do not know to what extent the burden will be relieved by the operation of Clauses 15 and 16, but I would think that it will probably be considerable. But when we come on to Clause 23, which we are now discussing, I am not at all happy about that. I am delighted to find that the figure of 22,000 for those who are likely to opt for trial for thefts under £20 has come down to 2,200, but how does one reconcile that with the Written Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, yesterday:
"As separate figures are not available for thefts of £20 or less or for criminal damage of £100 or less, some other available information about offences under the two relevant Acts has been included"?—[Official Report, 26/1/77; col. 615.]
I am just wondering—2,200? I wonder where those statistics come from? I am not challenging them, but I would be glad to know whether perhaps another look at them might not bring them down to 220, or 22. I am sorry; the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor need not be annoyed with me about that. It will not be the first or the last time. But, really, it is a little astonishing. I looked at these figures this morning, because one is very concerned about this. I would have thought, really, that, despite what the James Committee has said, it is a very serious matter to take away this right to elect trial for offences—minor offences, it is true—involving dishonesty.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he was glad that there had been no denigration of magistrates. I, and I think every holder of the Office which he now holds, always had a very great regard for the magistrates. They do their job extremely well. But there is one point that I want to make, and I want to make it without reflecting on magistrates. I put it in this way. If you have a judge who has to decide fact, as a magistrate must decide fact, and you go on hearing
686
the same type of case day after day; charges of shoplifting from the same shop; evidence given by a store detective whose evidence you have accepted on a number of occasions; the same defences put forward time and time again by persons whom you have found guilty, and rightly found guilty, then in one case out of a hundred or, perhaps, in one case out of a thousand, it may be that one of those persons who puts forward that defence is telling the truth and is absolutely innocent.
I do not think that it is denigrating the magistrate who is doing his best to say that, human nature being what it is and as he has heard it so often before, that particular magistrate might not so readily accept the evidence for the defence as would members of a jury who have not heard the store detective and who have not heard that defence put forward before.
The statistics which we have had and which have been quoted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor do not seem to me to establish that proposition. I must say that in the days long ago, and long before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, gave up practice, when I used to appear in a magistrates' court, I would never have consented to trial before a court which was dealing with a series of petty thefts if I could go for trial and if I thought that my client was innocent. That is not denigrating magistrates; it is not being critical of the system; but it is, I suggest, an argument for retaining the present system.
The contrast is drawn in the James Report between offences that society regards as serious and offences which are serious to the individual. Is that really, in this connection, a valid distinction? Why is the petty offence of theft committed by a young man, or by an older one, in any walk of life so serious? In a young man it may prevent him from taking up a particular profession or occupation, from becoming a postman or a railwayman or something of that sort. In an older man it may mean his ruin. But why does it do that? Surely it is because society regards that offence of dishonesty as a serious offence, irrespective of the amount of money that has been taken.
I am sorry to have annoyed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor by what I have said on this occasion. Before

687
voting on this I should certainly like to consider more carefully what he has said and perhaps have an opportunity of discussing it with him; but at the moment, for the reasons I have indicated, I am by no means convinced that the Bill would not be improved if this Amendment were carried.
6.15 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I do not want to intervene for very long, and I hope that some noble and learned Lords and others will not be offended if I introduce perhaps a note of gentle fun at some of the things that have been said. I want to start by offering the Government a word of avuncular advice, if they will not take it amiss. I think that this Amendment is bound to win. I think that if it does not win today, it will win later; if it does not win in this House, it will win in the Commons. I have made considerable inquiries as to what opinion is in this House and in the Commons, and I think that the Government will simply be kicking against the pricks if they resist this Amendment and that if they go on resisting it to the point of a Division they will probably find that they will lose more of the Bill and not less of it by so doing.
This is not meant in any sense as a criticism of their attitude hitherto. I was, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, pointed out, one of the two Ministers who set up the James Committee. I did so, contrary to what the New Statesman said, simply because I already thought that the existing rules governing the distribution of criminal business between the Crown Court and the magistrates' court are complicated, confusing and anomolous. It struck me that out of the six various categories of different ways of trying cases, you might reduce the categories to three—and that, in fact, is what the James Committee reported. May I say also that I made no attempt—again contrary to what was said in the New Statesman—to stack the Committee. I think that the only member with whose appointment I had personally much to do was the late Lord Justice James whom I recommended as the best man available—and so, I think, he was.
688
I realised, of course—and I think it is true whatever happens to this particular Amendment—that if the law was simplified and rendered more coherent—which has been my consistent endeavour ever since I had anything to do with law reform, which was since I was Lord Chancellor—I repeat that if it was made more consistent, logical and coherent, there would be in this case a spin off. It would be only a spin off; but there would be an important and significant spin off in saving the time of people waiting for trial, saving the trouble to jurors of having to try cases the result of which were a foregone conclusion (as many of the cases that they try are a foregone conclusion) and—and this is the least of my preoccupations in connection with the administration of justice; but is one of them—saving as much expense as possible; and, furthermore, reducing the delay of other prisoners in other cases who may be awaiting more serious charges against them and who are being held up by a lot of unnecessary cases.
I do not agree with the first point made by my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches, Lord Dilhorne. It is true, and it is admitted to be true—the Judiciary know it, we all know it—that one of the results of the Section 1 procedure in 1967 is that a number of cases get by the magistrates which ought not to be committed. That is undeniably right. The noble and learned Viscount said it; and it is true. On the other hand, they die the death or ought to do so at the stage of arraignment or shortly afterwards in the Crown Court. Therefore, I do not accept—although I have heard the contrary asserted at other times than today—that they are a very significant part of the congestion in the Crown Courts at the present time because, in the presence of competent counsel on both sides and a competent judge (which is usually available) they ought not to last very long when they reach the Crown Court, which they ought never to have done.
Having said that, I want to say something about trial by jury. I hope that the Committee will not run away with the idea that I am against trial by jury or the adversary system which is closely related to it, one of which probably would not survive long without the other. I am, on the contrary, a passionate adherent of trial by jury in the proper cases and a

689
passionate adherent of the adversary rather than the inquisitorial procedure. But we must not allow this great bonce every time that trial by jury is mentioned and to which I referred at an earlier stage.
There are two very serious disadvantages in trial by jury, quite apart from the time, expense, trouble, delay and the burden on the jury. Every single miscarriage of justice that I can think of at the moment, outside the courts-martial have all been jury verdicts: Docherty, Virag, Adolf Beck and Oscar Slater. I do not believe it has been completely coincident that this is so. You cannot get rid of a wrong conviction once the jury has convicted unless the judge has made a nonsense, except in the rarest cases like that of Smith which Lord Hewitt allowed, which I think was the only case of a verdict before a jury before the war which was set aside by the Court of Criminal Appeal. There may have been one or two others; but, broadly speaking, what I am saying represents the case.
People underestimate the danger of what is called in American parlance a hung-jury, a disagreement, and the difficulty of getting round a conviction which has been wrong. This must be remembered when we handle this kind of case because it is the kind of case where trial by jury is probably less valuable than in most others. First, let us look at one or two of the cases about which I am talking. Let us look at Docherty for instance. Docherty went wrong at every stage until eventually justice—very largely instigated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—managed to establish his innocence. They did it by pointing out that there were at least 53 potential witnesses of an alibi which had been overlooked both by the prosecution and the defence. Docherty proved his innocence, which is a very difficult thing to do especially if you have been found guilty.
If that case had been tried by magistrates in the first instance, the man would have been convicted, as he was by the jury. Everything went wrong. It would have gone wrong before a magistrates' court just as it went wrong before the Crown Court. But what would have happened? He would have had a complete re-trial with all the witnesses and all the cross-examination. The new evidence would have been brought because his defending counsel would not have failed to realise that he
690
must get the other occupants of the bus to give evidence as to his alibi; and he would have won. None of this ghastly business would have happened in that case.
The case of Hector Hughes will be remembered. It was, I think, Hector Hughes; it does not matter if it was another "absent minded scholar", as the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches referred to it. He went to a bookstall and abstracted a book. Maybe I am talking about the wrong case, but for the purposes of illustration it does not matter. My recollection is that he was convicted by the magistrates. He would very likely have been convicted by a jury. But, having been convicted by the magistrates, he had a completely clean, new trial, with new witnesses, new cross-examination, a re-trial before the Crown Court, and he got off. He would never have got off if he had been convicted by a jury.
Let us look at the danger of a divided jury. We had all this business by Mr. Peter Webster in The Times over the majority verdict controversy 10 years ago or so when we talked about majority verdicts. I with Mr. Roy Jenkins supported this proposal and carried it through with him.
Lord JANNER: Forgive me for interrupting. The facts in regard to the Hector Hughes case are not correct. He actually went for trial.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: Then I was talking about a different case. I am glad to be corrected. At any rate, he was acquitted. But I am sure I am thinking of a genuine case.
Let us deal with the question of a divided jury. In the House of Commons at that time, the two leading lawyers on the Conservative side promised to support that. They both reneged under pressure from the Conservative Bar. There were arguments about having to persuade 10 people, instead of 12 and the burden of proof being degraded. They did not face the fact that you can get a majority verdict of acquittal as well as of conviction. What would have happened to Mr. Peter Hain if we had not carried out that reform? He would have had to stand his trial again. There would have been no way out. A bench of magistrates, I assert—and of course there is no way of proving it—must have acquitted him. There was

691
a case, but it was not good enough. When the explanation was given, a bench of magistrates must have acquitted him.
Supposing only nine of the jury had been for an acquittal and three for a conviction. The result would have been that he would have to stand his trial again with infinite trouble to himself, agony of mind and great injustice in practical terms. I am not prepared to go with this tremendous bonce in favour of the trial by jury being the most marvellous thing in the world. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that although I am a passionate defender of it, one has to remember that it is not the only support of civilisation. Every other country which is not a common law country manages to get along very well in a civilised fashion in a totally different system. I happen to prefer our own system.
It is time that we started looking at these matters a little more coldly and objectively than either the legal profession or, with the greatest respect, the noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches. Take, for instance, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, who made an excellent speech on Second Reading. One would have thought that he would have learned by the horrible savaging that his own report had when it came up before this House at the hands of the very people he is now supporting. It was treated in the most abominable way by the profession and by half the Judiciary—at any rate by those who were allowed to express an opinion. It was a good document.
It is time that we grew up about juries. I quoted the remark about bonce which was written more than 100 years ago, when it was said:
"…every Englishman's heart will begin bounding like a tremendous bonce at its bare mention."
That was referring to trial by jury.
But since those words were written the sheriffs' jury has died; most coroners' juries have died; nearly all civil juries have died—petty and special; grand juries have died, county court juries are all dead; juries of matrons are, happily, no longer required and juries in the great majority of criminal cases which, since 1844, have been tried by juries, are now dealt with by magistrates. Do let us be sensible about all this. The next time we talk about criminal law reform let there be less emotion and less eloquence.
6.28 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor answered the argument put forward in favour of this Amendment, he began by suggesting that what your Lordships were considering was whether we are justified in giving the right of trial by jury to a particular class of people who had committed an offence of the value of less than £20. With respect, that was no doubt an inadvertent slip of the tongue. We are concerned with whether we are justified in depriving a class of people of the right of trial by jury because they are a class of people who have the right to trial by jury at this particular moment.
We are, therefore, not concerned with whether we shall be unduly increasing the existing burden on the Crown Courts or the magistrates' courts; we are concerned with whether we should alter the existing burden in a wholly new way, as is suggested by the Government in the Bill. If I may say so with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, a similar observation applies to what he was just dealing with so very powerfully.
We are not concerned today with whether we should establish a system of trial by jury in this country. We have a system of trial by jury and, if I may say so, I doubt whether it helps, as regards this Amendment, to consider the merits of the system in general terms or to draw attention to the more notorious miscarriages of justice which have inevitably taken place at the hands of juries—because the more notorious cases are tried by juries and not by magistrates. If we are to consider whether we should now take the very, very grave step of depriving people of their existing rights the case must clearly be proved, and proved up to the hilt, by those who seek to do so.
It was put by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor primarily—I hope I have it right—on the ground of the existing burden on the courts. Might I venture to suggest that the problem, if one looks at it carefully, is nothing like as serious as has been represented this afternoon. The leaders of all the circuits, except the South-Eastern circuit, have recently reported, as the noble and learned Lord knows, that the situation in the Crown Court in their areas appears to be

693
under control. The noble and learned Lord has given this afternoon the astonishing figure that the average delay between committal for trial and trial, outside the South-Eastern region, is just over seven weeks. That is an astonishing figure, and it is the greatest possible tribute to all the work that has been done by the present Lord Chancellor and his distinguished predecessor.
May we consider for a moment what that figure means. After committal for trial, the depositions have to be typed, copied and distributed, the exhibits have to be photographed and distributed, the papers have to be sent to prosecution counsel for the first time to draft the indictment. He then has to read through all the papers and decide whether notice of further evidence has to be served. If so, that has to be prepared and served on the defence. Then, and only then, when the charges are known and all the evidence is known, can the defence begin to prepare their case. Then the defendant sees counsel in conference. Then the question of possible witnesses is discussed; a proof is taken from the defendant and proofs are taken from the various witnesses. Then a date has to be fixed for the trial, and very often it has to be postponed because some essential witness is ill or abroad on holiday, or some policeman is on annual leave, and so on. In those circumstances, the noble and learned Lord is able to report to us today that the average delay outside the London area is only just over seven weeks. I doubt whether there is another country in Western Europe which could possibly rival that record, and I do not see how it can possibly be said that it represents inordinate delay. On the contrary, it is a figure of which we have every right to be proud.
I know the situation in the London region is different: of course it is. It is different not only in the London Crown Court but in the London magistrates' courts. The noble and learned Lord will remember the small exercise I tried to do which I mentioned on Second Reading: when I discovered that at three London Crown Courts in December, when my clerk asked for a date for a short contested case, he was given as the first available date by each of those three courts a date somewhere between two
694
and four months hence. There are delays in the London courts, as I have said, but I do not believe that the proposals that are made in this Bill, as it stands, outside the South-Eastern region, will in any way assist the Crown Courts but will add very materially to the burden upon the magistrates' courts—so far as one can see, to no useful purpose.
Having said that, may I add that I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that there are many aspects of our criminal procedure which ought to be looked at. There are many ways in which I believe time can be saved, delays eliminated and expense cut down; but they are not perhaps directly material to the Amendment now before your Lordships. There are, of course, many other Amendments which have been tabled with that very object, and we shall reach them during the course of our debates.
I would suggest that the figures given by the noble and learned Lord are as satisfactory as any human system of justice could possibly be. It is very often said—it is an old familiar cliché—that justice delayed is justice denied. That is true. But justice rushed can also be justice denied. If one accepts that there must be a reasonable time in which the defence can be allowed to prepare their case, I would suggest that the present figures are really very near to the minimum that could conceivably be obtained.
If I may, I should like to mention one other matter. I want to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he has considered the undignified squabbles that will take place in court if the Government's proposal is carried into effect—under £20, summary trial only; over £20, right to trial by jury. One might give the example of the theft of a second-hand etching. The prosecution witness says "£15: no jury trial". The defence witness, an expert valuer, comes along and says "£25: right to trial by jury". How are the magistrates to adjudicate on a matter of that sort? Is it to be—
Viscount DILHORNE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord: is he right in saying that that is to be done on evidence?

695
—because if he looks at subsection (2) of Clause 19 all this procedure under Section 23 must be done before any evidence is called. Therefore it will be not evidence but a representation by the prosecutor, met by a representation by the defence, and there will be no summary trial unless it is clear to the court, despite this conflict of representations, not supported by evidence.
Lord WIGODER: I accept that the wording is "representation". How that is to be made, I know not. Are the magistrates to decline to accept representations by way of written statements from expert valuers? I know not. If I may be flippant for a moment, are we to reach a situation in which shoplifters will be advised to include in their shoplifting a tin of caviare in order to bring the limit over £20 and therefore give themselves the right to claim trial by jury? Are we really to tolerate a situation, for example, in which there is an office till with £100 in it and the office boy put his hand into the till and takes out £15, so that he is then charged with stealing £15 and it is a case for summary trial only? But, if he puts his hand into the till and the boss catches him by the wrist before he has got hold of any money, he is charged then with attempting to steal £100—because that is the only charge one could frame in such a case—and therefore because he failed to commit the whole offence he has a right to trial by jury? I would suggest that the anomalies are going to be vast and they will bring the courts into disrepute if this proposal is carried into force.
I would add only this. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, indicated that perhaps it was not right for people who had committed comparatively trivial offences, in financial terms, to be allowed to delay the trials of those who had committed serious offences, I wonder whether that is in fact quite so.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: If I may intervene, I do not think the noble Lord is quite correct in what he says. I was talking about trivial offences in absolute terms. The noble Lord will remember that at the very beginning of my speech I advised the Government to accept this Amendment,
696
and that was one of the factors which led me to do so.
Lord WIGODER: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The only point that I want to make is this. Surely the employee, the retired Army officer, the shop steward, the professional man who has committed an offence, or is alleged to have committed an offence, of dishonesty in respect of property under £20 in value, has as much right to be tried by a jury as the bank robber who may have a very long criminal record. Is it right that we should distinguish between people not on the basis of who they are, but on the basis of the nature of the crime, in the rather curious way in which the James Committee set out to do?
May I repeat what has been said often in the course of these discussions, that the argument in favour of this Amendment is not in any way a criticism of magistrates. Magistrates have not been criticised—certainly not from these Benches—and will not be criticised. The argument is that it requires overwhelming grounds of expediency to destroy the contention that, if a person is charged with an offence where he might lose his job, he might lose his pension, he might lose his self-respect and he might lose the respect of his family and his friends, he is entitled to say: "If that is to happen to me, it should be done at the hands of my fellow citizens." We on these Benches support this Amendment, and we hope very much that it will be pressed to a Division this afternoon.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: Having been silent for an hour, perhaps I may deliver an abbreviated version of what I would have said earlier. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave some figures of the proportion of cases of all kinds of theft which are tried by the Crown Court and which are tried by the magistrates. I think he said that 91 per cent. of cases of theft are tried by the magistrates. I am fairly sure that that figure is right, because I happen to have worked it out previously to the same answer, so I do not think there is a mistake this time.
I should like to make a further point. Of the cases that go to the Crown Court, over 80 per cent. get a custodial sentence. It is true that this includes some of those who have been tried by the magistrates

697
and sent up for sentence because of their bad records. But it also includes those who have elected for trial by the Crown Court, and of those who are found guilty by the Crown Court over 80 per cent. get a custodial sentence, by which I mean that they get borstal, a detention centre or prison. The prison sentence may be suspended, and I have included that. I do not think that means that many of them are under 20-pounders—I think it is very improbable. The only ones who are likely to be under 20-pounders are those who have been sent up from the magistrates with very bad previous records.
Therefore, it seems to me that, to a large extent, this is a storm in a teacup. It is a storm affecting a very few people who might wish to take advantage of this opportunity. I think we are getting on rather dangerous ground, when we are so anxious that people should go for trial by jury if they want to, and when we compare the rate of acquittal by juries and by magistrates, assuming, I imagine, that in both cases the verdicts are right. We are getting very close to the position of saying that they ought to go for trial by jury, because they will get off if they are guilty. There is an implication there, and it is in the minds of many of the accused that that will happen. But that is not for us to say.
The other, and more serious, point is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, made a great point about the stain on a man's honour when he is convicted of theft, with the possibility of his losing his job. But the stain on his honour is exactly the same, whether he is convicted by the magistrates or by the jury. He is more likely to come to the notice of his friends or neighbours if he is convicted by the magistrates, because if it is a small matter of under £20 it will be noticed in the local newspapers. If it is a small matter, and he is not a very conspicuous person it will very largely pass unnoticed in a large part of his own community, if he has trial by jury.
I think that we are getting into the habit of thinking far too much of small amounts of property, in comparison with a number of other offences involving personal injury and damage. I do not quite understand why those Members of your Lordships' House, who are so anxious
698
that people should go for trial for thefts of under £20, are not also moving that they should go for trial for criminal damage for under £20. In fact, they want the criminal damage to be a much higher figure. The criminal damage sometimes does far worse injury to the individual than the theft. The theft is bad enough. You lose the money, and you economise and make it up. With criminal damage, they smash your property and you might get certain compensation but, if you are lucky, you have the satisfaction of seeing that the person who did it is fined, or even sent to prison. But you have very great difficulty, in present circumstances, in getting it restored and in getting anybody to put things right. We are attaching enormous and exaggerated importance to the word "theft". It is proposed that some motoring offences and nearly all road traffic offences should go to the magistrates; at least, these should be either way cases. Some motoring offences are far more damaging than small thefts, but we have inherited a sense of enormous importance attaching to the word "theft" and to the fact that someone is a thief. For that reason, and, more particularly, for the reason that, apparently, a very small number of persons would elect to go for trial, I believe that this Amendment is misconceived.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: I wish to support this Amendment. First, I should like to say that I disagree with practically everything that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. I do not seem to be getting on very well with him just now, but I hope he knows me well enough to know that I never mind being criticised, whether publicly or privately, and I still retain a great admiration for him, even though I disagree entirely with all that he has said this afternoon.
I am very glad, indeed, that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, raised the question of the £20 and the £21, because I think that this is absolutely ridiculous. I have never heard of such a stupid arrangement in any Bill. I am not going to argue about the legal side, but it worries me that a great Department like the Home Office should have produced such a ridiculous arrangement in a Bill of this kind. Over the years that I have been moving about in public life, I have had quite a lot to do

699
with the Home Office and I sometimes think that the people who prepare Bills, et cetera, are far away from knowing what ordinary people think.
I do not want to say any more, except that I support the Amendment and I hope that we shall vote on it. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, we are going to win, and I think it will be a very good thing for England to know that, when a big Department proposes something which is absolutely ridiculous, this House, and, I am certain, another place will vote against it. Therefore, I am looking forward to a huge majority in favour of the Amendment when we vote on it.
Lord JANNER: I find myself in a somewhat difficult position, because, first I do not want any of my magisterial friends of whom I have very many, to imagine that I am differing from the views which I have expressed very often of their important contribution to our judicial system and of their integrity and ability. But I am worried about this matter. I am worried as a practising solicitor. It is true that I do not practise often at present in the courts but for many years I did so. It is no good anyone in this House saying that we should just push aside the emotional side of this issue. We are dealing with a very deep emotional position, something which every solicitor who has a substantial court practice knows is of tremendous importance to a large number of clients with whom he has to deal. It is not just a question of the amount involved. It is in many cases a question of the character and outlook of the individual who is being charged.
There is a jury system. Whether it is good or bad is not really material to the subject that we are discussing. The jury system exists and, rightly or wrongly, I believe rightly, people believe that it is a very valuable asset. Be that as it may, the man or woman who is charged may believe that a charge involving even a few pence is as important, so far as his emotional outlook is concerned, as a very serious charge. We are dealing with the human element. My colleagues in the legal profession are very clear about this. A committee which has been set up by the Law Society especially to deal with the James proposals has expressed itself
700
in no uncertain terms. The committee consists of those who have considerable experience inside their offices, which is where people open their hearts.
If I may say so, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is an emotional man himself. I am not saying that he is purely emotional; far be it from me to do so. I know from experience that he is a very learned and knowledgeable person who is also very sympathetic. However, I do not think he has quite grasped the fact that we should deal with the problem in the manner that I have indicated. Of course I am concerned about the expense which is likely to be involved; all of us are worried about the economic situation. However, expense is not an excuse that can possibly be put forward when a person's character is at stake. Whether the person who is charged is right or wrong in feeling the way that he does when he is charged is a matter into which we cannot delve. The fact is that there are very many people who, even once they enter a court to answer a charge, feel that their character has been besmirched. That is how they feel, even before their trial. I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, for whom I have great respect, is not entirely in agreement with me on this. But it is a fact and I speak from experience. It may be that I am a little emotional, too; but the fact is that people regard their good name as something of tremendous importance to them. Of course convictions have serious effects. Let us take, for example, one effect. If a person is found guilty of an offence and then wants to visit another country—like the United States—the fact that he stands convicted even of a trivial offence might mean that he could not obtain a visa. However, I am not dealing with that aspect. The seriousness of the consequences of conviction have been aptly expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borthy-y-Gest, in a splendid remark.
May I urge my noble and learned friend to think again about the matter. If a person goes into a solicitor's office and says that he is not guilty of an offence with which he is charged, he is advised that he has the opportunity either of presenting his case to the magistrates and being heard by them, or of asking to be tried by jury. For the average man the jury

701
system is acceptable. I am the average person. It may be that at some future time people can be argued out of this view and accept different laws, but the fact is that at present people believe in trial by jury. Incidentally, an accused person has the right to object to a juryman if he believes that he is not a desirable person to try his case. The same right does not apply in a magistrates' court. In view of my respect for the magistracy, I might say that perhaps it does not matter that people do not have that right; but the point is that people know that they have the right to object to a number of persons who may be sitting on a jury.
In those circumstances, the majority view of the people in this country is that trial by jury should be retained in respect of the offence referred to, no matter how trivial is the amount involved. I hope that my noble and learned friend will reconsider the position. I could repeat the arguments which have already been splendidly put forward by the Law Society and presented to my noble and learned friend, but I do not think that this is necessary. Apart from that, the point I am making—and I make it, I hope, respectfully and humbly—overweighs everything that can be argued in favour of rejecting the Amendment.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: As a magistrate, I support the Amendment. Every person who comes before my court is an individual, and in the case of theft every individual should have the right to trial by jury. I believe that no individual would take any notice of the fact that our prisons are over-crowded and that there is a long list of people waiting to be tried in the Crown Courts. As I say, every individual matters. He does not mind very much whether the country is in a very difficult economic situation, the result of which means that people have to wait for a very long time to be tried. What matters to him is that he gets a fair trial, wherever he wants to have it. Therefore I support the Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: Could we look at the matter very shortly from the point of view of magistrates, particularly from the point of view of magistrates in country towns. Let us suppose that a fairly prominent citizen in a market town—for example, an assistant bank manager—is
702
charged with stealing £15 out of somebody's overcoat pocket in a hotel cloak-room. Presumably a bench of magistrates can be found who are not close personal friends of this assistant bank manager. However, I should imagine that it would be difficult to find a bench of magistrates who had not had some social contacts with him at local gatherings—for example, meeting him from time to time in the country club at lunch time. If he has to be tried by that bench of magistrates because trial by jury is denied to him, it will create an embarrassing situation for all concerned. How infinitely preferable—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: In such circumstances the magistrate would disqualify himself and refuse to try the case, anyhow. I should not like it to be said that a man was entitled to pass judgment on those whom he knows socially.
Lord AIREDALE: I am not talking about people who are close personal friends, but in a small community I should have thought it would be difficult to find a bench of magistrates who do not have some personal knowledge of a reasonably prominent citizen locally of the kind that I am mentioning. How infinitely preferable that he should be allowed, if he wishes, to be tried by 12 jurymen, most of whom presumably are socially total nonentities so far as he is concerned.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: We have had a full discussion on this Amendment and in my view it has been a valuable debate. One aspect of it that has pleased me greatly has been the general—indeed universal—confidence that has been expressed in the magistrates' courts. To have made that clear has been a valuable service rendered by the debate.
I hope at any rate that the honourable and serious purposes of the James Committee and the Government in bringing forward the proposals in Clause 23 (1)(a) are at least accepted and that they arise from serious concern about the dangerous pressure of crime upon our community and of casework on the courts; a grave situation which a decision on this Amendment—on which I will indicate my view in a moment—will certainly not better. I have heard the views expressed in most of

703
the speeches that have been made here. I have heard similar reports of what are likely to be the views in another place, and as I indicated earlier it is of vital importance that where there are important and significant changes in the criminal law those changes should carry public support and that the confidence of the public in the courts should be maintained.
In all the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the better course for the Committee now, in the light of what has been said here and what has been expressed elsewhere, would be for the Committee to accept the Amendment, even though I must repeat that it means that what could have amounted to a substantial relief in the amount of pressure of work on the Crown Courts will now not be available. However, I must not be ungenerous in this matter. Bearing in mind my responsibility for maintaining confidence in the courts, I take the view that the better course now is to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.2 p.m.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 15, line 42, leave out ("£100") and insert ("£200").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should begin by expressing, as I am sure I ought to do, the appreciation of the whole of your Lordships' Committee for the generous attitude taken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, after the last debate. Amendment No. 41 is a comparatively small one, but it is one of several designed to attempt to lessen the burden upon the Crown Court in a way that might perhaps not be found to be in any way objectionable. The present proposal is that offences of criminal damage should be triable summarily only if the damage is £100 or less. Offences of criminal damage are in a quite different category from those of dishonesty, so the same social stigma or consequence is not likely to be involved.
I suppose the typical criminal damage case is that of the drunk who succeeds in putting his foot through a plate glass window. Costs being what they are today, amounts in excess of £100 are easily and
704
quickly reached. It has been suggested to me that no harm could possibly be done, therefore, if the limit were raised to £200. It might enable rather more of these really somewhat trivial offences to be dealt with purely summarily and might assist in a small way in relieving the burdens on the Crown Courts. I beg to move.
Viscount DILHORNE: Before saying a few words on this Amendment, I should like to express my personal thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest would wish to join with me at a suitable opportunity when he is finished being instructed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. I fear they have not heard a word that I have said! I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for pursuing the course he has with, if I may say so, great wisdom, because public opinion about this was extremely strong. Whether it was well-formed or ill-formed I do not know, but I do know that a great many of us felt grave concern about it.
With regard to Amendment No. 41, I personally share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in thinking that £100 is a little low. However, while saying that, I should like to make two points. The first is that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, about how it becomes clear to the magistrates that the value is or is not above a prescribed figure. I think it is unusual to find in a Statute dealing with decisions of magistrates the words, "It appears clear". It is usually, "If the magistrates are satisfied", or something of that sort. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider this: all that the magistrates can hear at this stage are representations by the prosecutor or the defence. Magistrates' jobs are difficult and they are skilful, but without hearing any evidence how it can appear clear that the value is or is not below a prescribed figure when one side says that it is below and the other side says that it is above, I do not know. Unless that point can be satisfactorily cleared up, Clause 23 will not operate as the Government intend. I am not asking for an answer now, but I think that difficulty would be overcome by a change in the language.

705
The second point I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor to consider is this. I have been looking at the Bill and I am not sure what the answer is. Supposing a man commits two offences on the same occasion; one of them is doing damage below this figure and another is one for which he will be sent for trial. Both offences are committed in the course of the same transaction. I think there ought to be a provision that in those circumstances where they arise out of the same affair the damage charged should be triable on indictment at the same time as the indictable offence, to avoid two trials. So far as I can see, it is the only way that it could be done, because it will not be possible to make the indictable offence triable summarily. I think there must be some provision whereby the courts can ensure that there are not two bites at the one cherry.
On the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? if the Amendment had not been accepted, I was going to put to the noble and learned Lord the instance of burglary, trespass and stealing. There, if a man was found not to have trespassed but to have stolen under £20, it was to become triable summarily. If there are any similar offences under the damage side, where it is part of the offence charged, a verdict could be brought in for damage. I hope I have made the point clear that there should be power to deal with that without having to send it back to the magistrates' court. I do not think there is anything here except technicalities.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I am absolutely staggered by what appears to me as the inconsistency of those who are supporting these two consecutive Amendments. First of all they are desperately anxious to reserve the right to jury trial for persons who steal small sums of money. Secondly, they are happy to further restrict the right to jury trial, beyond what the Bill proposes, to those who commit criminal damage, all because of the stigma that they say attaches to theft. The injury to the individual is often much greater in the case of criminal damage than it is in the case of theft, for all sorts of reasons. Typical cases of criminal damage are plate glass windows in shops. Many cases of criminal damage are damage to personal property, sometimes of defenceless and aged people. If
706
there is a case for one of these offences, the theft, being regarded as relatively trivial, there is equally a case for the other. If there is a case for one not being so regarded, then there is a case for the other. I regard this as extraordinary and inexplicable inconsistency.
Lord AVEBURY: The noble Baroness speaks about defenceless and aged people being attacked. Surely she is confusing two things. We are talking about damage to property.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I was talking about damage to property. There are people whose flat windows are endlessly broken and whose property is damaged. I was not talking about injury.
Lord AVEBURY: The noble Baroness was implying that associated in the offences we are discussing under this Amendment would be attacks on persons and not just attacks on property. Of course, the two things are in a totally different category. No one is suggesting that cases such as the noble Baroness is mentioning should be dealt with in this way.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I am not mentioning those cases. I am mentioning cases of damage to personal property.
Lord AVEBURY: I realise that; but I was pointing out that the language the noble Baroness used in describing attacks on these defenceless persons was wholly inappropriate. We are talking about attacks on property. I know what she means, but I am merely pointing out that the language she was applying to the Amendment was emotive and inappropriate. There is all the distinction in the world to be made between the kind of attack to which my noble friend is referring and those which involve the defenceless.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: The noble Lord is totally misrepresenting me. I am referring to elderly persons who live in ground floor flats and whose windows are constantly broker. They do not suffer personal injury; they suffer criminal damage. I am not talking about assaults on persons. It may also be true

707
that they are afraid to go out because they are afraid of being assaulted, but I am not talking about that. Would the noble Lord please accept that?—otherwise he is grossly misrepresenting what I say.
Lord AVEBURY: I am not misrepresenting the noble Baroness. I am merely describing the language she uses as inappropriate. I think we had better leave it at that because we are not getting very far in this discussion. What I did want to say, further to my noble friend's remarks on this Amendment, was that if inflation proceeds as it is at the moment, at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum, the value of property worth £200 at today's prices would reduce to £100 in less than five years' time. I do think that in considering what is the appropriate amount to be put into this Bill—my noble friend says index it, and that would be one solution—we have to consider that it is very unlikely that amending legislation will be introduced within five years. Therefore, the £200 suggested by my noble friend would be much more appropriate, lasting over a period of time, at least as long as the five years which would halve the value of the money. Probably we would not be concerned with amendments of a law of this kind within 10 years, by which time the value will, of course, be down to £50. So I think the amount suggested by my noble friend is more appropriate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships will not be surprised, in view of the observations I made on the last Amendment, that my inclinations are to accept the present one. I think a good case can be made for increasing the £100 figure. The James Committee were themselves uncertain what the appropriate figure should be, though they thought £400 would be too high, because an offence involving damage of that amount might sometimes merit a sentence of more than the three months' imprisonment. I am sure we all sympathise with the indignation that has been expressed by my noble friend about the vandalism, the senselessness of injury and damage to people in their homes, the destruction that takes place. The James Committee recommended also that the figure that they suggested of £100 should be subject to review in the light of inflation. We are very nearly 18 months on since that time,
708
and as this Amendment will also assist, to a small extent at any rate, in reducing the burden of work on the Crown Court, I am happy to support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.17 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 42A:
Page 16, line 39, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Earl said: The scope of this Amendment has been somewhat restricted by the fact that the Government have accepted Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. Really what this Amendment seeks to do is to correct, if that is the right description, the slightly unsatisfactory position which obtains under subsection (8) of Clause 23. The position has also been affected to a considerable extent by the fact that the cut-off damage figure has been raised by Amendment No. 41 from £100 to £200. I must say, looking back on that, one wonders whether the Government wish to continue with Clause 23 at all, because we are now going to have one offence where this slightly curious procedure is going to be invoked; that is to say, criminal damage. I have not got the figures—I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has—but one wonders how many cases there are of people who are charged with criminal damage wanting to go for trial, as opposed to cases of criminal damage which are tacked on to other offences.
It may be that the Government will reflect upon this and decide at a later stage of this Bill that Clause 23 might very well be dropped. But on the assumption that it is not—and certainly it will not be at this stage—I must explain the point of this Amendment, although, as I have said, it has considerably less force without the rather more emotional connotations of shoplifting and petty theft.
As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, pointed out, the procedure for these summary trials is perhaps, at the moment at any rate, less than satisfactory, partly by virtue of Clause 19(2). We do not have there what could be described as a trial within a trial so much as some sort of statement, presumably by the prosecution, that the damage which will be the subject of the charge is less than £200. I daresay in the vast majority of cases it will be less than £200, even if it is

709
a plate glass window in a public house or something like that. Probably we are going to be left with cases of what I might call very serious vandalism, perhaps where a motor car is set on fire. At any rate, before the trial takes place somebody is going to have to make a value judgment and say, for instance, that the motor car set on fire by the vandal had a second-hand value of either more or less than £200.
All that will be fine if the defendant is represented at this stage of the proceedings. If he is not, and one has what I might describe as a slightly "dozy" magistrates' court—I know we have all been very fulsome in our praise of magistrates' courts, and nobody more than I, but there are courts that are overworked and there are clerks who are perhaps over-tired—it is not difficult to anticipate that there might be circumstances when the whole of this part of the trial under Clause 19(2) is (shall we say?) glossed over fairly quickly and the defendant finds himself facing a summary trial. He is then convicted. Afterwards he establishes that in fact the damage with which he is charged was far in excess of £200 and if he had but known or had been able to argue the point he would have had the right of trial by jury. Then what does he do?
Subsection (8) is pointless to this extent because I know of no case where a determined defendant cannot appeal to a Crown Court from a trial in a magistrates' court where he has pleaded not guilty. When his solicitor comes to draft his notice of appeal the defendant instructs him to say that the magistrates were mistaken or, if he is feeling rude, that the magistrates were wrong and he is not guilty. That is the notice of appeal. It will not be for the Crown Court when he has, in effect, a retrial to say: "Look here, do you mean that the amount of damage is not what the court thought it was? Do you mean that you did not do it, or do you have some other defence?" Subsection (8) will not prevent a defendant from having a retrial on the merits. That of course is not the point.
The point is that if a court has been mistaken and a person has been, as it were, subjected to a summary trial and convicted, it will certainly rankle thereafter that this summary trial, where he was given no option to go for a trial by
710
jury, was due to a mistake which a court made at a slightly unsatisfactory preliminary stage. This is not a creature of my tortured imagination. It is a point which occurred to the Magistrates' Association. I put it forward although I realise that because of events this afternoon it has considerably less scope than it did. However, perhaps I might have the Government's reaction upon it. I beg to move.
7.22 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of subsection (8) is obviously to avoid a proliferation of appeals on grounds of value. I have taken careful note of the points made by the noble Lord and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, with regard to these provisions. Of course, value is not uncommonly used in other jurisdictions—for instance, Australia, New Zealand and the United States—to distinguish thefts of different degrees of gravity; and the noble Lord will remember that we have used it here in the past, for example, in the Larceny Act 1916, without it apparently causing a great deal of difficulty. Subsection (4) of Clause 23, says:
"If…it appears to the court for any reason not clear whether, for the offence charged, the value involved does or does not exceed the relevant sum…"
and then the hybrid procedure follows. The language is fairly loose. We shall certainly look at the words "clear" and "not clear". It may well be that it is worth looking again at the whole clause, as the noble Lord suggested, in view of the fact that the matter it was most importantly relevant to is no longer part of the Bill. I certainly undertake to look at these problems again. With that assurance I hope that the noble Earl will not press the matter at this stage.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his answer on this matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: May I take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the

711
course that he followed as regards Amendment No. 41 and for the way in which he expressed himself. I listened most attentively to all that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his speech. He gave us a great deal of information and figures that we did not have before. I confess that as I listened there was a sense of regret within me, if, as a result of the course that I was advocating, even to some small extent there might be an addition to the anxieties of those who have the great responsibility of looking after criminal administration.
However, I assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that many of us thought that a principle of real importance was involved here. I thought that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if I may most respectfully say so, was extremely generous in the way in which he recognised that and in the way in which he expressed himself. I whole-heartedly concur in what he said with regard to our general attitude to the James Report. I thank him most sincerely.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Power of court, with consent of legally represented accused, to proceed in his absence]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 17, line 27, leave out ("apply") and insert ("are applicable").
The noble Lord said: We discussed this Amendment with No. 38. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 17, line 42, leave out ("and") and insert ("then—(a) if")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 as well. Once again this is a question of procedure. The effect of Clause 24(1) and (2) is that where an accused is represented by counsel or solicitor who, in the absence of the accused, signifies his client's consent to the mode of trial proceedings being conducted in his absence, the court may proceed in his absence if satisfied that
712
there is good reason for so doing. The object of this provision is to avoid unnecessary court attendances. If the court takes the view that the offence is more suitable for summary trial, it will need to obtain the consent of the accused, through his legal adviser, before it can decide in favour of summary trial. Subsection (4) of Clause 24 as at present drafted, provides that if consent is signified by his legal representative, the provisions of Clause 21 are not to apply and the court is to proceed to summary trial. If the court then decides that it needs to adjourn to secure the attendance of the accused—though it may proceed to try him in his absence, if the court is properly composed for summary trial—it will adjourn under Section 14(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952.
Where, however, the accused's legal representative does not give his client's consent to summary trial, the court will have to inquire into the information as examining justices, with a view to committal to the Crown Court. Since the accused must always be present personally at committal proceedings (Section 4(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952) and cannot be remanded in his absence, it will then be necessary for the court to have power to adjourn without remanding the accused and to issue a summons to bring the accused before the court. The two Amendments to Clause 24(4) have the effect of giving the court such a power to adjourn without remanding in these circumstances; and the Amendment to Clause 26(1)(b) (by adding a reference to the new paragraph (b) of Clause 24(4) inserted by the second Amendment) ensures that the power to issue a summons is available to the court in these circumstances.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 18, line 2, at end insert ("or
(b) if that consent has not been and is not so signified, section 21 above shall not apply and the court shall proceed to inquire into the information as examining justices and may adjourn the hearing without remanding the accused.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Power to issue summons to accused in certain circumstances]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 19, line 29, after first ("subsection") insert ("(4)(b) or").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Penalties on summary conviction for offences triable either way]:
7.31 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 20, line 17, leave out ("£1,000") and insert ("the prescribed sum").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, and if I may at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 48. 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 54. The Committee will be gratified to discover that we are not here altering the substance of the clause. When read with the Amendments which I shall be proposing for Clause 43, the purpose is two-fold. First, they ensure that differentials in maximum fines available on summary conviction for offences triable either way can be maintained in the course of making orders under Clause 43 to keep pace with inflation; I will deal with that point in rather more detail when we come to Clause 43. Secondly, they provide that the maximum fines on summary conviction which it imposes, together with any increases under the inflation-proofing powers in Clause 43, apply to existing and not future enactments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 20, line 33, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 34 and insert (", being an offence under a relevant enactment,").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 20, line 36, leave out ("£1,000") and insert ("the prescribed sum").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 49A:
Page 20, leave out lines 40 to 44.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 21, line 1, after ("any") insert ("relevant").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 21, line 14, leave out from ("worded") to end of line 15.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 54 en bloc:
Page 21, line 27, after ("any") insert ("relevant").
Page 21, line 34, leave out ("£1,000") and insert ("the prescribed sum").
Page 21, line 42, at end insert—
("6A) In this section—
"the prescribed sum" means £1,000 or such sum ns is for the time being substituted in this definition by an order in force under section 43(1) below;
"relevant enactment" means an enactment contained in this Act or in any Act passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would speed up our deliberations if, with the leave of the Committee, I move Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Other provisions as to maximum fines]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 54A:
Page 24, line 28, leave out from ("words") to end of line 30 and insert ("from "impose a fine" onwards there shall be substituted the words "impose a fine which—

(a) for an offence triable either way, shall not exceed the prescribed sum within the meaning of section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, and

(b) for a summary offence, shall—

(i) not exceed £200; and

(ii) not be of such an amount as would subject the offender, in default of payment of the fine, to a longer term of imprisonment or detention than the term to which he is liable on conviction of the offence."").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment removes from Clause 28 the restriction on the amount of a fine which may be imposed on summary conviction of an offence triable either way, for which no fine is prescribed in the legislation creating the offence, to £200. That is the first Amendment. Amendment No. 54A to Clause 32 makes it clear that in the case of such an offence triable either way the maximum fine which may be imposed shall be £1,000 and that that £1,000 shall not be limited to such a figure that would not render the offender liable, should he default on payment of the fine, to a longer period of imprisonment than that to which he could have been sentenced in respect of the original offence.
The restriction on the amount of fine which may be imposed in such a case to that figure, which would not cause the offender to run the risk of a period of imprisonment in default of the unpaid fine longer than that which could be imposed in respect of the offence itself, is not
716
perpetuated for offences triable either way. Offences triable either way are by definition more serious than purely summary offences: an unlimited fine is invariably available on indictment and periods of imprisonment are more common than not. We do not feel that it is necessary to continue restricting the powers of magistrates with regard to the new class of offence for the sake of the very rare offences which, on summary conviction, may carry only a very short period of imprisonment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 35 agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  RHODESIA: CONSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS
  RHODESIA: CONSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS
  DRUG ADDICTS IN MANCHESTER AND LONDON
  DRUG ADDICTS IN MANCHESTER AND LONDON
  OPAQUE OR TRANSPARENT CONTAINERS
  OPAQUE OR TRANSPARENT CONTAINERS