Sitting of 9 June 1978

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

  United Kingdom Day
  11.4 a.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: With the closing of the Queen's Silver Jubilee, I have the honour to present a public petition signed by more than 10,000 loyal people, including Her Majesty's Lieutenant for the County of Essex and the Chairman of the Essex County Council, being one of Her Majesty's Deputy Lord Lieutenants for the said county.
  The petition, which is brief, is as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the undersigned loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen.
  Sheweth That the affection in which Her Majesty the Queen is held and the inspiration which she provides have brought about a rebirth of national unity and pride. Wherefor your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House proclaims an annual National Day of celebration to he known as United Kingdom Day on the Tuesday following the Spring Bank Holiday Monday.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who did me the courtesy yesterday of sending me a copy of his petition. It is most unusual for that to be done. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member.

FINANCE BILL (AMENDMENTS)
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday I was asked by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) to rule on whether amendments or debate on certain topics would be in order on Report or Third Reading of the Finance Bill. I undertook to consider this, and have done so, and fear that there is little assistance that I can offer to the hon. Member.
As far as amendments are concerned, my predecessors in the Chair have always been disinclined to rule hypothetically and have confined their attention to particular amendments when they have appeared on the Paper. I should be doing no service to my successors or, I firmly believe, to the House by departing from this well-understood manner of proceeding.
In regard to Third Reading, the general doctrine is set out on page 543 of "Erskine May", where it is stated:
"Debate on Third Reading … is more restricted than at the earlier stage, being limited to the contents of the bill."
It is my impression, however, that over the last 15 years or so my predecessors have been reasonably liberal in their interpretation of this rule, and I hope to follow in their steps.
Mr. Higgins: May I express, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my appreciation of the careful consideration which you have given to this matter?
I also asked whether you could tell the House whether there were any precedents for amendments on those two specific subjects being debated on a Finance Bill. I wonder whether you have had an opportunity to look into that.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that it is not my duty to explain to the House whether there are precedents. That duty lies elsewhere. I was afraid yesterday that the hon. Member had bowled me middle stump.
Mr. Higgins: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, Mr.

523
Speaker, I should like to make a short business announcement.
The business for Wednesday and Thursday has been changed as follows:
WEDNESDAY 14th June—Supply [20th Alloted Day]: there will be a debate on the economy, which will arise on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 15th June—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: until about 7 o'clock, a debate on fishing, followed by a debate on The Official Secrets Act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Speaker: There are no amendments on Consideration.
  The Question is, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".
  Hon. Members: "Aye".
  Mr. Speaker: To the contrary, "No". I think the "Ayes" have it. The "Ayes" have it.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression that the Minister of State, Home Office, wished to speak and to move formally the Third Reading of the Suppression of Terrorism Bill [Lords]. It was my intention to reply. This was a clear understanding that I had. Because of that understanding, I did not take the initiative of rising to speak. I am sure that the Minister of State will bear me out in this.
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may say that the Minister moved as if to rise. I put the Question. I paused considerably when I put the Question. I gave the House a full opportunity. However, I do not want to deny the House the right of debate. We can be very disorderly if we are not careful. I paused when I put the Question, and the hon. and learned Gentleman was present.
  Mr. Gardner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was my clear understanding that the Minister would be making a few introductory remarks by way of introducing the Third Reading, and I was waiting upon him to rise so that he could have that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker: It is quite clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman overlooked what was happening at the moment when I put the Question, although I put it quite

  525
  slowly. If it is the will of the House—but only if it is the will of both sides of the House—I will go back.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I think that it would be helpful to the House, Mr. Speaker, if you could waive the rules in order to ensure that no section of the House should feel that its rights have been infringed about the matter. Of course, we hope to proceed at reasonable speed, and I am sure that the House will take that into account. But I think that it would be for the convenience of everyone if you were prepared to take that action.
  Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of us in this House have been caught out by not being fully awake from time to time. I had always understood that it was a rule of the House that if such an eventuality occurred, one paid the penalty of one's lack of attention. It has happened to Back Benchers. I hope that if we bend the rules on this occasion for the Conservative Front Bench, some of us who may be asleep in the future on the Back Benches will be allowed to have the rule bent for us, too.
  Mr. Speaker: I have never known the hon. Gentleman to be asleep. At least, his eyes have been open.
  However, I think that we must exercise common sense in this matter. Quite clearly the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) was not aware of what was happening, and I think that it is the will of both sides of the House that we delete the earlier proceedings. But hon. Members must not take it as a precedent. Let the whole House—including the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price)—remember that.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. John.]
  11.14 a.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and for the support I have received from the Government Front Bench. If it was my error, I am sorry for it. I was under a mistaken view of what in fact was happening at the time.
  526
  I am very grateful to have this opportunity to say that the Opposition support this measure because we see the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, which the Bill enables the United Kingdom to ratify as a signatory, as another necessary and welcome, if limited, step in the international fight against terrorism.
  The Convention itself, as we know, was inspired by the terrible history of terrorism during the last decade in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland and in European countries. The Convention and the Bill both share the fundamental and common purpose of attempting to ensure that terrorists who commit their outrages in a European country which has ratified the Convention are not allowed to escape justice by pleading that their crimes were of a political character.
  There were two anxieties which those of us, on both sides of the House, who looked at the Bill, had about the Convention. There were strong feelings—I recognise the strong interest and feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on this point, which he expressed in Committee—that by denying the terrorist the right to avoid extradition from one country to another on the grounds of the political nature of his acts, the Convention inevitably impinged upon the tradition to which our domestic law has long given effect—namely, that we do not return to the country of origin persons accused of political offences as such. The tradition goes back to the Napoleonic wars and was given statutory effect as long ago as 1870.
  I have sympathy with, and, as I have already said, I share the anxiety that was felt about this aspect of the Bill. On the other hand, the Opposition now feel that it is justified to diminish the extradition rights in this way because of Clause 2 of the Bill, which clearly protects a fugitive terrorist against extradition if his position would be prejudiced by his political opinion on the other grounds that are set out in Clause 2.
  We are equally satisfied that these provisions are justified because the contracting States to the Convention are democratic States with systems of justice upon which we believe we can rely.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does not my hon. and learned Friend think it

  527
  utterly deplorable that one of those democratic States, the Republic of Ireland, has not seen fit to sign this Convention and ratify it? If that State is not harbouring terrorists, why on earth does it not sign the Convention?
  Mr. Gardner: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has anticipated a point with which I was going to conclude my speech.
  The point that is of overwhelming cogency is the fact that it is in the exceptional nature of terrorism that exceptional steps should be taken and there arises an exceptional need to ensure that those who are responsible for these outrages should on no account escape justice.
  The second anxiety, that which has just been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), is the limited jurisdiction of the Convention. This is not only because it relates to the States which have ratified the Convention but also because one of those States, the Republic of Ireland, has so far refused to sign or ratify it. One hardly needs to be reminded of the fact that some of the worst examples of modern terrorism have emanated from, or have been committed in, the Republic of Ireland.
  Few countries, the House will probably agree unanimously, are more involved in, more affected by or have stronger reason for an interest in, suppressing terrorism than the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Yet Mr. Lynch's Government have refused to ratify this Convention and one can only ask why. If there arises a suspicion of lack of good faith in Mr. Lynch and his Government, Mr. Lynch and his Government have only themselves to blame. In a speech that Mr. Lynch made on 27th April this year he gave a reason for his Government's refusal to sign or ratify this Convention. He said:
  "This country"
  —that is, the Republic of Ireland—
  "has declined to sign that Convention, not because of any lack of determination to operate, to the full, the law against those who use violence for political ends, but quite simply because the Convention is against the spirit of our Constitution and of previous International Conventions."
  One can only suppose that Mr. Lynch either forgot or overlooked or, I suppose
  528
  more reasonably, rejected the views of his Foreign Minister, Mr. Michael O'Kennedy, as expressed in a speech last year to the point that the Irish Government ought to subscribe to international conventions against terrorism. According to a report the The Irish Times of 17th February last year, Mr. O'Kennedy, who was speaking in a debate at Trinity College, was arguing that, whatever reasons the Government had for not signing the European Convention,
  "the constitution is not one of them."
  He went on to say:
  "Constitutional lawyers were amazed to hear the Govenment assert blandly that the Constitution prevented them from signing the European Convention against Terrorism recently."
  He argued, rightly we believe, that, far from repudiating the obligation of the Republic of Ireland to maintain peaceful and orderly relations with other States, the constitution required that country to discharge such obligations.
  Will the Minister use his best endeavours to see that the Government of the Republic are aware of the dismay and of something amounting to bewilderment at the failure to sign and ratify this Convention? Will he see whether the United Kingdom cannot reach some agreement with other contracting States to make certain that the Government of the Republic understands fully our desire that it should sign this Convention as soon as possible?
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Would it not be fair to say also that if one singles out the Republic of Ireland one should also look at the legislation of other States which are contracting parties which have entered derogations against the Convention, although they have ratified and signed it?
  Mr. Gardner: I think that is right. Quite a number of countries have done this. They have recognised, as we in this House have recognised, the exceptional character of terrorism. Because of that and under the impact of their conviction that terrorism must be dealt with and that exceptional measures have to be taken to deal with it, they have signed and ratified the Convention. That is what we are asking the Republic of Ireland to do.
  11.25 a.m.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: I am glad to have the opportunity of sharing the

  529
  welcome which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) has accorded this important Bill. I welcome it not only as a Member of Parliament who is profoundly disturbed, as we all are, by the problems of international terrorism, not only as a lawyer who sees in it an instrument for dealing with, meeting, and perhaps hopefully diminishing international terrorism but also as a delegate from this House to the Council of Europe. I think it is right that, on Third Reading, the role of the Council of Europe in initiating this international Convention, should be openly and publicly recognised.
  The problem of terrorism has exercised the Council of Europe for many years increasingly, as international terrorism has increased. It has concerned the Legal Committee of the Council of Europe on which I have the honour to serve. It was in that Legal Committee that the terms of this Convention and other projects in a similar vein were discussed and thrashed out, went before the Assembly, then to the Committee of Ministers and finally resulted in the Convention to which this legislation is designed to give the force of law in this country.
  In welcoming this further contribution of the Council of Europe to international comity and understanding and, we hope, to the progress of civilisation in Europe, one should remember that this is the latest of over 90 international European Conventions which have been the result of the work of the Council of Europe, produced by the Council of Europe, and which have been signed and ratified by most of the countries making up the Council of Europe. Obviously, the most important and best known is the International Convention on Human Rights, but there are many others. I am sure that the Minister, if he replies, will desire in his turn to pay a tribute to the important work—it is all too often ignored, perhaps because it goes so smoothly and is done so well—of the Council of Europe which alone can speak with the voice of all the 20 countries—there are not many more—which make up the free countries of Europe.
  11.28 a.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: This debate was made possible today by the intervention of the Leader of the House and the agreement of the Front
  530
  Benches. As a Back Bencher, I think that it is only right that someone from Northern Ireland, a Province afflicted with the scourge of terrorism, should make a few remarks.
  Hon. Members for Northern Ireland are more interested in the later business than in this debate, but I would like to remind the House that terrorism continues in Northern Ireland. Sometimes this House seems to think that because there has been some improvement in the situation, the terrorist problem in Northern Ireland is over. But the other evening, £5 million-worth of damage was inflicted in the City of Londonderry by a terrorist strike and many other acts of savagery, cruelty and murder have been committed in the past few days. Terrorism is far from over in Northern Ireland.
  The House was shocked, as the world was shocked, with the awful La Mon Hotel massacre. It is now well known in Northern Ireland that the police know the people responsible for that massacre but that those people are safe in the Republic of Ireland. I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) on the attitude of the Republican Government to this matter. As long as there is any place in the Island of Ireland where a terrorist can hide from the law, we shall be unable to put down terrorism. There must be no safe hiding place for terrorists in any part of these Islands.
  I therefore welcome the Bill, and I trust that the South of Ireland will, even at this late stage, take cognisance of what has been and will be done by the various States making up the Council of Europe and realise that in this matter the South is seriously out of step. We are constantly told by the Dublin Government that they want to be friendly to the North of Ireland. The best way for them to demonstrate the sincerity of those oft-repeated affirmations would be to fall in line with the other States in the Council of Europe and endorse the Convention.
  11.31 a.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: I add my congratulations to the Government on bringing in the Bill. There are, I think, two categories of problem here. First, of the 19 States, two have not signed, and I gather that of the other

  531
  17 we shall be the third country to bring forward a change in domestic legislation. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that until this matter is dealt with by the Republic of Ireland and legislation is passed by the other European States, there will be harbours for terrorists in too many areas. One has but to look at the record. In spite of the signatures applied to the Convention, the fact remains that, because domestic legislation has not been passed, it is still possible for terrorists to get away.
  I therefore congratulate the Government on being the third European Government, so I understand—Sweden and West Germany being the other two—to make changes in domestic legislation, and I trust that this example will be followed by the other European States.
  I trust also that this matter will be raised not just in the Council of Europe but in the Nine, because I believe that this could be the best way to move the Republic of Ireland. Undoubtedly, there is a division of opinion there, and I feel that in that way we could move opinion in the Republic firmly in the direction indicated by the Irish Foreign Minister. If all the other countries of the EEC passed the appropriate legislation, it would, I believe, be much easier for the Irish Government to come into line. On this occasion at least, Brussels could be of great use to this country if it could bring about the passage of legislation as part of the legislation of the European Community as a whole.
  One recognises, of course, that such legislation is not 100 per cent. effective. Great problems remain. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction, and I hope that by our example in this Parliament other European Parliaments—and, one day, the Irish Parliament—can be encouraged to take similar steps.
  11.33 a.m.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I support those of my hon. Friends who have passed strictures upon the Republic of Ireland for its failure hitherto to sign the convention. Many friends of the Republic will have been shocked to hear its Prime Minister's reason for not doing so. Surely, it sounds like the hollowest of excuses, especially in the light of what my
  532
  hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) reminded us about Mr. O'Kennedy's explanation that there is no constitutional reason for the Republic of Ireland not to sign the European Convention.
  The Republic should remember that most people in this country look towards it as being on our side in the war against terrorism. There does not appear to be any excuse, if it is not harbouring terrorists, for its Government not to sign the Convention.
  We know, of course, that the IRA would not like the Convention to be signed since its terrorists would wish to keep the opportunity to find haven within the Republic's borders. This, therefore, raises the question just how frightened, concerned or affected by the views of the IRA the Government of the Republic are, how much they are influenced by the IRA, and how much the IRA itself is influenced by pressure from international terrorists.
  These questions are asked, but they are asked in a spirit of concern and friendship by those who are anxious to remain the close friends we always have been, with the Republic. Therefore, anything that goes out from this debate to bring home to the Government of the Republic of Ireland the concern which we feel will be well merited.
  I wish, finally, to remind the House of some words of Solzhenitsyn which, I believe, were last quoted in 1975 in our debate on capital punishment for terrorist killings. They are most apt to the point which we are, I believe, all making:
  "Hijackings and other forms of terrorism have been spreading tenfold precisely because everyone is ready to capitulate before them. But as soon as some firmness is shown, terrorism can be smashed for ever."
  The only way we can ensure that international terrorism is smashed is by all the Governments of the West agreeing together to take those steps which are necessary, and one of the most necessary steps which can be taken at this point is the signing of the Convention and the putting into effect of all its articles.
  11.35 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of this short

  533
  debate. I join the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) in paying tribute to the work of the Council of Europe in initiating the Convention to which we are now to give our assent on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  I believe that the Bill will take us forward. Of course, no legislation will of itself transform any situation. Legislation always needs to be supplemented by political will in any society, which I take to have been the point made by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I thought that the hon. Gentleman was rather gloomy in quoting Solzhenitsyn, for I believe that in both the international and the domestic scene there is a growing awareness of what must be done and a greater determination to stand up to terrorism, if I may so put it, recognising that, unless democratic countries are able to resist it, it will remain the most overt threat to democracy that can possibly exist.
  The Bill will bring about major changes in our extra-territorial jurisdiction as well as in our traditional extradition procedures. I feel that the speed with which both the Standing Committee and the House have managed to transact the business is a recognition of the importance with which our Parliament views the matter.
  At present, the Convention has been ratified by three member States of the Council of Europe—Austria, Sweden and the Federal Republic of Germany—and it comes into force on 4th August this year. We shall be the fourth member to ratify.
  Once Royal Assent has been given, a number of orders will have to be laid, but we expect that all this will be completed within a few months, enabling us to ratify the Convention by this autumn. I believe that by so doing we shall give a clear example to other countries and a positive demonstration of the way in which the United Kingdom views the best interests of all.
  Mr. Grieve: It is fair to say—I am sure that the Minister would wish to say it—that we have led the countries of Europe in the extent to which we have signed and ratified the conventions to which we have been party.
  Mr. John: I was just coming to that very point. We propose to ratify the Convention without reservation because we believe that extradition is the most effective way of dealing with fugitive terrorists. We shall not cease to urge upon the other members of the Council of Europe our belief—the Government of the Republic of Ireland are well aware of it—that extradition—and therefore this Convention—is the most effective way of countering terrorism.
  As hon. Members will have seen, we have made appropriate provision in the Bill to enable it to be applied to the Republic of Ireland should it wish to ratify the Convention and indeed—
  Mr. McNamara Mr. McNamara rose—
  Mr. John: I am about to come to a point which I think will help my hon. Friend. Should the Republic of Ireland wish to act outside the Convention—perhaps on similar lines but outside it—we have made provision in the Bill for that. Discussions are going on at the moment within the Nine about the possibility of this happening.
  Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comment on that point, which I intended to raise with him. There was a second point that I wanted to make. I am sure that he will agree that legislation exists, both in this country and in the Republic of Ireland, for extradition if evidence is produced which will stand up in court. If the Government felt that matters of the sort to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred, existed, and they had the evidence, they would use this legislation.
  Mr. John: Hon. Members are doing very well this morning in anticipating the next point in my speech. I was about to point out that legislation of a reciprocal nature, which is embodied in the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975, enables courts in the Republic to try offenders for crimes committed in Northern Ireland, and vice versa. That extends to some offences connected with explosives committed in Great Britain. But it affects only crimes or offences committed after 1st June 1976.
  I take my hon. Friend's point about derogations and about reservations concerning the Convention, but I make the

  535
  general point that we shall ratify the Convention without reservation and encourage all other signatory countries to the Convention to do so, because we believe that that is the most effective way of countering this very serious menace.
  The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde mentioned the anxiety relating to the political offence. It is certain that there is some diminution, but I should not like that word to be used in any qualitative sense, as though there were some significant erosion of liberty implied. Certainly it is true that there has been a diminution in regard to the horrific crimes listed in the Bill. But there are at least three major sources of safeguard which still remain to the fugitive who genuinely seeks political sylum. The first is the democratic nature of the member countries of the Council of Europe. Indeed, should any one of them cease to be democratic, it would also cease to be a member of the Council, and therefore cease to be a country to which the Convention would apply.
  Secondly, in terms of Article 5, which is enshrined in Clause 2 of the Bill, it would still be open to a court, if it found that a proscution wereaimed at persecuting someone on the ground of race, religion, nationality or political views, to refuse extradition upon such ground.
  Thirdly, the Home Secretary still has his residual power—I hope that this will reassure those acedemics who talk on the radio about the safeguards for political offences having been removed entirely from the Convention—to refuse extradition where he believes that the motive in so doing is not punishment for one of these offences but persecution on the ground of political views. I think that there remains an adequate safeguard for those who are oppressed, without making it the fig leaf by which almost every bandit or murdered can escape his crime by claiming that there was some political motive behind it.
  Inevitably, we have to draw a line in the modern world between safeguarding people from oppression and punishing offences which everyone feels to be abhorrent. I believe that the Bill has drawn that balance pretty well. I think the Convention also drew it pretty well. By ratifying it as we are, I hope that
  536
  we are giving an example to those countries which have not signed. I should prefer to encourage rather than to criticise publicly. I hope that all of them will feel able to join us as quickly as possible, thereby helping to stamp out this vicious and evil development in modern society. By their so doing, life in the democratic countries which are members of the Council of Europe will be the richer.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  JUDICATURE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 69

  NORTHERN IRELAND COURT SERVICE
  11.45 a.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 45, line 4, leave out
  ",and other persons employed for the purposes of,".
  If it is not out of order on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, may I explain to the House that, although there was a substantial number of Government amendments in Committee, we have some further amendments today. They arise partly from the substantial amendment to the Bill, which was introduced in another place. Partly they are in response to suggestions from a number of quarters for improving the system in matters of detail. I hope that the House will not feel that they are unwelcome.
  Naturally, I shall try to ensure that the time of the House is not taken up unnecessarily but, where there is any substantial amendment to the Bill, obviously I shall try to make it clear to the House.
  The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that only the functions of officers of coroners' courts will be transferred to the Northern Ireland Court Service. It is not intended that the work of other persons, such as pathologists, should become the responsibility of the new Court Service.
  Mr. Ian Percival: I am glad that the Solicitor-General said what he

  537
  did about amendments being tabled late in the day. There were certain observations passing from both sides on this in Committee. It is a pity, especially in the late stages of a Bill such as this, to have a large number of even technical amendments. I share that view, but, since I complained in Committee, I think that I should have the decency on this occasion to say that the Solicitor-General kindly arranged for us to have some notes yesterday on these amendments. That was not only very courteous but very sensible, because it enables us to be informed about them. Being that much informed about the amendment, I have nothing to say on it.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Although the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) was informed about the amendment, I was not informed about the full meaning of it. Will the Solicitor-General please list the officers of the coroners' courts, and tell us which persons employed in coroners' courts are left out or exempted by the amendment?
  The Solicitor-General: May I first say that I am grateful to the hon and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) for what he said. There is always a difficulty when someone makes a suggestion at a relatively late stage in a Bill such as this. One has to decide between saying "I am sorry, you are too late, we cannot incorporate the suggestion", or introduce an amendment at a late stage. We have done the best we can.
  It is easier to answer the question of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) by explaining the kind of people whom it is intended to exclude. Coroners are obviously assisted by a number of people—earlier I gave the example of pathologists who do the post-mortems. No one would think that the pathologist was an officer of the coroner's court, but the drafting of the Bill may have brought the pathologist within the provisions which were not intended to apply to them.
  Many coroners in office at present are practising solicitors who use their own staff for clerical work. It is not intended to apply the provisions to them. The officers we intend to bring within the provisions are clerical staff—it is as simple as that.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 74

  DEPUTIES AND TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 in, page 47, line 31, at end insert—
  '(3) Where anything is for the time being authorised or required by this Act or any other statutory provision to be done to or by a particular statutory officer and—

  (a) that statutory officer is not available because of absence or other reason and no person may, by virtue of subsections (1) and (2), exercise his powers; or

  (b) his office is vacant,

  then it may, unless the Lord Chancellor otherwise directs, be done during such unavailability or vacancy to or by any other statutory officer.'.
  The purpose of the amendment is intended to meet the situation where a particular statutory officer is temporarily unavailable. To anticipate the question of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), he will find the statutory officers listed in Schedule 3.
  If a statutory officer is temporarily ill, it is not always convenient to replace him or to appoint a deputy. Sometimes it is easier to authorise another statutory officer to perform the necessary function. That is the purpose of this amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 99

  QUALIFICATIONS OF COUNTY COURT JUDGES AND DEPUTY JUDGES
  Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 61, leave out line 25.
  The House may know that in Committee I moved an amendment in precisely these terms. I made it clear that the purpose of that amendment was to provide an opportunity to discuss a number of important points in connection with the use of deputies. The debate was particularly concerned with deputy county court judges, the use of the office of deputy county court judge as a route to a permanent judicial office. We had a useful debate in Committee and there were a number of matters that the Solicitor-General wanted to look at again. He has very kindly written to me about them and now we have a chance to discuss them once more.
  In Committee I asked for information about the pattern of employment of

  539
  deputy county court judges and the Solicitor-General has made it clear to me in correspondence that he would think it enough for me to summarise it in this way. Under the English system we use recorders in a pan-time capacity, and for purposes of comparison with Northern Ireland it may be said that these deputy county court judges will be used more or less in the same way as recorders are used here—not according to any regular pattern, but as and when the occasion requires. They will remain mainly practitioners but will do their stint of judicial work in the capacity of county court judges. If I am right in that understanding, we on the Opposition Benches are well content with the situation.
  There is no rigid time fixed for the number of days which a recorder is bound to sit, but it is expected that he will sit for about 20 days a year. That is not a bad thing because it tends to establish that he is meant to be, not just a substitute, but mainly a practitioner who sits for 20 days a year. The system works with great flexibility and that is desirable. Nobody would seek a maximum or minimum of 20 days, but it is handy to have that guide. Is any similar guide intended in connection with county court judges?
  On a matter of much greater importance, we are faced with the question of the extent to which deputy county court judges may be used to try what I will call "Diplock cases"—a shorthand phrase that is used by everybody who understands the position. The progression of events on this point is that when the Bill was introduced in another place the Lord Chancellor said that it was "not conceivable" that a county court judge would be used to try terrorist cases.
  I believe that there are very sound reasons for that. Such cases impose a heavy burden on regular judges and in such cases, not only is the judge trying a particularly nasty kind of offence which excites more passions than the worst ordinary criminal offence, but it is not an exaggeration to say that the judges themselves are in a position of danger.
  We on this side of the House never cease to remind ourselves of the judges who have been killed in the course of their judicial duties. Their was Mr. Staunton, Q.C., a resident magistrate who, after lingering for some time, died
  540
  from his injuries. There was another resident magistrate Mr. McBirney, Q.C., and Judge Rory Conaghan. We do not face such difficulties in this country, but the judges across the water haw, this additional consideration which can never be far from their minds. On top of that, in Diplock cases the judge is the jury as well and this brings a measure of difficulty and danger through the special nature of hi task.
  Therefore, it is not difficult to understand why the Lord Chancellor went so far as to say that it was not conceivable that deputies should be used to try such cases. Deputies usually will be practising solicitors, barristers and resident magistrates. I imagine that the judges who try Diplock cases may be subject to special security precautions, and one cannot extend those indefinitely. Therefore, if one brings in part timers to try such cases, there is this additional difficulty.
  In Comittee I asked about this matter and said that I understood that it was universally agreed that deputies should not be used for trying such cases. The Solicitor-General said in reply to me:
  "There is no intention, certainly at the moment, of allocating terrorist work to regular judges while the deputy judges take the other work. They will take the same sort of work, including terrorist work where that is appropriate, as the regular judges."—[Official Report, Standing Commmittee A, 9th May, 1978; c. 39.]
  The Solicitor-General has since written to me, having reconsidered the matter as he said he would do in Committee. The position now is much more akin to that stated by the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading in another place. It should be put on the record that a deputy will never be used for this work unless the circumstances are quite exceptional and there are exceptional reasons for asking him to do it.
  If that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. I do not think that one could quarrel with it. But one should not shut the door entirely on the possibility. So long as it is absolutely clear that a deputy will never be used in these circumstances unless there are unanswerable reasons, everyone will be content.
  12 noon.
  Assuming that to be the assurance which the Solicitor-General can give us, it leads straight to the next difficulty to

  541
  which I referred in Committee and which we are now able to approach more specifically, because it depends upon whether deputies will be used in this work. In Committee we were not so sure about that as we now are. If the assurance for which I have asked can be given, all that special work will fall on the regular judges and not on the deputies. Therefore, the regular judges will be that much less available to do their ordinary work. The work which they would otherwise have done will fall on the deputies.
  If we are not careful, we may end up with the position where the regular judges are doing one kind of work and not doing the general work which they are entitled to expect to do when they accept appointment to the county court bench. It may be that the answer will lie in what happens to the number of cases to be tried, how long they take, or how much of the time of the regular judges they take up. If it transpired that the result of asking these judges to do all the Diplock cases was that on the present number of those judges they were doing mostly that work, with someone else doing the work which they were appointed to do, I think that it would be necessary to consider increasing the number in order to give them a greater spread of work and to take from them some of the burden of this very special work. That seems to me to be the only practical answer to that problem, if it arises, which I can think of at present.
  I should like to hear the views of the Solicitor-General because it is important that we do not allow judges to get into a situation where all the burden is on them. All these points are relevant to the amendment, because if resident magistrates stay within this clause they will be used as deputies and, therefore, will be interested in all the points that have been mentioned.
  I now turn more directly to the question of resident magistrates. The amendment, if carried, would leave them out. They would not be able to be deputy county court judges. But I say at once that it is not my intention to press the amendment. I do not seek to rule out their opportunity of being deputy county court judges. It is perfectly reasonable that they should have a route to the bench. If they did not have this route, it would mean that those who had been in practice
  542
  as barristers or solicitors for seven years, and who by continuing for another three years would become eligible to be deputy county court judges and then county court judges, would—because they have taken an important appointment of resident magistrate—lose their route to the bench. That would be quite wrong. I say that so that there may be no misunderstanding in their minds, or anyone else's mind, why I am moving the amendment. It is to give an airing to two particular aspects of the consequences of leaving this provision in the Bill.
  I should like to take the opportunity of repeating—it is worth repeating and I want resident magistrates to be in no doubt about it—that we Conservatives, like everyone else, realise that the work done by the resident magistrates is of enormous importance. They are in the front line with a very special and difficult job to do. I have spoken of the special nature and the difficulties and dangers faced by the county court judges. I do not think that anyone would disagree with what I have said about them. The resident magistrates have to deal with different classes of cases. I do not have the slightest doubt that this creates special difficulties.
  We know of the dangers involved, and the importance of resident magistrates cannot be in doubt. In Committee I expressed this fear. Here we have a body of men doing an enormously important job and doing it well. It is a job of a special nature and they obtain special expertise in doing it. I want to be sure that we do not take them way from doing the job that they are best fitted to do by using them too often as deputies doing another and different job.
  I should like the Solicitor-General to help us a little more by saying how he sees the resident magistrates being used if this provision stays in the Bill. Does he see them being used only on an occasional basis, rather like recorders are used here? It is anticipated that this will be but a small part of their job? On the one hand, it is a part of their job which will be of some assistance to the county court judges, by making it that much easier for them to deal with the burden of cases in their courts, and on the other hand it will be a means of broadening the experience of those magistrates,

  543
  perhaps of even giving them a little relief away from their own courts.
  I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to tell us that it is certainly not in the mind of his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that they should be used for more than that or that there should be any suggestion of their being used regularly in the county court. What can the Solicitor-General tell us about the kind of work he thinks that they will do?
  I should like to say a word about the hearing of appeals from resident magistrates by the county court judges. Without any disrespect to them—I have made it perfectly clear that I have nothing but the greatest respect for them—I think that it would put them in an invidious position if they were called upon to sit as a judge of appeal to hear an appeal from one of their colleagues.
  The Solicitor-General has considered this point and has written to me about it. In Committee, he quoted the example of a High Court judge who sits as an accasional member of a court of appeal hearing appeals from another High Court judge. With great respect to him, I do not think that that is a parallel. In that instance there are two other judges of appeal, and that of itself is a great distinction.
  In any event, the kind of apeal that I am talking about—an appeal from a resident magistrate to a county court judge —may well be an appeal on the merits, whereas in the case of a court of appeal in this country the appeal judges are merely deciding whether as a matter of law the judge who tried the case in the first instance was right or wrong. One rarely has more than one High Court judge sitting with two Lords of Appeal.
  In the system across the water, if these gentleman were required to hear appeals from resident magistrates, they would be sitting on their own and hearing appeals on the merits. It may be that they take a different view. If so, they will no doubt put it before the Lord Chancellor. However, it seems to me that it might put them in a very difficult position. There might well be unsatisfactory features or consequences of using them in that way. I should be more content if I heard that it was not considered likely that they would be used in that way.
  544
  Will these magistrates undertake probate work and similar work normally carried out by county court judges, including bankruptcy and other matters? There is a difficult dichotomy. If they are not to undertake the hearing of terrorist cases or probate and bankruptcy work, and if they are not to hear appeals, will there be very much left for them to do? Does this not reinforce my argument that they should be left to do, at least for the greater proportion of their time, work in which they are experts?
  The last matter is the time factor affecting routes to the bench. We have got into something of a muddle in this respect. It is too late to change the position now, but there is sufficient of a muddle to make it necessary to clear our minds as to what is intended by these provisions.
  A person who has practised at the Bar for not less than 10 years may become either a deputy or a county court judge straight away. A person who has practised as a solicitor may become a deputy county court judge after 10 years, but he cannot become a regular county court judge until the passing of another three years. I do not think solicitors would regard that as reflecting on their abilities, but it allows for the fact that, whereas barristers will have spent their lives in court, many solicitors carry out little court work. Therefore, it may be sensible for them to have three years' experience on the bench as deputies before stepping up.
  I do not think anybody quarrels with that differentiation, but one reaches a paradox in examining the route to the bench—involving, for example, the passage of a resident magistrate to deputy county court judge. Whether the person concerned is a practising solicitor or a practising barrister, we know that he may become a resident magistrate after seven years and may become a regular county judge immediately. I am not saying he is likely to do so, but this is the muddle we have reached on the time factor.
  I suppose it is unlikely that the Lord Chancellor would recommend the appointment of somebody to be a resident magistrate one day and a deputy county court judge the next—although that may not be as unlikely as one imagines, because the Lord Chancellor could take that course. He may take that

  545
  course after a year or a year-and-a-half, and it would still shorten the route to the bench, without any obvious reasons being advanced.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General told me in his letter on this point that it was unlikely that that would happen, but he thought that it was a good thing to be able to take this step in exceptional cases. There would be some force in that argument if it applied to all the arguments in regard to the time factor, but we had in mind the curious situation that, however able a person may be to become a county court judge, if he had not the requisite 10 years' service, promotion could not happen. It would be strange if we were to give ourselves the opportunity to promote somebody whose services were needed exceptionally via one route, while not being able to take that step via the other route. That does not make sense. If the argument is a runner, it must apply to all routes to the bench.
  Perhaps all these difficulties can be overcome by a practical common sense approach, and I have dealt with these matters in detail to give the Solicitor-General the opportunity to put on record sufficient assurance to allay any fears that this may work out to anybody's disadvantage. Illogical situations are apt to breed discontent, and perhaps suspicion and unhappiness. Therefore, before these provisions begin to operate, I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to assure us that these anomalies are recognised and that in practice everybody may rest assured that no difficulties will be encountered.
  12.15 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: He is a courageous man who ventures into lawyers' territory. This debate is taking place between two very eminent lawyers, and I do not propose to become entangled in their legal yoke of bondage. However, the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) raised a number of points that are of concern to the people of Northern Ireland, and I wish to deal with them.
  I wish to endorse—and I know that I do so on behalf of my colleague the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford)—all that was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman about the way in which judges and magistrates have
  546
  carried out their duties in Northern Ireland in terrible circumstances. Every magistrate or judge in such circumstances is a target for terrorism at one time or other, depending on the type of case that comes before the courts. Some of these judges and magistrates have been shot down and brutally murdered, and others have been mutilated, for carrying out the duties of their office. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General will agree with me when I stress that we all endorse the way in which these men carry out their duties, and we are glad that we have such people acting as judges and magistrates in Northern Ireland.
  Arising from what was said in Committee, I wish to stress that these judges and magistrates come from both sections of the religious divide in Northern Ireland. It was said by one Member of the Committee that almost all these appointments were from the Protestant section of the community. That is nonsense. They come from both sections.
  Mr. Percival: What is more, I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the casualties are equally spread. One of the two resident magistrates who gave his life was a Roman Catholic and the other who died was a Protestant.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I was about to mention that magistrates from both sections of the community have suffered as a result. At times there is much talk in the House, and in Committees, that is not based on fact. As a Member from Northefn Ireland, I believe that we need to place these matters fairly and squarely on the record.
  I do not think that resident magistrates should be removed from the clause. They are equally entitled to become deputy judges. In the minds of some they have have more entitlement. They are carrying the burden and bearing the heat of the day. There are not many solicitors lining up in Northern Ireland to be made resident magistrates. Surely they are entitled to be made deputy judges.
  I understand the representations that have been made by the various legal associations that becoming a resident magistrate may become a quick road to a higher appointment. That matter was raised by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Southport

  547
  However, it is hardly likely that any Lord Chancellor will appoint a resident magistrate as a deputy on one day and in a few days' time appoint him to higher office. If that did happen, there would be such a fuss from the heavy lobby of the legal profession that the poor Lord Chancellor would have an extremely rough ride. In any event, that is hardly likely to happen.
  I am sorry that it has been implied by the hon. and learned Member for Southport—this is probably the most important matter—that Diplock courts will be with us for ever. It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not intend to make that implication. However, we are discussing a reconstitution of the whole judicial system in Northern Ireland, and he referred to the Diplock courts. I want to get rid of the Diplock courts as quickly as possible. My attitude has been consistent. I voted against the setting up of such courts and I disagreed with the doing away of jury trials. I highly resented the attitude taken by the then Attorney-General when he said that Protestant jurymen refused to do their duty. I repudiated that comment and I continue to do so. Jury trials should not have been done away with on that condition.
  However, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. and learned Gentlemen that deputy judges should not preside at Diplock courts. I feel that there should be a full judge presiding over those courts.
  Mr. Percival: I intended no such implication. Like everyone else, I long for the day when we can dispense with the Diplock courts. As always with lawyers, I was confining myself to the practical events of the moment.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad of that assurance. I said that I did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman made the implication intentionally. The sooner we get rid of Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, the happier will be the situation. However, we have them and we have to work with what we have. As terrorist scheduled offences are all tried before Diplock courts, it is essential that a full judge should preside.
  Is the Solicitor-General able to tell us the percentage of the time of the present judges that is taken up on Diplock court trials? How does that percentage of time compare with the other trial duties that
  548
  they perform? No doubt a large part of their time is being taken up with the trial of scheduled offences. It would be helpful to know the percentage so that when we think about the duties of deputy judges we shall know how much time will be needed for the deputies. Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am interested to know what sort of work the deputies will be doing.
  The Solicitor-General: If it is a qualification for a layman intervening in a lawyer's debate that he should be a courageous man, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has no reason to be deterred. It is a qualification that he possesses in full measure. The hon. Gentleman needs to make no apology for not being a lawyer.
  I echo that which was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North and the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) about seizing this opportunity to pay a tribute to the judiciary in the Province. It is true that the judiciary is drawn from both groups within the Province. It is true that in conditions of great stress and personal danger it has maintained the highest traditions of the judiciary and retained the confidence of the whole community. It is right that that should be said, and said without qualification.
  I reply to the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Southport about the pattern by which it is intended to employ deputy county court judges. I am happy to endorse the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman put the matter. They will be used in many ways as recorders are used in this country. It is hoped that they will be used according to a somewhat more structured pattern than in the past. There is no intention—at least at present—that they should be required to undertake to give a specific number of days each year. Now that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentoned the possibility, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to his remarks. If I can carry the matter further, I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is a matter that up to the moment has not been in the mind of my right hon. and noble Friend.
  I seize the opportunity given to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman to

  549
  correct something that I said in Committee. I apologise to the House for having misled the Committee. Those present in Committee will recollect that at the time I was offering a preliminary reply to the question posed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I believe that I expressly invited the Committee to consider my reply E & O E. It is true that there are no restrictions in the Bill on the powers and jurisdiction of the deputy judges. My right hon and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor stated in another place that he did not foresee normally using deputy judges to try scheduled offences.
  It is true that Diplock trials represent a considerable burden on the regular judiciary. Accordingly some thought has been given to the possibility of defining a class of case that would be suitable for trial by deputies. That has not proved possible. There have been difficulties in achieving a definition sufficiently precise to convey the necessary reassurance to the public that the quality of justice at the special trials—special in the sense that the judge performs the functions not only of a judge but of a jury—will be maintained.
  Although my right hon. and noble Friend wished to offer the permanent judiciary some relief by a limited use of deputies at these trials, he has decided that normally only permanent judges should deal with these cases. The hon. and learned Gentleman invited me to give an assurance, and I think that I can state that that procedure will be adopted unless there are exceptional and unlikely circumstances. We can never be sure whether there will be exceptional circumstances. I think that we probably all agree that it is better to leave the present provision in the Bill.
  I seize the opportunity to respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, North on whether there was an assumption that the Diplock court method of trial would continue indefinitely. None of us can foresee the future. At the time I echoed—I am not sure which of us echoed the other—what was said by the hon. Gentleman. I regarded it as an unwelcome incursion into the normal function of the judiciary.
  12.30 p.m.
  It is right to say now that, so far as I have been able to ascertain from every section of the community in the Province, there is a general tribute to the way in
  550
  which the judges have approached a task which was not very welcome to them. They have maintained a standard of fairness which has made it possible to continue this method of trial perhaps in circumstances where otherwise it might have come under substantial pressure.
  I was asked what, broadly, was the percentage of time which the regular judiciary devoted to this kind of trial. I am told that the answer is about 25 per cent. It is true, as the hon. and learned Member for Southport said, that, with this kind of burden on the regular judiciary, we shall have to watch to ensure that, if that percentage were to increase substantially, we do not reach a situation where almost all the normal work is done by deputy judges. Of course, if that were to happen, I give the assurance that serious consideration would be given to the possibility of appointing further judges.
  That is not the only circumstance in which my noble Friend might consider that possibility. There may be a number of reasons from time to time why it would be necessary to consider appointing additional judges. However, it is not envisaged that we should ever embrace a situation where the bulk of judicial work is done by deputy judges.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the possibility of a short cut to the bench for a resident magistrate. It is true that in Committee I undertook to invite my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to consider whether an amendment should be made so that a resident magistrate would not be eligible for appointment as a deputy county court judge unless the aggregate of his service, both in the profession and as a resident magistrate, amounted to at least 10 years. I certainly would not dispute the logic of the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  On reflection, my noble Friend thinks that it is better to leave the Bill as it is. First, we are not dealing with a situation which is likely to arise frequently in practice. Of course, it is possible for a barrister or solicitor to be appointed as a resident magistrate after only seven years service, but the normal pattern would be for him to have served in the profession for a much longer period before being apppointed.
  My second argument follows from that. If someone with fewer than 10 years in

  551
  practice were appointed, it would normally be because he was outstandingly fitted for this kind of appointment. It might be that he had entered the profession at a late stage after substantial experience in some other sphere.
  I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that someone who has been thought fit for appointment as a resident magistrate—the hon. and learned Gentleman recognised, and I certainly echo, the qualities required for appointment as a resident magistrate—should at least be considered as worthy of being in the running for appointment as a deputy judge. We are dealing with eligibility for appointment, not actual appointment. The question is, who is permitted to enter for the race, not who wins the cup.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Southport said, when I wrote to him I used the argument that, since there might admittedly be exceptional cases, was it not wise that my noble Friend should have the opportunity of considering people who fell into that category? The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that, if that were the case, why should it not apply right across the board? Why should people in practice who are outstandingly qualified for appointment have to wait for 10 years? I cannot dispute the logic of that argument. All I can say is that we should bear this in mind at some future stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that broadly he agreed that resident magistrates should be available for consideration as deputy county court judges.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman then asked whether consideration had been given to the fact that resident magisrates were already doing a very important job, that they had done it in such a way as to obtain the confidence of the whole community in the Province, and was it wise to take them away from work that they were doing. I assume that he was not suggesting that we should amend the Bill to deprive them of that opportunity.
  This provision was put into the Bill broadly for two reasons. First, it was felt that they should be considered both for appointment as deputies and ultimately for permanent appointment to the county court bench without the necessity of hav-
  552
  ing to resign and return to private practice. There is no doubt that some resident magistrates would aspire, among their ambitions, to possible appointment to the county court bench. One purpose of Clause 99 is to enable them to be considered for such appointment either directly or, as I am sure will be more usual, by way of the intermediate stage of serving as deputy county court judges.
  Mr. Percival: I am happy to confirm that I was not suggesting that the Bill should be amended. I am concerned about assurances on the way that it is likely to work out.
  The Solicitor-General: I am grateful for that indication.
  The other reason why this provision has been included in the Bill is that, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will recall, one of the principle themes of the Beeching Report was that, where judicial assistance may be required at a given level, possibly the best way of supplying it would be to provide support from the level immediately below and to move others in as deputies further down the line, as it were, as necessary. In that way, while a resident magistrate was acting as a deputy judge, the work which he would otherwise do could be done by a person acting as a resident magistrate under Section 10 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. That would have the added advantage of enabling my noble Friend to judge the performance of possible future candidates for permanent appointment as resident magistrates. In that way, the capacity of the magistrates' courts to keep up with the work load would not be damaged if some magistrates were appointed as deputy judges. But, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, there is no intention that this should be done as a matter of course. The provisions will be used with moderation. Normally resident magistrates will be used to do the work of resident magistrates.
  Finally, the hon. and learned Member for Southport expressed some anxiety about the possibility of a resident magistrate sitting as a deputy judge on appeal from another resident magistrate. I accept that the example which I gave in Committee of High Court judges in this country sometimes sitting in the Court of Appeal is not an exact analogy. I

  553
  hope, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that it would be wrong to appoint someone as a deputy judge and to say that he shall not have the normal powers of a deputy judge. On this matter I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I think that my noble Friend has in mind what the hon. and learned Member for Southport said—that often it would be undesirable for the appellate functions of county courts to be regularly exercised by deputy judges. I understand that, so far as possible, that will be avoided.
  We have had a helpful and constructive debate on this matter. I hope that we are all open minded enough to be prepared to learn as we go along. I shall not give any undertaking that there will never again be complaints about the judicial system in Northern Ireland. As in England, we shall no doubt make our mistakes. However, I hope that we shall be open minded enough to listen to those who indicate where the shoe has pinched, particularly hon. Members representing constituencies in the Province who will know from what they are told by their constituents where there are problems. We shall then be able from time to time to make such adjustments as will enable the judicial system to maintain the confidence of the public.
  Mr. Percival: I, too, think that it is a good thing that we have had this little debate and that what has been said is on record. It is a good thing not only that one layman has taken part in the debate but also that one of our colleagues from across the water has taken part in it. What could be better than having those two desirable qualifications in one speech? It has achieved what I said at the outset was the object of tabling the amendment—to have in reasonable space a good idea of how it is intended that these matters should work.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that he did not agree with taking resident magistrates out of the clause. I hope that it was clear that even when I was moving the amendment I did not agree with taking resident magistrates out of the clause. In a moment I shall take a course which, if the House agrees with it, will ensure that they are not taken out.
  554
  The Solicitor-General said that I appeared to agree with the proposition that, broadly speaking, it should be open to resident magistrates to enter the race for selection as county court judges. I go further than that. May I return to something which came near the beginning of what I was saying and which therefore may have been overlooked in the words that followed. I want expressly to state that I think it reasonable that resident magistrates should have a route to the bench. They are all either practising solicitors or practising barristers. They cannot qualify for appointment as resident magistrates until they have practised for seven years in either of those capacities. It would be strange if, by accepting such an important office, they were no longer able to qualify as they would have done had they remained in practice in either of those fields for another three years. That would be illogical.
  The more logical view is to say that they should not be blocked by taking this important appointment but that the period should still be what it would have been before, or somewhere in between. However, I do not press that point, as I hope I made clear when I proposed the amendment. The Solicitor-General was good enough to say that the logic of what I had in mind was unanswerable, but life is not all logic. What is much more important is how powers and provisions are used. I hope that those concerned about these points—rightly concerned, because as they affect them they want to know how they work—will be reassured by the debate. I feel that the assurances that have been given put at risk the doubts that otherwise might have been felt. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 116

  FEES
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 72, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 5 and insert
  'An order under subsection (1) or (2) may provide for the manner in which any fees fixed thereby are to be taken, applied and accounted for but, subject to any provision so made,'.
  I think that we shall now be able to turn to relatively brief debates. Clause 116

  555
  (4) simply contains a saving for the existing ways in which fees are taken, applied and accounted for in the various courts in the Province. The amendment makes it clear that fees orders will be able to contain provisions about those matters if it is wished to amend them.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 86, line 26, after 'if', insert 'for'.
  The amendment is simply to correct a printing error.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 97, line 40, leave out 'as it applies to Northern Ireland'.
  This amendment is simply to remove words which are unnecessary, as they already appear in lines 23 and 24 of the same page.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 100, line 28, leave out from 'words' to end of line 30 and insert
  'from "any such moneys" to "Northern Ireland)" substitute the words "money in the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland".'.
  This is a technical amendent consequential both on the new provisions for funds in Part VII of the Bill and on the repeal of Section 30 of the Administration of Justice Act in Schedule 7.
  Amendment agreed to.
  12.45 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 106, line 26, at end insert—
  'In section 2(3) for the words from "is a barrister-at-law" to the end substitute the words "has practised for not less than five years either as a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or as a solicitor of the Supreme Court" …'.
  I hope that the House will bear with me if I take a little longer in introducing this amendment, as it makes a substantial difference. It is an amendment to the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) Act 1959 relating to the qualifications for appointment as a coroner. At present, Section
  556
  2(3) of the 1959 Act provides that barristers and solicitors of five years' standing who are—I emphasise the word "are"—practising in Northern Ireland shall be eligible. This means that candidates have to be drawn from the ranks of practising barristers and solicitors.
  The rule has been abandoned for all other judicial appointments, so far as I know, because it precludes from appointment those who have practised but who have taken up other posts even if those people would otherwise be suitable. The amendment, if passed, would bring the position for coroners into line with that for all other judicial appointments by requiring that eligibility shall rest on having practised for the necessary period but it shall not be necessary for candidates to be in practice immediately before appointment.
  It is only honest to say that the need for the amendment arises partly from the difficulty which has been experienced in finding suitable practitioners who are willing to undertake the duties of coroners in the Province. Although coronerships are part-time, the duties are burdensome and not very well remunerated. I seize the opportunity of paying tribute to the way in which coroners in the Province perform their duties.
  The question of remuneration is at present under review, coroners may be glad to hear. It is hoped that with the establishment of the new court service greater clerical assistance wil be available to them. It is thought that the amendment may help to solve what otherwise would be a problem.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 106, leave out lines 34 to 38 and insert—
  'In section 36(1) for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (a) substitute—
  "(1) The Lord Chancellor may by rules—
  (a) made after consultation with the Treasury, make provision with respect to the records, accounts and returns which the Lord Chancellor may require coroners to keep and submit to him with respect to information to be supplied by coroners;".
  For section 36(2) substitute—
  "(2) The Lord Chancellor may with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service determine—

  (a) the salaries or fees and superannuation to be paid to coroners and to registered

  557
  medical practitioners employed under section 27(2);

  (b) the fees and allowances payable to persons assisting at post-mortem examinations;

  (c) the allowances payable to witnesses under this Act.".'.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): With this we may take Government Amendment No. 19.
  The Solicitor-General: Section 36(1) (a) of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 provides that rules shall fix the salaries or fees of coroners, the fees of other persons employed for the purpose of the coroners' courts, and the allowance to witnesses.
  In recent years, for reasons which will be familiar to the House, these matters have had to be adjusted fairly frequently, and there is no real need for subordinate legislation for this purpose. Following a similar change made in England and Wales in 1977, the amendment provides for these salaries, fees and allowances to be determined by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. The rule-making powers in relation to records, accounts and returns, referred to in the new Section 36(1) (a) remains unaffected. Amendment No. 19 is consequential and simply removes from Schedule 7 repeals which would then be unnecessary.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: May I ask the Solicitor-General whether this allowance payable to witnesses under the Act would be the same as that for appearing in any ordinary court hearing? Some of these cases in regard to the settlement of compensation are very important in the coroners' courts to the people concerned. I am sure that the Solicitor-General is aware of that. I should like the matter to be clarified.
  Solicitor-General: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes".
  Mr. Percival: I do not pretend to understand the details of the amendment, but I think the effect of what the Solicitor-General has said is that it makes it easier to alter the remuneration of those with whom these provisions are concerned. That may make it easier to keep up to date with changes that ought to be made. If that is so, we on the Conservative Benches would welcome the
  558
  amendment. I should like the assurance of the Solicitor-General on that point.
  I do not know whether the coroners have any sort of body or association, but I would like to know whether there is any statutory provision about consultation in connection with the fees or any process by which such consultation is ensured. Whilst I welcome anything which makes it easier, less ponderous and quicker to deal with coroners' fees, we are all very much concerned nowadays with what processes of consultation there are open to people whose fees are being fixed.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman's question is obviously a fair and relevant one. I hope that there will be consultation when coroners' fees are being discussed, but I am told that there is not statutory provision for consultation. I hope that that will not discourage those who deal with these matters from consulting.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 11, in page 106, line 40, leave out 3 'and insert 3(1)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 109, leave out lines 4 to 6.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 20.
  The Solicitor-General: Amendment No. 12 is simply a paving amendment for Amendment No. 20. Paragraph (b) of Section 137 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 deals with the salaries and expenses of the county court service. Under the Bill the county court service will cease to exist as a separate entity, so provisions such as this paragraph which relate to that service can be repealed in the interests of general tidiness.
  Section 138 provides for rules of court to specify how fees are to be paid. This can also be repealed because of the new provisions in Clause 116(4).
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 112, line 34. at end insert
  'and for the words: "being eligible for appointment as resident magistrates" substitute

  559
  the words "being persons who are eligible for appointment as, or have previously been, resident magistrates".'.
  This is a substantive amendment to Section 10 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 which is the provision governing the appointment of deputy resident magistrates To ensure the prompt despatch of business in magistrates' courts it is necessary to have an adequate number of persons who can be called upon to act as deputies when the need arises.
  The amendment will enable retired resident magistrates to be appointed as deputies, and it brings the position into line with the provisions of the Bill relating to the appointment of deputy county court judges and the appointment of persons to assist in the transaction of business in the High Court.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Although I understand the pressures that are on the courts in Northern Ireland and the necessity to recall people from retirement, I am not very happy about the principle. When a person has served his stint it is not a good principle to recall him. I know that judges have been recalled. I am thinking especially of the Lord Chief Justice, who was recalled and did a great deal of work. However, I do not like the principle.
  The Solicitor-General: I note what the hon. and reverend Gentleman says. I do not thing that it is intended that everyone who is enjoying a well-earned rest should regularly be summoned back to service. However, as he pointed out, it is not unusual in the Northern Ireland judiciary, nor is it unusual in this country. All we are asking for at present is that the power should exist if the occasion arises.
  Mr. Percival: I had assumed the amendment to go merely to the eligibility for appointment, not to any liability to serve in that capacity against one's wishes. There are two opposite situations. One is that the law may provide that someone who has been a resident magistrate or any other kind of judge should, if called upon, be under a duty to return and continue in his judicial capacity. The other is merely reciting the eligibility. I thought we were merely saying that, even though a person has gone beyond retiring age and
  560
  therefore has retired, he is eligible if he wishes to continue to serve as a deputy resident magistrate.
  If the second proposition is correct, I think that the hon. and reverend Gentleman's fear is unfounded. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be able to clear up that point.
  What concerns me, as I think it will concern the hon. and reverend Gentleman, is this. I agree that there should be the ability to appoint deputies. Provided that it is a voluntary act on the part of the retired person returning to do further work, I do not object to it. I think it is a very good thing, because ability is not always related to age. Experience comes with age. Therefore, all other things being equal, the fact that a person has reached retiring age will mean that he has had that much more experience. If he is fully fit and in possession of all his faculties, there is no reason why he should not continue to do a good job in that office providing that he does it voluntarily and is not obliged by law to return.
  The danger is that on the whole deputies cost less than regular appointments. There must be a great temptation to make up for the shortage of judge power by having deputies. It would be wrong if we allowed ourselves to use a provision like this to deal with a shortage of manpower by the regular use of deputies. Although that would save money, one could not justify using deputies for that purpose.
  If people are to sit regularly they should do so by virtue and in right of their office, not merely as deputies from day to day.
  I sound that note of warning. I am not saying that anybody has it in mind to act in this way, but the Solicitor-General will know, as I do, that over the years some people have been used as commissioners regularly. Looking back on it one feels that it might have been more dignified if they had been given a regular appointment if their services were to be used as regularly as they were used. Even now some people are sitting as deputies and recorders on such a scale that it might be felt that they are deputies in name only but are doing a full-time job.
  The Solicitor-General: May I seize this opportunity ton confirm what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Of course there is no obligation upon someone who

  561
  is invited to become a deputy resident magistrate actually to take advantage of the invitation. Probably what was in the mind of the hon. and reverend Gentleman —he will correct me if I am wrong—was that it could be tempting for those in authority to invite people to come out of retirement when they should be left to enjoy their retirement. It is for that reason that I seize the opportunity to say, as was echoed by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), that it is not intended for this provision to be used as a normal method of ensuring the continuity of the business of the courts.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 117, line 8, at end insert—
  'In section 178, as originally enacted, for the word "Ministry" where it twice occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".
  In Schedule 2—

  (a) in paragraph 1(2) for the word "Governor" subsitute the words "Lord Chancellor";

  (b) in paragraphs 1(3) and 8 for the word "Ministry" wherever it occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor";

  (c) at the end of paragraph 1(4) add the words "by regulations made under paragraph 8";

  (d) in paragraph 2(2) for the words from "who" to the end sustitute the words "who has taken the said oaths after a previous appointment as a member of any such panel or who has taken the said oaths as required by section 7 of the Magistrates Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964";

  (e) in paragraph 6 for the words "The Ministry may pay" substitute the words "The Lord Chancellor may, out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, pay" and for the words from "Ministry may determine" to the end substitute the words "Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine";

  (f) at the end of paragraph 8 add—

  "(d) be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instrument Act 1946 shall apply accordingly."'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 22 to 24.
  The Solicitor-General: Amendment No. 14 relates to the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968.
  562
  Although that Act contains many provisions which will continue to be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or of the Area health boards, responsibility for the holding of juvenile courts contained in Schedule 2 will transfer to the Lord Chancellor. Amendment No. 14 amends the 1968 Act accordingly.
  The Northern Ireland (Modification of Enactments) (No. 1) Order 1973 has already modified Schedule 2 to the Act, so that the Lord Chancellor is responsible for the appointment of members of the Juvenile Court panel.
  Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 repeal the references to the 1968 Act in the modification order.
  1 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: This amendment gives me an opportunity to rehearse the arguments contained in my Amendment No. 1, which was not fortunate enough to be selected, because the principle of it is contained in this Government amendment.
  Since the Bill was introduced into this House, I have been seeking an explanation for the radical change which took place in it in the other place against all the arguments which had been rehearsed by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and which in my view contained important political overtones.
  I regret very much that there is no representative from the Northern Ireland office present on the Treasury Bench, although I understand the difficulties.
  I am concerned about this matter because, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General replied to the Second Reading debate, he said:
  "I have been invited at certain junctures in the debate to embark upon some of the political issues which arise, unhappily, from time to time in Northen Ireland. I am a simple lawyer, and I prefer to leave these issues to those who are more closely concerned with the problems of the Province."—[Official Report, 17th April 1978.]
  I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is very modest, but I do not think that any of us would say that he is a mere "simple lawyer". He is a practising politician, like the rest of us, and I believe that he dodged the issue on that occasion. It was also dodged in Committee, and that is why I and two of my hon. Friends voted against the Government on every

  563
  occasion that they proposed transferring power from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor.
  In the other place on 19th January, the Lord Chancellor argued very strongly and cogently against the pressures which had been applied for the transfer of the control of this important Department of State from the Northern Ireland administration to the political control of a British Minister. He tried in a series of arguments to show that there was no need for the change. He said that the Bill as originally drafted would not affect the independence of the judiciary and that there was no need for the transfer of power.
  As regards the deployment of the judges, again he made the point that this would still be the responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice and possibly of the Lord Chancellor, that there was, therefore, no fear of ministerial manipulation and there had been no evidence of it in the past, and that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was satisfied with the arrangements made in the Bill.
  Thirdly, the Lord Chancellor argued that the importance of this measure was that it relieved the Northern Ireland judiciary of many administrative functions and gave them to a Minister and that that Minister should be a Northern Ireland Minister responsible in Northern Ireland. Then he argued that in any event his was, as well as a judicial function as Lord Chancellor, a ministerial administrative function, and he could not see why people aware of this should be afraid of the Secretary of State. He made a strong and cogent argument that it was important that the administration of a Department should be in the hands of a Minister readily accessible locally who would have personal knowledge of many of the problems which existed within the Six Counties.
  Finally, the Lord Chancellor argued that the administration, certainly up to county court level, was from 1973 in the hands of the Secretary of State in any event, having been transferred from the old Ministry of Home Affairs.
  So strong and powerful were my noble Friend's arguments that there were only two or three speakers to follow him and, when the Opposition and a number of Unionist peers moved that this responsibility should go from the Secretary of
  564
  State to the Lord Chancellor, my noble Friend clinched his argument by quoting to the official Opposition paragraph 67 (a) of their own 1973 White Paper setting out their Northern Ireland constitutional proposals:
  "responsibility for the appointment of county court judges, magistrates, coroners and a limited number of other appointments of a quasi-judicial nature will be reserved to the Lord Chancellor; and responsibility for the administration of the courts and tribunals in question will be reserved to the Secretary of State … It is the view of the Government that all judicial appointments should be made … on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, and that there should be a unified administration of the courts for which the Secretary of State should be answerable to Parliament."
  On the basis of that, the Bill was given a Second Reading in another place with the Government's face firmly set against any transfer from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor in the administration of this new Northern Ireland Court Service.
  However, a mere fortnight later, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor announced to the other place the complete reversal of his position—a conversion not quite as dramatic as that of St. Paul but nevertheless quite sudden. The only substantive reason which one can find, reading my noble Friend's speech, is that he had read an editorial in The Times. I must say that if the basis for changes in Government policy is to be editorials in The Times, I am afraid that the policies of this Labour Government will be of a strange and other worldly order.
  My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor argued that in practice the issue concerned appearances more than reality. But if that is so, I suggest that it is of assistance to look at the arguments advanced for this range by the Unionist peers and the Opposition in the other place.
  It was argued that if the control was to remain in the hands of the Secretary of State it would be urged by subversives that the courts were being manipulated for political reasons. That argument was dealt with very fully by my noble Friend earlier.
  But the history of the judiciary in Northern Ireland is what whatever complaints could have been made a decade or so ago about some of the appointments that were made to the bench, once people were on the bench either of the county

  565
  court or the High Court, no arguments whatsoever could be made about the way in which the gentlemen on the bench fulfilled their functions. One could argue about the legislation that they were administering, but one could not argue about the way in which they carried out their judicial function.
  Indeed, if one considers the physical threats, the violence, the intimidation, the pressures upon their families and the actual deaths of members of the judiciary, to which reference was made earlier, one realises that their role has been quite exemplary in the Northern Ireland situation.
  Nor, indeed, could it be argued that their judgments were to any extent necessarily favourable to the Ministry at the time. Indeed, some of their judgments caused profound embarrassment to police, Governments and security forces at the time. One thinks, perhaps, of some of the people who were acquitted on the evidence produced before the court and who then had to be interned at the moment at which they were acquitted under the system before we had direct rule and before we got rid of internment without trial. The judges acted with impartiality and integrity on the evidence that they had.
  Again, one thinks of the leading Hume case when we in this House passed through an Army Act in the space of three hours with all three sections of the Bill done at the same time in the other place. The judges showed that they were there to interpret the law. Therefore, the argument about the independence of the judiciary and about manipulation and the argument that they could be undercut by subversives are not shown in practice to be true or correct.
  But, in fact, accepting that argument, putting the service under the control of the Lord Chancellor is turning that argument on its head and giving credence to things that subversives might have said, because it has been shown that it can be argued, on the one hand, that it could not be left to a Secretary of State because there might have been a devolution of power away from the centre and the British Government were not too certain about what would happen in the Six Counties.
  But there is an even more powerful argument if one is to argue about subversion and the excuse. That is that if
  566
  the political control and responsibility is removed from the Secretary of State's hands across to a judicial officer and Minister of the British Cabinet, separate and distinct from Northren Ireland, it strengthens the argument of the nationalists—not "nationalists"; I withdraw that—the terrorist people who are seeking to subvert the course of justice and the institutions of justice by saying "These are colonial administrators coming across, directed here by a British Lord Chancellor". So one turns the argument on its head in that way.
  I also believe that by taking the control of the service into the hands of the Lord Chancellor, what we are saying, despite all the plaudits that we have given to the system in the past, is that basically we do not trust the Secretary of State or trust the Northern Ireland service itself to be controlled locally if some time a devolved power comes, and that we believe that the position could be that under a devolved Government there could be a situation in which an Administration would seek to subvert the law. If one starts off on that basis, one can never have any sort of basis of trust for any devolution, if it comes.
  However, I believe that there is also a more powerful argument against it. I believe that this is indicative of a phase that we are seeing in Northern Ireland of creeping integration into the United Kingdom system completely. I do not know what the hon. Members who represent the Six Counties who are present today think about that. Some, I imagine, favour complete integration. Others want a devolved system and want to be looser. But what I think is happening is the appearance of creeping integration, because we are taking one of the most important institutions in the State, the administration of the judiciary, and putting it into the control of a United Kingdom Minister. That Minister is not the Secretary of State with particular responsibility for Northern Ireland or future devolution but another United Kingdom Minister.
  It was argued in the other place that this was what the judiciary and the Bar wanted. Does that necessarily make it right? But if it was what they wanted—and this was what was being argued before Second Reading—why did we have to wait the 10 or 14 days or so before this sudden conversion? Why was it not

  567
  all neatly parcelled up before? What were the other pressures that were there?
  1.15 p.m.
  It is fair to say that the Bill had had a longer gestation period than even that of an elephant. It is 10 years since the first reports were produced which are the basis of this important Bill. In that period, these views for the integration were advanced, rehearsed and rejected, and now they have been accepted. Why were they rejected before when they have been accepted now?
  It is said that the minority representatives within the legal profession may have requested this particular decision. I wonder whether they did so. Or was a particularly loaded question put to them?—not specifically loaded, but with an ambiance, a background, an implication. Was it said "It would be better to go to the Lord Chancellor because the next Secretary of State that we might have, from whatever Administration, might not be a nice, kind gentleman"—such as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) or the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—gentlemen all considerate, who would never interfere? Was it said, "Better be warned in case we get a nasty one. Therefore, we shall leave it under the hands of the Lord Chancellor"?
  Was that said to the minority? Or was it, perhaps, that their vanity was appealed to. Were they flattered by actually being asked whether they wanted the Lord Chancellor, and "Was it not nice to be able to think that they could have him in the Six Counties?"?
  Or is it, perhaps, nearer the truth that the minority and, indeed, I think, others at the Northern Irish Bar and amongst the judiciary never carried through their thoughts to what were the institutional and the political implications of this decision? This decision is an important part of it.
  Why did the Opposition argue so forcibly for it in the other place and welcome it so effusively in this House? That they are a Unionist party, I understand. I have never had any doubts about that, and certainly their recent actions have more than underlined that principle that they adopt.
  568
  But why, therefore, did they ever originally have the contrary as their policy back in 1973? Or is it that at present, in their assiduous wooing of the Ulster Unionists, they took an opportunist case in order to support Unionist demands on something and to try to ingratiate themselves in their favour?
  I believe that that is true. I also believe that this is a danger. The danger is that the present Government are perhaps seeking not to be outwooed, or not to be outwith the wooing, and in their desire to get a quick passage of the Bill through the House, in an otherwise crowded and contentious programme, they were prepared to agree and go along with this proposed change rather than have the Bill which they had originally drafted and on which they had been so firm before.
  It is a sad tale because we have never had an explanation in either House of the reasons for the change. I think it is a dangerous course that the Government are following. I believe it is leading to the symptom of creeping integration and I think it is doubly dangerous because I do not even believe that it is deliberate policy. I just do not think sometimes the Government are aware of the consequences of their own actions. I oppose the amendment.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), and I think that there are some matters that should be put on the record. When Stormont was in existence, I think a change was made and the Lord Chancellor did appoint High Court judges. I do not think that when Stormont was in existence anyone was talking about what he interprets as creeping integration.
  I would like to make my position clear. I believe in a devolved form of government in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McNamara: I thought I had made clear in the quotations I used that I was aware of what the situation was before. The point I was making is that this is a newly created Northern Ireland court service amalgamated from three courts which in the past have been the responsibility of the Minister for Home Affairs and the Secretary of State, and which we have transferred, hook, line and sinker, to the Lord Chancellor.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I think it should be underscored and underlined that the Lord Chancellor had a judicial function in Northern Ireland when Stormont was in existence and there is no change in having the Lord Chancellor involved in the operation of the courts and the appointment of judges. It is not an absolute change.
  As far as I am concerned, Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and that is what the position is at the moment. By the law of this House, if a majority of people in Northern Ireland wishes it to be otherwise it will cease to be so. That is a very strange law; what would happen with a majority of one? But that is the present law. But that does not undermine my strong adherence to the view that Northern Ireland should have a Parilament of its own and a Government of its own.
  If I thought the hon. Gentleman was right in what he said, that this Bill will weaken the chances of Northern Ireland having its own Parliament and Government at some time, then I would be very happy to take the line that he is taking, but I do not think that that has anything to do with this matter. I appreciate his position, which he has put carefully. A Lord Chancellor of a Labour Government has knocked down the proposal that he should have authority under the terms of this Bill and argued forcibly on that matter. Then, a few days later he read an article in The Times and was suddenly converted.
  We have to probe a little further because the decision to change this was a decision to which the Government came after hearing representations right across the board. Those of us who are Members for Northern Ireland had a document issued to us by the members of the Bar, which includes both sections of the community. In fact, strong and influential members of the Bar in Northern Ireland belong to the Roman Catholic community. They were very determined in their lobbying of the Members from Northern Ireland that this change was imperative and that hon. Members should push for it.
  As I have said on another occasion, the Bill did not start in this House. I regret that, because Northern Ireland Members did not have the opportunity of a full discussion in Committee. I agree with what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull,
  570
  Central said in Committee. There was only one Northern Ireland Member present, but only one could be present because both sides of the political divide in the Province were ignored when the Committee was appointed—as was the division within Unionism. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) was picked as the most suitable Northern Ireland Member to represent Northern Ireland on that Committee.
  On behalf of my constituents I resent the fact that on the only Northern Ireland Bill to come before the House this Session which has gone through a proper parliamentary process—First and Second Readings, and Committee—Northern Ireland Members are treated so shabbily. That is no reflection on the Solicitor-General. He has sought to meet the Northern Ireland Members in every possible way, and those of us who raised points on Second Reading had explanations from him which we appreciated. But it is hardly fair that only one Northern Ireland Member was on a Committee dealing with a major Bill which will change the whole system of the courts in Northern Ireland.
  That is water under the bridge, but the determination of the Northern Ireland people to have a devolved form of government and a Parliament of their own is in no way undermined because we are dealing with this matter in this way.
  A devolved form of Government does not need to interfere with the courts of Northern Ireland. I should like the courts to be part of the whole judicial system of the United Kingdom. If there were a devolved form of Government and Parliament in Northern Ireland tomorrow, there would be no need to change the law, because the Lord Chancellor would still have the responsibility.
  If we had a Parliament and a Government of our own, this law and the courts would have to be changed in the face of a new and terrible problem—that the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, who would have a very rough ride, would suddenly be in charge of this difficult matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central would find occasion to point out that a politician—probably a Unionist politician —was now interfering in the courts.
  There has been a good deal of criticism of Ministers for Home Affairs. I was not

  571
  long in this House before Stormont fell, but even in my day, there was serious criticism of Ministers for Home Affairs for interferring with the administration of the judiciary. I am happy that this matter will now be taken out of the political arena and put into the hands of those who deal with matters of the law.
  I take the point that, to some extent, the Lord Chancellor is a political appointee but he does deal with these matters here and I do not see why he should not deal with them in Northern Ireland. This arrangement also flows from the fact that, when this House destroyed the Parliament of Northern Ireland, the Attorney-General of England and Wales became also the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland and was appointed separately.
  1.30 p.m.
  In my view, these changes having been made, it will be better that the courts are not administered by the Secretary of State but that responsibility should rest with the Lord Chancellor. This is a matter of agreement across the board. I am not sure that one could flatter the members of the Bar Council to whom the hon. Member referred. I know some of these gentlemen, and I do not imagine that flattery would get very far with them. Nor do I suppose that they are much impressed by English politicians of any kind. I think that it would be a matter of half a dozen of one and six of the other. The truth is that these people came to their decision in their wisdom.
  It should be said also that not only are the people personally concerned in favour of the change but across the board there is a general agreement. I am sure that if the section of the community represented here by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) were hot under the collar about the matter, that hon. Member would be here today to let the House know, in his own forceful way, that his section of the community was disgusted that the Secretary of State was to lose some power.
  But that is not happening. There is a general consensus, which is not unusual in Northern Ireland. Some people think that the people of Northern Ireland are always at one another's throats. But there has been consensus on other things, which, perhaps, the House of Commons has not taken to heart.
  Mr. Robert J. BradfordThe Housing Executive, for one thing.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: As my hon. Friend says, all sections of the community seem to think that the Housing Executive should be put into limbo and a new Executive formed. However, if I were to pursue that, you would, I am sure, call me to order, Mr. Speaker, and, since we are coming so near the Sabbath day, I do not wish to be called to order. So I shall come back to the essence of the matter.
  As I say, this change is generally accepted across the board. Some of us would have been happier if the Bill had been brought to this House first. I understand from the Solicitor-General—he put me right on the last occasion when I mentioned the matter—that it is not unusual for Bills to start in the other House. However, I believe that this particular proposal is acceptable to all sections of our community.
  I understand how the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central feels. He feels that there has been a conversion. I take it that, in his view, it was a conversion not from darkness to light, as the Apostle Paul's was, but from light to darkness. But I understand the hon. Gentleman's view. Either a man is perverted or is converted, and I gather that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Lord Chancellor is perverted in this instance. However, I must be careful not to pass any strictures on the character of the Lord Chancellor, and I do not intend to.
  I believe that this proposal is acceptable to all the people of Northern Ireland. Certainly, whatever the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central may say, the Solicitor-General will know that his party is not wooing mine. My voting record in the House proves that. This is a question of what is good for all the people, and I am sure that what is proposed is good for all the people.
  The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for his support on the issue raised by the amendent. He seized the opportunity to complain that only one hon. Member representing a constituency in Northern Ireland was present on the Committee. Perhaps, in view of that,

  573
  I should point out for the record that today, on Report, two hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland are present, and perhaps, as the hon. Gentleman said, this may imply a high degree of satisfaction with the Bill among constituencies in the Province.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said, it is true that at an earlier stage in our deliberations I claimed the lawyer's privilege of confining myself to the driest of dry technicalities. I am accused of dodging the issue in Committee. I think that my hon. Friend knows why I did not consider the Committee to be the appropriate occasion for rehearsing the constitutional arguments which he has raised.
  But I cannot pretend to entire innocence of constitutional issues in Northern Ireland, so I think it right to reply to what my hon. Friend said. Indeed, I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to make clear what were the motivating considerations which led to conversion, perversion—change of mind—on the Government's part in this matter. It should be said at the outset that changing one's mind in response to argument is not necessarily wicked on every occasion. The Government have kept an open mind.
  What concerns my hon. Friend is that, by giving responsibility to the Lord Chancellor rather than to the Secretary of State, the Bill represents a drift from devolution towards integration. I wish to set his mind at rest. There is no deep mystery about it. There are no integrational implications. No secret deals have been done. The purpose of the amendment, both among those who proposed it and among those who accepted it, is quite different from that.
  Let me, first, remind the House—I know that this will be welcome to the hon. Member for Antrim, North—that it remains the Government's aim to restore devolved Government to Northern Ireland as soon as that can properly be done. But let us be clear what devolution means. It does not mean that every decision automatically becomes the responsibility of the local Administration.
  574
  That is not devolution. That is the path to separatism and independence.
  Devolution means that an elected authority in Northern Ireland would be responsible for an extensive range of matters, but that other matters would be reserved to the central Government. That must be true of any devolutionary settlement. Perhaps my hon. Friend would wish to go further than that—that can be debated on another occasion—but I wish the House to be clear that that would not be the Government's policy.
  Perhaps we should have a brief historical resume in this context. By the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877, judges in Ireland were to be appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. That has been the position throughout most of the history, certainly of the Province and, one might even say, of Ireland itself.
  Let us then look at what happened in 1973, when there was a different Government. The appointment and removal of members of the judiciary were excepted matters, that is, matters which were the sole responsibility of the Government at Westminster. Other matters affecting the administration of the courts were reserved matters, that is, matters for which the Westminster Government would have responsibility but on which the devolved Government could legislate, with the permission of the Secretary of State, and subject to approval here.
  It was the intention of the Government of that day that responsibility for the administration of the courts should remain with the United Kingdom Government. That is the intention of the present Government. There has been no change of view about that. In 1976, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote in a letter to the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention:
  "There are a number of matters which it would be inappropriate to transfer. These include all judicial appointments and the administration of the courts".
  The House will see, therefore, that it has been the established policy of successive Governments to retain responsibility for the judiciary and courts administration at Westminster. That policy has

  575
  been dictated, as I understand it, by the need to ensure that there can be no fears, however ill founded, that the independence of the courts will in any way be diminished.
  It was precisely for that reason—the need to preserve both the independence of the judiciary and the plainly apparent independence of the judiciary against even the most misguided of attacks—that we were persuaded to reconsider our original proposal that the Secretary of State should be responsible for the administration of the court service in Northern Ireland. It is true, as my hon. Friend reminded the House, that my noble Friend said in another place that this did not affect the independence of the judiciary. I do not think that it does. What it may affect is what people think about the independence of the judiciary.
  It is true that my noble Friend was reluctant to remove functions from the Secretary of State in such a way that it might be taken to imply that my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State, or some previous Secretary of State, had been less than satisfactory in his discharge of the office. No such implication was intended and no such implication would have been justified, but it might have been thought, wrongly, to be the case.
  When he was introducing the Bill in another place, my noble Friend said that it was in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown, rather than as head of the judiciary, that he held responsibility for the administration of the courts in England and Wales, therefore it made no difference whether the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State had the responsibility in Northern Ireland. In practice, the same officials would have the same day-to-day running of the courts. They would be doing the same job. There is no question of trusting anyone. At that level the same people would be doing the same jobs.
  In fact, administrative considerations —particularly local knowledge at the higher administrative levels, and the fear that otherwise it might be thought to imply a criticism of the Secretary of State—were the main factors governing the initial decision to vest ministerial responsibility—as an innovation I repeat—in the Secretary of State rather
  576
  than in the Lord Chancellor. It is true that the Lord Chancellor said all that in another place, but following the Second Reading debate in another place it became increasingly apparent that there was a very strong feeling in the judiciary, among the legal profession, and among non-lawyers, among the clients of the legal profession—the people who in one way or another would be affected by what went on in the courts—that ministerial responsibility for administration should rest with the Lord Chancellor. It did not rest wholly on an editorial in The Times.
  It was evidently felt that to leave the administration of the courts with a Minister, who also had a political role in the Province, might be misunderstood, and that it could undermine public confidence in the independence of the courts. In the light of a very strong expression of view in Parliament and in the Province that responsibility should rest with the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend reconsidered the position and decided that it would be right to make the change which is now embodied in the Bill, and which has been almost universally welcomed.
  I have explained the situation at some length because I think it is important that there should not be any misunderstanding about this. I want to make it as clear as the English language can make it that the overriding concern was that there could be no possible grounds—however misguided, however fanciful—to complain that the courts in Northern Ireland were coming under political influence.
  It is an old and sometimes overworked adage that not only must justice be done, it must manifestly be seen to be done. I think that this is a case in which that adage can properly be invoked.
  As the hon. and reverend Member for Antrim, North said, if there is any suggestion, however misguided, that the courts might be subjected to political influence, the people who object will depend upon the politicians who are exercising the influence, and this may change from time to time. But the fact is that the amendment to the Bill has nothing to do with integration nor, as my hon. Friend suggested at an earlier stage in our proceedings—I think he implied it again today—with trying to appease the

  577
  Opposition or to make life easy for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
  I hope that the House will accept that our one concern in this matter is the independence, and the manifest independence, of the judiciary, which must be preserved against any imputations which might undermine the confidence which it has properly built up among all sections of the community in the Province.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 7

  REPEALS
  1.45 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 127, line 53, column 3, leave out '4' and insert '14'.
  I can be very much briefer on this occasion. The purpose of the amendment is to correct a printing error.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. McNamara: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 135, leave out lines 33 to 35.
  I shall not detain the House long. I put down three amendments to suggest alterations in the Schedule. For some unknown reason—perhaps a mere quirk of selection by the Chairman of Committees—my amendments to delete the whole of the Act of Union and the Government of Ireland Act 1920 from the Schedule were not chosen for debate.
  Mr. Speaker: I will explain to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) that the selection was mine. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would have affected the whole Bill, whereas Amendment No. 18 is dealing with a limited part of the Bill. His other amendment, therefore, was strictly out of order.
  Mr. McNamara: I had not imagined for one moment that any considerations other than good order would have governed your decision, Mr. Speaker. The amendments were put down not in a lighthearted vein completely but in order to draw attention to a point that I tried to make in the dying seconds of our proceedings in Committee.
  I wanted to draw attention also to what I have always felt has been a weakness in the way in which we produce our
  578
  Bills. In the space of a couple of hours in Committee we passed a Bill of about 140 pages and 120 clauses and seven schedules. We considered amending or repealing 202 pieces of legislation. Forty whole Acts of the United Kigdom Parliament were repealed, and 96 parts. Eight Acts of the old Irish Parliament were repealed completely and 10 partially repealed. Of the Stormont Parliament, 35 Acts were partially repealed. Three Orders in Council were wholly repealed and 10 were partially repealed. All this was done, Mr. Speaker, in almost the twinkling of an eye.
  It has always seemed to me in regard to matters such as this, particularly when there are schedules, that the presentation and the purpose of the Bill deserve a better explanation. This is a point that I have made in the past, when very heavy consolidation measures have been going through the House. This is a point which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers Department has taken on board since that time.
  I am sure that the whole House regrets that Chapter 2 of the Statute of Edward III, made at Westminster in the Fourth Year of his reign after the Conquest, will no longer apply to Northern Ireland. We weep for it but we should have liked to know to what that chapter applies.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That refers to 1690, therefore the hon. Gentleman need not worry.
  Mr. McNamara: Wait a minute. There is a strange Act of the Irish Parliament called the Demise of the Crown Act (Ireland) 1634. There we have a degree of future scanning which was very prescient, perhaps, at least in 26 parts of it.
  My general point is that there should be better presentation of Bills, particularly when we have enormous schedules of repeals, which draw attention not only to what is being repealed but to the relevant parts of the measures. Had I been in order, Mr. Speaker, I should have been delighted to debate those statutes at length.
  Mr. Bradford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. The hon. Gentleman referred to his comments in the dying seconds of the Committee stage. I ask him to address

  579
  his mind to the comment he made then, when he stated that it was a crying shame that there was not one Northern Ireland Member present. If the hon. Gentleman will try to recall that occasion, I think he will agree that there was one such Member present. I have tried to have the record rectified. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will take steps to do that or—
  Mr. McNamara: I would certainly say that at least there was only one Northern Ireland Member present. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) was actually there when I made my comments, but if he was of course I withdraw them.
  Mr. Speaker: That proves that I am the most broadminded Speaker that this House has ever known.
  The Solicitor-General: It was a matter of relief to me, Mr. Speaker, that you felt unable to select my hon. Friend's amendment proposing to delete, at a stroke, the whole of the Government of Ireland Act.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has, with his usual perspicacity, grasped the fact that the schedule we are debating is really a consolidation schedule. It is an attempt to produce a briefer and tidier statute book. The way in which we deal with consolidation measures in the House might sometimes be a little clearer, but I assure my hon. Friend that I will make sure that what he has said is passed on to the appropriate authorities.
  I am not sure whether he really wants a reply to the amendment that he has proposed—
  Mr. McNamara Mr. McNamara indicated dissent.
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend shakes his head, therefore, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment on the basis of the assurance I have given.
  Mr. McNamara: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 19, in page 137, column 3, leave out lines 52 to 54.
  No. 20, in page 138, leave out line 31 and insert—
  580
  'Section 137(b) and (c).
  Section 138.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 139, leave out line 37 and insert—
  'In section 23—

  (a) subsection (3);

  (b) in subsection (7) the words "or (3)" and "and fees";

  (c) subsections (8) and (9).'.

  This amendment is designed to repeal two small parts of a statutory section which is consequent on other provisions in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 22, in page 142, line 35, after '1964', insert
  Schedule 2 to the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968'.
  No. 23, in page 142, line 44, leave out from '1959' to end of line 46 and insert
  the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 and the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968'.
  No. 24, in page 143, line 12, after '49', insert ', 57(d)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  1.55 p.m.
  Mr. Bradford: I do not want to detain the House very long at this stage, but I wish to return to three points which have been touched upon at various stages in the course of the passage of the Bill.
  The first concerns Clause 9 and the eligibility of solicitors who have served for a period of 10 years and who, after three years as deputy county court judges, still do not qualify to be appointed to the High Court. The Solicitor-General was very kind in replying to this point of detail in correspondence. In that correspondence he stated that the situation obtained not only in Northern Ireland, but in this part of the Kingdom as well and therefore it would be a matter for consideration in the Royal Commission report.
  I appreciate the length at which the Solicitor-General replied. I ask him to confirm this afternoon that the Royal Commission will address itself to this matter. It is so easy in a large report, if there has been a very large remit, for one or two specific matters to be overlooked. I ask him to call the attention of the Commission to this point because it has

  581
  aroused very strong feeling in Northern Ireland among solicitors who believe that a solicitor who has qualified as a county court judge should be eligible for appointment to the High Court.
  There are reasons why this should not be the case. Some people contend that as a solicitor's job is confined by definition to courts other than the High Court this is a reason for not making them eligible. Having said that, I must point out that there is a strong argument against creating two classes of county court judge in Northern Ireland as a result of this legislation.
  I also wish to raise the point relating to Clause 69, which deals with the creation of the Court Service. On Second Reading and in Committee we raised points which showed that there could be disruption in redeployment. We said that the Government should look at the possibility of impairment of career prospects in the new Court Service. Again, the Solicitor-General was kind enough to write to me. There is one important suggestion which might be made, even at this late stage in the Bill's proceedings. Those in the Court Service who may be affected by the question of mobility, who may be disrupted or redeployed, or whose career prospects may be impaired should have recourse to some kind of arbitration.
  The present staff of the county courts and petty sessions have no right of access to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. If that is to remain the case, many members of the new Court Service will feel that they must have an impartial arbiter to consider their grievances. This is the case in many grades of the Civil Service. If those in the new Court Service had an arbiter to whom they could have recourse on unresolved disputes, they could be sure that the disputes would be looked at impartially This is a very important matter.
  There is also the point about the rights of the existing staff appointed under the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. That point was not met in correspondence. We felt on Second Reading that they might forgo rights that they acquired when they were appointed under the Lord Chief Justice. If the Solicitor-General would comment on this matter. I should be very grateful.
  582
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), with his usual lucidity, argued his case very well. What he did not disclose, in spite of indulging in his usual semantics, was his political philosophy on Ireland, which is that it should be a matter not of devolution but of total separation. In all honesty, he must accept that. Therefore, I do not think that we should spend too much time discussing this Damascus road change for the Lord Chancellor about which he complains, particularly as the hon. Member's underlying philosophy is the complete separation of Northern Ireland, and indeed of the whole island of Ireland from the United Kingdom.
  2.0 p.m.
  Mr. McNamara: I have listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) has just said. I shall return to it in a moment. However, despite my own fears about parts of the philosophy of the changes that have taken place in the Bill, this must be recognised as being one of the most important Northern Ireland measures to have gone through this House, certainly since I have been a Member, apart from the controversies that we have had with regard to direct rule and so on.
  It is an important measure because it seeks to aim to reorganise the whole of the system of the administration of justice. That should be recognised. We should also recognise the considerable work of the distinguished Northern Ireland purists who have done the preparatory work and produced the preparatory reports which led to the introduction of the Bill. It is an enormous and important Bill and it should be recognised as such. It is something which will be tinkered with and perhaps altered from time to time. But, while the Six Counties remain the Six Counties, it will be the major piece of legislation governing the administration of the courts there. Therefore, we should salute those people outside this House who not only drafted the Bill but produced all the various reports necessary to produce it. That ought to be understood, accepted and acknowledged.
  I turn to the point made with regard to conversion. I am now even more confused and confounded. It was said that conversion was from darkness to light

  583
  From what I have heard from the Solicitor-General, it is not so much darkness and light as encircling gloom. The situation now appears doubly contradictory. Not only did we in opposition support the administration being in the hands of the Secretary of State, but when the former Secretary of State wrote to the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention he said that we were reserving the administration. Subsequently my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, in another place, said that we were not reserving it but giving it to the Secretary of State. A fortnight later he changed his mind. This is very strange.
  The Solicitor-General has been confusing a number of things. He sought to suggest that we did not appreciate the role which the Lord Chancellor played in the appointment of people to the judiciary in Northern Ireland both before and after direct rule. Who had control of the administration of the courts? The administration of all the lower courts, certainly the county courts and below, was in the hands of the administration in the Six Counties. By this Bill we have established a very important institutionalised Government Department—the Northern Ireland Court Service—which I hope will be staffed with men and women of integrity. I hope that it will do a good job. It is a new and important Government Department within the Six Counties which will come under the possible control of an indigenous Minister from the Lord Chancellor's Department. I think that that is wrong.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South accused me of not revealing my hand with regard to what I consider should be the future of the Six Counties and the island of Ireland. I must admit that I have some prejudices about what should be the best course for this Government, and future Governments, to take. In the past errors have been made, not least because of the powerful persuasion of some of the hon. Gentleman's predecessors who went to the extent of armed rebellion before the 1914–18 war to force the hand of a democratically elected British Government. Be that as it may, I should like to see a united Ireland. I do not think that we shall get it tomorrow, but equally I do not think that we should do anything whatever in the Six
  584
  Counties which either takes them nearer to the United Kingdom or further away. We should leave the situation as it is. In terms of the domestic legislation of the Six Counties, I believe that nothing should be done in this House until such times as the people of the Six Counties are prepared to accept a devolved government on the basis of the terms laid down in the White Papers of different Governments.
  That has always been my attitude. I thought that that would have been recognised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South, without my having to comment upon it.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman include any possible legislation for the reorganisation of secondary education in the Province in his principle that there should be no such domestic legislation in advance of devolution?
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to embarrass me on the question of comprehensivisation being introduced in the Six Counties. I believe that it should be introduced. However, I believe that it should be done by agreement and consultation among the people involved. If not, it should not be gone ahead with because that is something which people should work out themselves.
  I return to the Bill. Despite my reservations, and despite what I have said about this being creeping integration, there is no doubt that the Bill is important. It will soon go on to the statute book. We must ensure that both in terms of the Administration and of the judiciary we have the same quality and calibre of men who in difficult times have seen to the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. I am sure that we shall get that.
  2.7 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) underlined the importance of this measure. It needed to be underlined. It is a very important measure. I agree with some of his criticisms about the way in which this House has to deal with this legislation. I regret that today there is not a fuller turnout of Northern Ireland Members. I believe that Northern Ireland Members are a little grieved—I could perhaps use a stronger word—that Friday is

  585
  always the day when Northern Ireland business is debated.
  Nothern Ireland Members perhaps live further from this House than any other hon. Members. Friday is usually a day when a Member of Parliament likes to be at home in his constituency. Incidentally, there were four hon. Members from Northern Ireland present at the beginning of the debate rather than two. I am sure the House is delighted that those four hon. Members did not take part. I am sure that the officials of the House were also delighted, because I have learned that Friday is not a popular day.
  This is an important measure because we are introducing a new system and a new court. We are also changing procedures. We are dealing with many matters that have been under consideration for a very long time. I believe that the Bill now has overwhelming support in Northern Ireland. Even the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central, who has reservations—we all have reservations—would agree that this measure will have a good effect upon the future of the judiciary in Northern Ireland and upon the administration of justice.
  I understand where the hon. Gentleman stands on these matters, but one's viewpoint of the interpretation of history tends to colour a person's outlook. The hon. Gentleman pleaded guilty to having prejudices. I never knew he would make such a confession. The armed rebellion he mentioned resulted from a shoddy political deal between nationalists in this House who wanted to leave the United Kingdom and who were not a bit concerned about the future of this part of the United Kingdom and did a deal to get this Act on the statute book. Perhaps I should not digress, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. and reverend Gentleman is fond of quoting St. Paul. I was going to put forward the view "Let brotherly love continue" and ask the House to drop that subject.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Perhaps that quotation is not too appropriate, Mr. Speaker. I can think of other quotations such as "From such turn away". I shall now turn away from that subject.
  I believe that justice in Northern Ireland needs to be done and to be seen to be done. The system proposed in this
  586
  Bill appeals to all sections of the community. Everybody feels that this is a good Bill and that the law we seek to enact is a good one which will be helpful to all the citizens of Northern Ireland.
  I trust that when the new Court Service is set up the difficulties outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) will be considered. I trust that there will be some form of appeal. I trust that those who are employed in the Court Service will have an opportunity of appealing if they find themselves in difficulty, or if they consider that they are being discriminated against in employment or in job advancement. I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider that matter and will satisfy us upon it.
  The judges, magistrates and court officials in Northern Ireland have a difficult job to do, but we hope and pray that normality will eventually reign. If the system that is now being set up weathers the severe storm, no doubt those difficulties will pass. When we reach better days, that system will be found to be tried and proved, and will be of great advantage to the citizens of Northern Ireland.
  I wish to put on record the fact that the next time the Government—whatever Government it may be—introduce a Bill on Northern Ireland and refer it to a Committee upstairs, they will ensure that it contains adequate representation from Northern Ireland. It is unfair that only one hon. Member from Northern Ireland had the advantage of being present at the deliberations on the Bill.
  I believe that the provisions of this Bill will do good and that we are on the right lines. Despite the Lord Chancellor's conversion or perversion, I thought that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central intended to say that the light was so dazzling that it blinded him. However, I believe that this Bill, when enacted, will set up a system that will be of advantage to all the citizens of Northern Ireland. That is its objective, and I believe that that goal can be achieved.
  2.15 p.m.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Taking to heart your text, Mr. Speaker, "Let brotherly love continue", I wish to thank the right

  587
  hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for the care, clarity and courtesy with which he has helped the House and, on an earlier occasion, the Committee.
  As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and others have said, the Bill when enacted will bring about a beneficial reform of a profound character of the judicial system that took shape, when there was one Ireland, united under the Crown. I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) graciously mentioned those who prepared the legislation. The traditionally minded, like the hon. Gentleman, who regrets the repeal of medieval statutes and the legislation of Ascendency Parliaments, may sigh for the passing into history of such ancient institutions as the assize. There were those who were sad when the Crown court took its place on this side of the water. However that may be, it is a matter of satisfaction to all who cherish the Union, as we do on this side, that the courts of Northern Ireland should follow a pattern similar to that of England and Wales.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central swallowed the bulk of the Bill, but jibbed at the responsibility for the new Northern Ireland Court Service being entrusted to the Lord Chancellor. I shall not rehearse the argument on the amendments both upstairs and downstairs, but we are glad that the Government, having heard the representations of those who are most knowledgeable and concerned and the opinion of the Opposition as expressed by noble Lords in another place, and opinions also expressed in this House, have agreed with us that it is more appropriate that the control should rest with the Lord Chancellor than with the Secretary of State. Both, I may say in passing, are English Ministers.
  Surely nothing should be left undone by the Legislature to assure, to buttress and to demonstrate the independence of the Northern Ireland judiciary. That confidence it receives—and this despite the regrettable necessity of the Diplock procedure.
  The Solicitor-General ackowledged that the fairness of the judges in Northern Ireland is generally recognised, and their integrity was commended by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Cen-
  588
  tral. This short debate enables this House to salute the courage of the judges, magistrates and all who serve the courts in Northern Ireland. Justice is impartially administered there, despite cruel threats and savage attacks.
  I conclude by echoing the tribute paid by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) to the two late president magistrates. Mr. Staunton and Mr. McBirney, and Judge Rory Conaghan. Let them be remembered with honour.
  2.18 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: The text you suggested, Mr. Speaker, commends itself to me above some others which have been ventilated in this debate, because it has the advantage of being so clear that it requires no exegesis. It has been applied in these debates, and it is a sad reflection that the way in which it has been applied here cannot always be reflected in the Province.
  I begin by expressing double appreciation to the House for the forbearance with which it has received a substantial number of Government amendments, both in Committee and today on Report. Those amendments proved necessary partly because of a substantial amendment in another place, and partly because inevitably there has been a reaction to the suggestions made. I hope that we have reacted in a way that suggests we have been prepared to polish the Bill as we go along.
  Secondly, I am grateful to the House for the welcome which has been accorded to the Bill and for the co-operation of all who have participated in the debates. I bear in mind what was said by the hon. and reverend Gentleman the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that those who have abstained from contributing have also made their contribution.
  The Bill will not satisfy everyone in all its detail. Indeed, it has not wholly satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). I appreciate his reasons and I am grateful for what he said, that, despite the defects he thinks it has, he believes that it is still an important Bill which has a contribution to make to the future of the Province. I do not claim—unhappily it is all too obvious—that it will solve all the problems of the

  589
  Province. Some of the issues that have arisen today will remain unresolved even after the Bill is on the statute book.
  I was asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) for answers to certain questions which have been ventilated during our debates. I am not sure whether I can carry very much further what was said in Committee and what I attempted to set out when I wrote to him.
  As regards the eligibility of solicitors for appointment to the High Court, a matter which I know has concerned from time to time my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade—
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): No—Under-Secretary of State.
  The Solicitor-General: If I said Secretary of State, that was a prophecy. However, I am sure that if I were in danger of forgetting the problem my hon. Friend would ensure that I did not do so.
  I cannot give any undertaking on what matters the Royal Commission will consider. It is only honest for me to point out that the appointment of the judiciary is not within its terms of reference. When I referred to the report of the Royal Commission I had in mind that there is likely to be a great deal in what it reports about the relations between the two branches of the profession which may affect the decisions that we make about these matters. Meanwhile, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not have overlooked Clause 107, which makes a move in that direction and provides that where someone moves over from one branch of the profession to the other his service in the one branch will count in computing his qualifications for judicial office.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Belfast, South and the hon. Member for Antrim, North mentioned that not all the rules of service as regards the new Court Service have yet been evolved. They are being discussed. I am sure that what has been said in our debates will be borne very much in mind. I cannot give an
  590
  undertaking that any form of appeal to some sort of impartial arbitrator will be incorporated. I think that we all hope that the need for it will not often arise.
  There will not be a mass redeployment of people from the jobs which they are already doing. I shall ensure that what the hon. Member for Belfast, South said is passed on to those who are dealing with these matters. I think that that is the only comment that I can make on his third point. I trust that he will forgive me if I do not attempt to elaborate in a vacuous manner when I have little to say about it at this stage.
  The Bill has had a fair wind from all parts of the House. I hope that that is a good omen for the future of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. I believe that it will encourage everyone concerned in Northern Ireland to accord under the new dispensation the high level of confidence that they have shown so far to those involved in the administration of justice. What I am about to say by way of tribute cannot be said too often. I reiterate the tributes paid to all those involved at every stage in the administration of justice in the Province. They have carried out their duties in conditions which I am sure history will recognise perhaps more clearly than some of our contemporaries.
  This is an important Bill. I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central to all who have played their part in producing it both in the course of consultation and in the course of official and administrative duties. To many of them I am personally deeply indebted. Without their aid I should never have understood some of the things that in the course of our debates I came to understand. I believe that the Bill will enhance the administration of justice in the Province and through it the protection of individuals from unlawful activities and from injustices alike.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (STATE LINER FLEETS)
  2.24 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of EEC Document No. R/829/78 on the activities of certain state trading countries in cargo liner shipping.
  The document is to be debated at the EEC Transport Council on Monday and it will be of value to me, as the Minister representing the United Kingdom, to hear the views of hon. Members who desire to speak on what is undoubtedly an important topic. The Commission document has been submitted for parliamentary scrutiny and the Scrutiny Committee has recommended that it should be considered by the House.
  At the outset I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) on his maiden appearance on the Opposition Front Bench. I wish him many happy years on that Front Bench. I am sure that he will bring it an almost unique distinction.
  As I have said, this is an extremely important issue. In the liner trades the United Kingdom flag is fifth in the world. In containerised tonnage we are second. The United Kingdom fleet is modern, well equipped and well managed. It has done well in maintaining its competitive presence in world trades in the changing circumstances of the past few years.
  Unquestionably, the activities of the Soviet merchant fleet have certainly given rise to difficult problems and represent a serious threat to Western merchant shipping interests. I know that, as is not uncommon, the USSR will complain that this is to engage in just another fashionable anti-Soviet diatribe, that we are exaggerating, and that all this is borne out of a desire to give undue protection to our shipping interests. It is none of these things, as I hope I can establish by identifying and illustrating some of the main problems and effects.
  First, today the Soviet merchant fleet is the sixth largest in the world, containing some 3 per cent. of the world's tonnage. It has quadrupled since 1960. Much of the fleet expansion took place between 1960 and 1970, motivated by a surge in Soviet seaborne foreign trade
  592
  beginning in 1969, which increased the Soviet Union's dependence on foreign ships for transport. After a temporary cutback in 1971–72, the Soviet Union resumed its vigorous acquisition of merchant ships, adding about 1 million tons to its fleet each year. Since 1975, in the liner fleet the Soviet Union has put prime emphasis on the build-up of its roll-on roll-off capacity.
  In 1977, the rate of additions to the Soviet merchant fleet appeared to be keeping up to the pace set in recent years. The amount of new tonnage added in 1977 was approximately 1·2 million tons. The rate of acquisitions, which was kept high by additions of bulk and combination carriers, was all the more striking in the face of a general cutback in world ship construction. During the current five-year plan we can expect the Soviet fleet to increase considerably, and I shall refer to that later.
  Secondly, the great majority of Soviet cross-trading takes place outside scheduled liner services. Although, up to the present, Western interests have not been unduly concerned about Soviet bulk-trading or tanker activities there is, most certainly, acute anxiety about Soviet carriage in the liner cross-trades. Despite the fact that, within the total Soviet cross-trading activity, this is still small in tonnage terms, between 1965 and 1976 it has increased ten-fold and considerable trade has been captured from certain world shipping conferences, and notably from the East African conference and the North Atlantic and trans-Pacific trades. If pressed I could provide the House with further and better particulars of these basic facts.
  Thirdly, the Soviet Union unquestionably has a problem in filling its ships. The reason is that, in volume terms, Soviet exports greatly exceed imports and, therefore, if ships were used solely to carry the Soviet's own bilateral trade a large number of them would be unladen, or only partly laden, on their return voyages. Thus, there are obvious attractions for them in picking up third party cargoes, and even greater attractions if payment is made in convertible currency for a country which desperately seeks to earn foreign exchange. Indeed, it is that which leads directly to the Soviet predatory rate cutting.

  593
  The fourth point relates to the means of competition in which the Soviet Union engages. Undercutting by Soviet liners is supported, among other things, by subsidy, direct or indirect; by policies determined by central planning authorities which only in part relate to commercial factors; by amortising capital costs of ships over 25 years instead of 15 or even less, as is usual in the West; by the State covering hull and cargo insurance and the cost of training crews; and, not least, by Soviet foreign trade organisations buying fob and selling cif.
  The fifth point is that Soviet expansion is beginning to take effect in the carriage of containerised cargo, as I indicated earlier. Our estimate is that the USSR will have a total container capacity of 30,000 units in 1981, of which at least 19,000 units will be used on international trade routes. This sector of shipping will have the largest growth rate and represents the major competitive threat to western liner operators.
  The sixth point is that the issues of penetration into the liner trades must be viewed in the light not only of direct loss of revenue to Western carriers because of rate cuting, but of countervailing rate cutting by Western carriers which has to be done to match Soviet competition.
  Since a number of liner conference carriers may operate on a small margin of profit, even a limited incursion into the market by an outsider results in lost revenues and leads to a lowering of rates to keep vital business. This can be vividly illustrated by the Europe-East African Conference, where some $35 million to $40 million was lost in countering the Soviet rates, which were some 30 per cent. lower. Now fair competition is one thing, and can be said to keep conference shipping on its toes, but low rates, buttressed by hugh subsidies, is quite another matter.
  The seventh point is that another increasingly important element in this is the Trans-Siberian land bridge. Although Western shipping companies do not appear to have suffered too adversely up to the present, there is no room for complacency, because this represents the largest potential threat of all. There is strong evidence that the Soviet Union is seeking to attract cargoes by offering rate advantages of 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. on some goods
  594
  —for example electrical goods westbound for Japan. The only fortunate feature is that the efficiency of the operation leaves considerable room for improvement. But I think that will improve. Therefore, we can certainly expect this threat to grow.
  The eighth point is that one cannot dismiss from these considerations the longer-term strategic value of all these developments to the Soviet Union—the auxiliary support for the Soviet Navy on a global scale and the wider support for Soviet political ambitions.
  I recognise that the Soviet Union denies that it has any expansionist role in shipping. I have from time to time read a number of speeches by Mr. Guzhenko, the Soviet Minister concerned. I know that the Soviet Union asserts that the growth of its fleet is related only to its cargo-generating capacity, on both its domestic and foreign trades. Frankly, this is just a smokescreen. The evidence is overwhelmingly the other way.
  These are some of the salient facts which provide the back-cloth to this debate.
  We appreciate that the Soviet Union, as a major world Power, is entitled to have a substantial merchant fleet. No one can possibly object to that. We do not fear genuine competition. Our objection is to its grossly unfair shipping practices.
  Notwithstanding that, I believe that it is better to try to resolve these difficulties amicably. Thus, over the course of the last 18 months it has been made manifestly clear to the Soviet Union by the United Kingdom, at both ministerial and official level, that our objective is to seek not a confrontation with the Soviet Union but a policy of accommodation if —I underline the word "if"—the Soviet side is prepared to meet problems of genuine concern to us.
  I made that plain to Minister Guzhenko when I met him in London in June 1977. I said that I hoped that, by the time that I saw him again in Moscow in October 1977, to which city he had invited me, some real progress in achieving an equitable solution could have been made.
  It is true that, even before June, the Soviet Union had conceded that in our bilateral trades British ships should be

  595
  able to acquire a fairer share of carryings. At the June meeting Minister Guzhenko went further and said that he would support a movement towards parity in this regard. Welcome though this was, it dealt only with a peripheral problem. The fundamental question affected Soviet rate cutting on the liner trades, and here, regrettably, there had been no real progress at all.
  It has always seemed to me, having been involved in this dialogue for some little time, to be profitless to debate with the Soviet Union its contentions that its shipping companies are operated profitably with no element of subsidy. We do not speak the same language in assessing "profitability". There is no starting point of understanding. Therefore, the debate on those grounds is rather meaningless. Facts are what they are, not what some might pretend they are. Soviet depredations have been and are practised in the liner field. Their rates cannot be justified on commercial grounds and they are injurious to Western shipping. That is the view not only of the Government but of the employers and the unions, too, with whom the Government have consulted closely.
  It must be said that at the June meeting the Soviet Minister asserted that he, too, wanted to arrive at a fair accommodation and to establish a reasonable modus vivendi for Soviet liners either within or outside the conferences, and it was agreed that Britain and the Soviet Union would try to work out a draft of acceptable guidelines for participation in maritime trades which would be acceptable to the Soviet side and to the West. I stated, however, that it was useless just to talk of principles and that we required proof that progress could be made at the same time in individual problem cases. I considered that the negotiations between the East African Conference and Besta Line represented the best test of Soviet intentions, since it was here, albeit on a limited scale and, indeed, because of that, that the USSR could most easily demonstrate a clear willingness to reach a rapprochement.
  In the intervening period, before my visit to Moscow in October, efforts were made to produce draft guidelines. The finest principles were enunciated, but these, I regret, were unaccompanied by
  596
  any movement on the Soviet side. Therefore, when I was in Moscow, I decided, because of that lack of progress, to put the guidelines exercise into cold storage.
  At the EEC Transport Council in October 1977, I warmly welcomed the decision to call for a proposal for a programme of defensive measures on a Community basis. That decision in October 1977 on the part of EEC Ministers was unanimous. It was recognised by all that effective preparation of our defences against the Soviet Union would have to be co-ordinated internationally. In broad terms, we welcome the Commission's proposals which have been prepared in response to this remit from Ministers. We believe this to be a sensible approach.
  My understanding is that next Monday we shall be asked to endorse a framework decision which will institute a community-wide monitoring system designed to obtain and record information on all maritime practices deemed to be detrimental to the shipping interests of member States, whatever their source, for example, presumably, flags of convenience. This would be accompanied by provision for the Council to decide on a joint application by member States using their national powers of appropriate countervailing measures to deal with identified threats. This would be accompanied by a specific decision immediately bringing the monitoring system into effect vis-à-vis the liner shipping activities of the Soviet merchant fleet.
  These are pretty modest proposals. It surprises me that they may not have found general favour with all member States—something that I would deeply regret. I believe that a weakening of resolve will be damaging in the long term not only to shipping interests but to those of shippers, too. The conflict of interests that some claim to exist between shippers and the shipping industry is illusory.
  Eventually an erosion of Western shipping interests in consequence of Soviet depredations can only put shippers under the dominion of those who act in this way. This is well understood by the British Shippers Council. It fully recognises that the Soviet Union is not the Freddie Laker of international shipping. But it surprises me that this simple point is not starkly evident to all our colleagues in Europe.

  597
  Accordingly, at the Council of Ministers we shall continue to press for the sort of measures proposed by the Commission. We must be prepared to defend our legitimate maritime interests. If this is the position of the nations of the EEC, it also provides the best assurance of achieving that accommodation which we have always sought. I believe that the Soviet Union would be concerned to arrive at an agreement if the EEC showed itself to be united and resolute.
  There is a possibility that other member States will seek to place action against the Soviet threat in a broader context, which would involve giving the Community, as I touched on a moment ago, the ability to monitor all maritime practices deemed to be detrimental to the shipping interests of member States, whatever their source. I have mentioned briefly flags of convenience as an example.
  I say at once that we shall look sympathetically at any such proposals, but is it not absurd to suggest, as some might, that the two matters are mutually exclusive? Is there not more urgency about one than the other? It would be absolutely wrong for us to be deflected from our contention that the immediate focus of Community concern should be the Soviet maritime threat, both actual and potential. Inaction now could well result in this threat being extended to the bulk trades, since we are convinced that there is an avowed Soviet intent to continue to build up its shipping behind a curtain of preference and subsidy.
  I do not conceal from the House the fact that if, despite all our efforts, member States are unable to demonstrate a concerted will to act, this will represent a serious setback to the interests of shipping, of shippers and of wider interests in Europe. For this reason I hope that the hon. Member for Wirral, who will speak for the Conservative Party in this matter, will support the line that I have outlined.
  Only a few days ago Mr. Guzhenko said in a long speech about shipping that the Soviet merchant marine interests would never agree to inequitable relations. I think that he is looking at the matter from a somewhat jaundiced point of view. I am not looking for inequitable relations with the Soviet Union. I want the situation to be rendered fair and just. There should be accommodation,
  598
  but it has to be on reasonable terms. If the Soviet Union decides that it is not prepared to reach that form of accommodation, I believe unhesitatingly that it is the job of the EEC to demonstrate its determination fully to take the matter into account.
  2.45 p.m.
  Mr. David Hunt: I appreciate the Minister's kind and generous words at the start of his speech, as I also applaud his new-found aggression, to which I shall return in a minute. I must however point out that the Conservative Party protests at the short notice given by the Government of this vital debate on the Soviet maritime threat. Document R 829/78 was included by the Lord President in his announcement of business on 25th May, but only by reference to a debate on liner conferences. It was only yesterday, after Opposition protests, that the Government seemed to realise that they had misunderstood the subject matter and announced a separate debate.
  Even the hot line which seems to exist between the Minister's Department and Lloyd's List seems to have failed, because in yesterday's edition mention was made of this debate taking place some time before the end of July. For a subject as vital as this, we should have had a debate much earlier and on a more important day, when I know a number of my colleagues would have wished to participate.
  We in the Conservative Party have been growing increasingly impatient with the Government's lack of action to counter the economic and strategic threat posed by the Soviet maritime expansion. We therefore welcome the new-found aggression of the Minister this afternoon. However, on any assessment, his attitude and the Government's attitude until now have been feeble and weak.
  Since the early 1960s, and in particular since the early 1970s, there has been a rapid expansion of the cargo liner fleets of the State trading countries of Eastern Europe and of Russia in particular. It has been a matter of deep concern to the shipping industry for at least four years. It is now over two years since the General Council of British Shipping published "Red Ensign versus Red Flag"—a very informed leaflet which pointed out the potential consequences of Soviet expansion.

  599
  The Minister recognised today that even since then there has been a continued dramatic increase in the Russian merchant fleet. He mentioned that the Russians have concentrated on roll-on roll-off ships in service. The indications are that they will have 40 by the end of 1980. Already, as he admitted, it is the sixth largest world fleet. All the signs are that in their next five-year plan the Russians will be seeking a further substantial increase in their fleet. We have too much to lose to delay any longer.
  The Minister has at last mentioned the substantial contribution of British shipping. The industry contributes in gross earnings £2,500 million to our balance of payments, with gross import savings of just under £500 million. The Soviet maritime expansion therefore poses a major threat to our economy.
  One aspect with which the Minister did not spend much time dealing is that the threat is not simply economic. It represents a serious strategic threat. Those who study Soviet expansion can see a clear political motive of seeking to control important shipping routes with an apparent objective of destroying the economic health of Western shipping lines.
  Most Soviet merchant ships are equipped with advanced naval equipment with interchangeable crews. The Soviets have therefore been devoting vast resources to the creation of a large modern ocean-going fleet with considerable military potential. They have in fact gone so far as to admit that their goal is to
  "utilise the World oceans in the interests of building Communism".
  I was very glad to hear from the Minister his recognition of the danger commercially and strategically of the increase in traffic using the Trans-Siberian land bridge. With an annual carrying capacity which has now reached 150,000 containers, this will increase to 300,000 by the end of 1980 and could double again by the end of 1985. The land bridge is, of course, under full Soviet physical control and is no doubt an important part of what appears to be a clear plan to gain a stranglehold on world shipping.
  The Russians have already met with considerable success. Already in the
  600
  bilateral trade Soviet shipping carries 85 per cent. of imports and exports between this country and the USSR. However, the major anxiety is over the activities of the Russians in the cross trades where our shipping industry is so strong. The Russians have been concentrating on the main trade routes by undercutting freight rates charged by the liner conferences by up to 30 per cent.
  For instance, in the conference traffic in sectors of North Atlantic trades the Russians have already been extremely successful and carry up to 28 per cent. eastbound and 25 per cent. westbound. COMECON liners have captured a market share of 35 per cent. already of the cargo transported between Northern Europe and the Mediterranean. In the important United Kingdom-East African trade, the losses in which were mentioned by the Minister, the Russians have already pushed up their share to 20 per cent. from nothing a comparatively short time ago, which share is over and above the liner conference share of the Poles and the East Germans.
  I return to my initial question. What have the Government been doing while all this has been going on? My answer is—too little. It was 12 months ago that the Minister said when answering Questions:
  "We have made it plain to the Soviet Union that we prefer a policy of accommodation rather than confrontation. Nevertheless, as the Soviet Minister well knows, there is provision in Part III of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974 for us to introduce countervailing measures … the picture is not always as bleak as the hon. Gentleman suggests. There has been some improvement in the bilateral trades in that the Soviet Union has agreed that an additional ship should be available to serve those particular interests. Of course that is not enough, but it is a sign of improvement."
  A little later my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) asked:
  "It is correct that there are to be two further meetings on this matter in August? Are not all the facts known about Russian activities in this matter? What are these further meetings intended to discuss? Is it perhaps time that the Government showed a little of their muscle in this matter?"—[Official Report, 27th June 1977; Vol. 934, c. 25–6.]
  The Government have shown as much muscle, unfortunately, as a jaded blancmange, until today.
  I welcome the brave words, the real response and the pugnacious attitude of the Minister.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Gentleman is going on a bit with this nonsense. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to read all my speeches. That would be too much to expect of anybody. However, I must point out that there is nothing at all new in the way in which I have been speaking about this issue. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it was precisely this point that I and my German colleague at the EEC rammed home in October of last year? Is he not aware that there has been the most constant discussion with the GCBS and the unions to get an identity of view on this and that what must be done is to get concerted action? This has been our ambition. It would be appropriate, if the hon. Gentleman would be a little more fair.
  Mr. Hunt: I am, perhaps, not as critical as the Minister is about his speeches, but I think it is fair of us on this side to expect action and not words. He refers to a debate in the Council last October. We would say that the indications were already there long before October and the Government should have adopted a more aggressive attitude much earlier.
  Instead, what did the Government do? Nothing. Instead they have done a great deal to damage our shipping industry. They proceeded to enter into shipping deals with Poland and started the damaging practice of providing our competitors with ships on highly favourable terms and even giving ships away, thus making our industry even more vulnerable in this highly competitive world. We have tried to point out to the Government the error of their ways. At the end of last year, at last—I pay tribute to the Minister for this; perhaps he should have waited for these kind words—the Government seemed to wake up to the situation, prompted very much by the General Council of British Shipping, and they asked for action to be taken by the European Community, a request which, as I have said, should have been made much earlier.
  In his comments to me just now the Minister mentioned the West Germans. In an article in the Financial Times on 23rd February 1977 it was reported that
  "West Geman shipowners have called for cargoes to he allocated on a quota basis to East European merchant fleets unless they take 'a fairer line'."
  602
  Those are very strong words, but there was no response from the Government until October.
  There is at last this EEC proposal which is to be discussed on Monday by the Transport Minister. We must make the best of a bad job and do now wish the Minister every success in the discussions. The proposal is, however, only for a monitoring system to be instituted with information to be forwarded by each member State every six months. We believe that this is just not good enough. Surely we already have sufficient information on the activities of the Soviet fleet to take the necessary decisions now. We need a promise of tough action within a specific time limit unless the Russians are prepared to stop their non-commercial practices and compete on a basis of fair competition.
  As I have said already, we recognise that this proposition is at least a step in the right direction. However, we now learn with regret from what the Minister said today, that there is some new-found reluctance on the part of some members of the Community to endorse even this proposal. This is very difficult to understand, bearing in mind the unanimous initiative of the Council of Ministers when it asked last October for practical proposals to be prepared
  "for dealing with the situation arising from the increasing non-commercial activity of certain State trading country liner fleets."
  This draft proposal has unanimous support from Community shipowners and European shippers' councils. It is also supported by the European Parliament. Apparently, in the face of this firm European line, some member States, especially France, wish to widen the debate to cover flags of convenience and other issues. The Minister confirmed this today, and I agree with him that there is no fundamental objection to wider discussions at another time and in another place.
  But such issues must not be allowed to weaken our resistance to the Soviet maritime threat. The Soviet Union seems to believe—and the Government have done nothing to dissuade it from its view—that the West will not take any serious action to protect its shipping in the present political climate, and, consequently, it sees no advantage in controlling the activities of its lines. The

  603
  Russians will respect only strength, and within the Community we must show that we are prepared to def end our legitimate interests in world-wide seaborne trade against these practices of a noncommercial and aggressive kind.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the position which my hon. Friend has outlined would require possibly greater response then purely that from the EEC? One thinks, for example, of Commonwealth countries such as Australia and New Zealand which have very strong shipping interests. Would not this be better done on a wider than EEC basis? Will he also say what measures he thinks should be taken, whether or not they are provocative in his view, other than the monitoring which is now suggested?
  Mr. Hunt: I am grateful for that intervention from the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who has considerable experience in European debates. The Opposition believe that this country must set an example by taking the initiative and leading other countries to a much more definite approach. One way to do this would be to consider the call of the West German shipowners. We could announce that, within a certain specific time limit, quotas and penalties will be imposed on the Soviet Fleet unless they agree to seek accommodation. We believe that we should take that sort of initiative within the Community and ask the Community to follow us.
  I accept that there may be a wish on the part of some Community countries first to have a monitoring system. My objection to that, which I have already tried to outline, is that I believe that we already have sufficient information. But what I am proposing now is, I believe, what the Minister is proposing once that monitoring has taken place if there is no Russian response. I am proposing that a clear, decisive attitude should be taken to show the Russians that we mean business and that we are determined to protect the interests of the free world in this important matter. The Russians respect only strength, and we have to show that strength now.
  I give every support to the Minister to go from this debate to the Council on Monday and provide that clear and strong
  604
  leadership I have advocated so that the Community will demonstrate that it has the necessary political will to take concerted action in this vital area. If a little is achieved on Monday, there will, rightly, be strong pressure on the United Kingdom and other nations to take combined action outside the Community. That would be a sad and regrettable step back from the move towards a European shipping policy.
  I am afraid that the Government have done little to promote our shipping industry—in fact, rather the opposite. They have failed to bring forward the Merchant Shipping Bill, they have failed to introduce a proper rationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, taxation policies harm shipping interests, and there are many other examples of similar damage. British shipping represents the finest form of free enterprise. Our shipping industry thrives on competition, but only on fair competition.
  Let the Government and the Community wake up to the existing dangers and remove the threat to the industry which represents and provides a vital economic lifeline not just for us in this country but also for the Community as a whole. Let the Minister fight hard on Monday for the European action which is so urgently needed by the European shipping industry before it becomes too late to impose any meaningful control on Soviet maritime expansion.
  3.4 p.m.
  Mr. Clinton Davies: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may say a few words in response to the undoubtedly aggressive speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). I know the difficulties which he is undergoing from the leader of his party. He is under very firm instructions on anything to do with the Soviet Union, and he has to make the right sort of aggressive noises. But unfortunately, if he becomes too agressive, he, and his party, will tend to lose sight of a more sensible way of trying to achieve the sort of constructive goals that I sought to set out in my speech at the beginning of the debate.
  Time and again, the hon. Gentleman—I suppose that it must have taken up at least half of his speech—asserted that the Government were guilty of inaction or

  605
  doing too little. "Why had we not taken action before October 1977?": that was the sort of question that came during the whole theme of his speech. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman some of the facts of life.
  It was not in October 1977 that the Government began to react to this situation. I myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited virtually every shipping Minister amongst our allies in Western Europe in order to try to obtain a concerted cohesive point of view about dealing with the threat.
  The hon. Member is essentially a very reasonable and liberal Member and, therefore, perhaps he is an uncharacteristic member of his party. He will recognise that it is no good shouting out this sort of thing from the housetops, particularly if one is not successful in getting that concerted and cohesive approach.
  Unhappily, up to shortly before the October Transport Minister's meeting, there was very little interest on the part of others in Europe. It is true that the West German ship owners had indicated their consternation. It was later that the West German Government, in perhaps a more reasonable way than the West German shipowners, echoed a similar point of view. They were not first in the field, by any manner of means. Therefore, I believe that it was right to see whether we could achieve a consensual approach, even though, as I say, in the long run, up to about October 1977, it appeared not to work.
  Then the situation changed. There seemed to be more concern on the part of the European nations about the threat. They seemed to be more alive to the isssue. It was in response to that position that at the October meeting the Commission was instructed to deal with the position along the lines that it has done. Therefore, what I say to the hon. Gentleman is that fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.
  I do not want in any way to appear to be patronising—that is not my intention—but I genuinely believe that when one is dealing with these matters on a day-to-day basis and trying to achieve a certain goal it is no good shouting out from the housetops in a way that an Opposition is free to do.
  Mr. David Hunt: It would be a great help to the Opposition in understanding the extent of the action that the Minister has been taking if he would indicate when he first made approaches to other Community Governments. When did he first invite them to take concerted action against the Soviet maritime threat?
  Mr. Davis: What I was doing was undertaking bilateral meetings in the first place to try to drum up support for this cohesive action. I think that it was about two years ago that I first saw my opposite numbers. I cannot specifically recall who it was, but, as I say, I visited virtually every shipping Minister—other than the shipping Minister in Italy, because at the material time it was very difficult to determine who he was. However, I think that I saw virtually every other Minister from time to time.
  I know that at that time and throughout that period French Ministers have been reluctant to engage in this exercise, but in October nobody dissented from the proposition; so we thought that we were making progress at that time. Having said that, I repudiate the charge of inactivity and inertia that the hon. Gentleman has made—albeit in a most attractive speech.
  Mr. Spearing: May I pursue with my hon. Friend the point that I pursued with the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt)? Is it not a fact that, because of Britain's maritime history and strength, the United Kingdom perhaps of all the members of the EEC is the one most properly sensitive to this situation and that it is right that my hon. Friend should have been taking the lead that he has described? But is it not a matter for the countries I mentioned — particularly India, New Zealand, Australia and possibly shipping and Government interests in Japan in respect of the land bridge? What proposals do the Government have in those connections, as well as in the rather more limited but similar ones within the EEC?
  Mr. Davis: The best is the enemy of the good. One has to aim at a step-by-step process. It looks as if it will be difficult enough getting these fairly modest proposals through, let alone the highly ambitious ones that my hon. Friend was hinting at.

  607
  The hon. Member for Wirral said, following up the point I have just made, that he wanted more radical steps undertaken within Europe, but I repeat that it is no good just fancifully thinking about this. One has to be able to carry others with one. Unless that can be done, radical steps cannot be taken. Although we have certain powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1974, the Commission and most other people, including the whole of our industry, are realistic and understand that it is no use taking a unilateral line. If we were to do so, Soviet ships would simply not use our ports; but they would have plenty of others to use. So I do not think that is a very positive line of approach.
  The hon. Member went on to say—I think wrongly—that this Government have given little help to the shipping industry. What he was saying was not that the shipping industry wanted more help, because he did not identify the sort of help it wanted; it was a negative that he was asserting. He was saying, in effect, that the Government should not have entered into the Polish deal.
  Mr. David Hunt Mr. David Hunt indicated assent.
  Mr. Davis: I see that that is the proposition that he affirms. I must tell him that there is little doubt that the Poles would have bought elsewhere on very similar terms and in those circumstances it would have been manifestly irresponsible for the Government to deprive our shipyards of this deal at this specifically critical time and our shipyard workers of the many jobs that were available as a result. The threat would have remained, so it made no difference. I believe, therefore, that the Government were right to proceed.
  I want to put a question to the hon. Member. If he is so emphatic about giving the shipping industry this unspecific aid, how does he square that with the assertion made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)—I hope I am not doing the right hon. Gentleman an injustice because I am trying to remember his words off the top of my head—that all subsidies and aid to industry are harmful? Would he then have taken the action which my right hon. Friend announced to assist certain shipping com-
  608
  panies only two or three weeks ago? I suspect the answer would be in the negative; that would have been a grossly irresponsible attitude to have taken.
  Mr. David Hunt: We seem, with respect, to have got somewhat sidetracked. Certainly, the aid to which the Minister refers was normal financial practice on the part of good banking houses—to extend or to announce a moratorium on loans. The Minister sought to defend the Polish deal and would, no doubt, seek to defend the new Polish deal for at least five ships. Does he defend the Indian deal whereby ships were given as part of the foreign aid programme—a deal which was immensely damaging to the British shipping industry?
  Mr. Davis: I am glad that, though belatedly, the hon. Gentleman has applauded what the Government have done in relation to our own domestic shipping industry. I think that those are the first such words uttered in the House, but belated acknowledgement is better than none at all. As to the wider issues of other deals, one has to look at each case on its merits. One has to see the nature of the threat. In any case, we are not in this debate talking about India or any other countries. We are talking about the situation in relation to the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc.
  As I said a little time ago, I believe that it is still right to seek an accommodation with the Soviet Union, but speaking from a position of realism and strength. I did not hear whether the hon. Gentleman also, from the Opposition's point of view, felt that in the long term an accommodation was more desirable than confrontation, but I shall assume that that is what he wants, too.
  Therefore, welcoming that assertion on the hon. Gentleman's part and the support that he offers, I shall do everything I can on Monday to try to carry my colleagues with me. Things may not go right. I hope that others will recognise the longterm problems here, but I cannot be sure. But that does not mean that we should not go on striving, and we have to strive on the basis of concerted action. I think that that is the will of the Opposition behind the peripheral debating points. I believe that that is their will, and it is most certainly, and has been for some considerable time, the will of this Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order No. 3, "Liner Shipping". The Question is—
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Is that the right one, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, Motion No. 3.
  Mr. David Hunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This confusion raises exactly the point which I made earlier, to which the Minister did not respond, namely, that the subject matter of the first debate was never appreciated —or seemed never to be appreciated—by the Government, and this has undoubtedly misled many of my hon. Friends who would have wished to speak on the subject with which we have just dealt.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the Order Paper, Motion No. 3 is entitled "Liner Shipping", and Motion No. 4 also is entitled "Liner Shipping".
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of EEC Document No. R/829/78 on the activities of certain state trading countries in cargo liner shipping.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (UNITED NATIONS LINER CODE)
  3.18 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of EEC Document No. R/3245/77 on accession to the United Nations Convention on the Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences.
  It seems that I am speaking almost incessantly, and, no doubt, I shall have made four speeches in a very short time, which will be a record for almost everyone.
  This Commission document was submitted for parliamentary scrutiny, and at the outset I express my thanks to the Scrutiny Committee for its valuable contribution to consideration of this issue in its report, which has been made available in advance of the debate. The report sets out the essential elements of the code and the conditions required for its coming into effect. I do not, therefore, think it necessary for me to rehearse these matters to the House today.
  610
  I want, as briefly as possible, to describe to the House something of the background which has given rise to the emergence of this matter, because this is another issue which is extremely vital to the future wellbeing of our highly significant merchant fleet.
  The United Kingdom in 1974—indeed, we still adhere to this position today—was in favour of a universally acceptable code for liner conferences which would give recognition to the asperations of the developing countries to carry a reasonable part of their foreign trade, and also to provide a stable framework for the development of liner trades. But much of the current support for the United Nations code derives from the desire of certain developed countries to increase their share of liner trades by cargo reservation, since it appears that they cannot win a greater share by commercial means. I see no reason why we should encourage any move at all in this direction.
  However, we had certain serious reservations about the code when it was drawn up in 1974. Frankly, we still have reservations. We considered it to be unwieldy and bureaucratic, and that its adoption on a worldwide basis would lead to disruption of the international conference system, which worked generally to the benefit of shippers and in which the United Kingdom lines had won, through competitive means, a major stake.
  In addition to our objections to the cargo reservation provisions, we also had major doubts about the element of interference in the setting of freight rates, the extremely cumbersome procedures for the settlement of disputes, and, indeed, the general obscurity of the text of the convention. These constituted the reasons for our voting against the code in 1974.
  Should our views be fundamentally changed by events ensuing since that time? At the present moment the shares of cargo carried by individual lines within conferences reflect, in general, the competitiveness and cost effectiveness of particular carriers. In some trades, foreign Governments—notable in the developing world—have sought, though through unilateral measures of cargo reservation, to disturb commercial arrangements and to direct a greater share to their own lines.

  611
  I think it is right to say that our lines have shown considerable commercial flare in reacting pragmatically to this situation. However, having said that, we have not complacently sat back in the hope that the issue would go away or disappear from the international agenda so that there would be no need for us to give profound consideration to the matter.
  The Government have, in fact, completed a wide-ranging review of United Kingdom interests in the light of the code. We have conducted this jointly with the General Council of British Shipping and with the maritime unions who, I am delighted to say, have, over the course of the last four years, been encouraged in every way to contribute to debates on international shipping policy. I believe that there is a remarkable degree of unanimity in our joint thinking.
  It is clear to us that the adoption of this code on a universal basis could be seriously prejudicial to the United Kingdom, to its liner trades, and to our jobs. On the other hand, we have to recognise that the code enjoys some degree of support, and that a number of Governments, particularly those in developing countries, have sought to impose arrangements along codist lines. We understand and sympathise with the desire of these countries to get a better deal in carrying their liner trade.
  We should, if it proved possible, like to obtain a solution to the code question on a Community basis. Indeed, we believe that the Community's general commitment to the maintenance of free trade could be usefully deployed in avoiding wholesale changes in the present pattern of liner shipping. Nevertheless, we share the view of the Scrutiny Committee that the current Commission proposals leave a number of important questions unanswered. These concern both the role of the EEC's competition rules, to which the Committee specifically refers, and the real intentions behind the proposed cargo-sharing regime within the OECD.
  As I have said, we should still like to develop a liner policy within the Community, but the essential aspect from our point of view is that cargo sharing and the other objectionable features of the code, to which I have already alluded, should not be applied to conferences trading between developed countries.
  612
  As I have said, the idea that certain developed countries should seek artificially to benefit from the United Nations code, which was specifically drawn up to meet the concerns of the developing countries, is, in our view, indefensible.
  On behalf of the Government, I shall ask the Community in Luxembourg next Monday to undertake further work towards achieving a Community position, which would meet our essential concerns while taking account of the interests of other member States.
  I hope that the House will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to reveal here and now the precise contents of the Government's presentation, but I hope that we will be able to find the basis for progress towards mutually acceptable arrangements within the Community. At the same time I shall leave my Community partners in no doubt that we have major interests at stake here and we cannot subscribe to the view that we must be subordinate to purely Brussels considerations simply for the sake of achieving a consensus.
  3.27 p.m.
  Mr. David Hunt: Like many people outside the House, I had an opportunity to read the Minister's speech in advance in Lloyd's List. It was rather premature because it was published on 22nd May in expectation that this debate would take place on 25th May. Nevertheless, I welcome very much—as I did then—the Minister's remarks.
  This document represents a brave and ingenious attempt on the part of the Commission to bridge the unbridgeable. The fundamental objections to the UN Code of Conduct which were made by this country in 1974 are still valid, and there are further difficulties created by this compromise solution.
  There is little progress that we can make until we have had the opportunity to discuss the Commission's further proposals on a competition policy for sea transport. These are crucial to the whole subject of liner conferences. There is no draft formula as yet, although indications have been given of some kind of blanket exemption for conference activity from the Treaty of Rome. There is also some speculation whether a system of filing tariff agreements for information only will be introduced, or some mechanism for disputes machinery.

  613
  This is merely rumour and it is impossible to reach a proper conclusion in this debate until we have firm proposals on the application of the EEC rules of competition to international liner shipping. Likewise, with the continuing discussions within the OECD.
  The objections to the UN Code of Conduct are stated in the evidence to the Select Committee on European Legislation. I join the Minister in thanking the Scrutiny Committee. The code was pushed through at the eleventh hour in April 1974 when there was no scrutiny by any proper legal committee. As a result, it is contradictory in many places, with imprecise drafting, and the important objections still remain. It is right for the House to rehearse briefly the major objections to the code.
  The first is that the code is too rigid in respect of cargo sharing. It is difficult to apply a 40-20-20 ratio in practice because this would introduce an unacceptable degree of regulation into commercial operations. What of the position of way ports? How can they fit into an overall mechanism designed to provide an efficient regular service encompassing a range of ports in different countries at one end with a range of ports in different countries at the other?
  There are of course international consortia which operate in many areas as a result of the substantial investment required in container services and how can they fit into a rigid formula. How is this 40 per cent. to be divided between national companies? There are other similar questions.
  Secondly, the code lays down exceptionally cumbersome procedures for establishing freight rates and settling disputes. These procedures are very obscure and most unsatisfactory, particularly in respect of the 15-month period between variation of freight rates.
  Thirdly, and perhaps this is most important, the code is questionable on judicial grounds. Disputes are to be settled between parties if possible. If not, there is eventually to be international mandatory conciliation. The outcome of conciliation is, however, only by acceptance and the code is silent as to what occurs if the conciliation judgment is ignored. There are no penalties and no indication whether it is mandatory or just
  614
  a recommendation. We believe that this situation could lead to a most complicated and unhelpful position.
  Fourthly, there is the veto power of the national line at one end to override any agreement at all. That is objectionable. Fifthly, and lastly, there is no provision for control over outsiders, no control over flags of convenience and the code does nothing to prevent unfair competition from State trading countries, which we discussed in the last debate. It does not take account of the United States attitude on anti-trust legislation and so on. There are many other important objections.
  I agree with the Minister that it is preferable for there to be a universally acceptable code of conduct of some kind, but not as set out in the UN code, even this version as revised by the Community.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman said he agreed with my hon. Friend on one point. Would he also agree that some developing countries have a case in respect of conference traffic, because just as conference arrangements can be of advantage, they can also be a disadvantage if applied in a particular way? Is it the opinion of the Conservative Opposition that there is a case here, even although the way in which it is tackled may not be to the hon. Gentleman's own writing?
  Mr. Hunt: I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I should like to deal with it at some length because it is very important indeed. The Minister rehearsed the question "What is the purpose of the code?" He gave one reason. I would give two. First, to help developing countries' shipping in order to allow them easier entry into world shipping markets. Secondly—having read through most of the proceedings of UNCTAD I believe this to be a profound reason—to meet the great suspicion of developing countries that they are not getting a fair deal from the old established countries of the developed world.
  I was very sorry that the Minister did not seek more adequately to defend the liner conference system, because I believe that there is a great deal of misunderstanding over its importance. Liner conferences are certainly the subject of varying misconceptions. There are now about

  615
  350 conferences or rate agreements covering world trade routes. I believe that the conference system is indispensable because it provides shippers with regular, efficient services at stable rates which are set at a level which will encourage cargo to move. There have been many inquiries into the system of liner conferences and they have all concluded that the liner conference system does provide the necessary self-regulation to restrain unrestricted and destructive competition. They provide a stabilising influence with considerable expertise in establishing economic rates combined with the highest possible standards. I am sure that in the future the conference system will continue to be indispensable.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: In fact, I did refer to this, perhaps tersely, because it is widely accepted in this House and outside that the liner conference system does have the sort of values to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I want to make it abundantly plain that I am in no way resiling from the arguments in favour of the liner conference system. But every system has room for improvement, including the liner conference system.
  Mr. Hunt: I accept and welcome what the Minister says, and I now wish to deal with the second part of the hon. Member's question.
  When we examine the development of liner conferences we see immediately that they do not seek to exclude developing countries, but very much the opposite. Let us take, for example, the United Kingdom-West Africa Lines Joint Service, which is the United Kingdom liner conference to and from parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland and ports in West Africa. That conference contains three British lines, one Norwegian line and also, with an important part to play three African lines consisting of Black Star Ghana, Nigerian National Shipping Line and Compagnie Maritime Zairoise.
  Another good example of a case in which developing countries are not excluded, but very much the opposite, is
  616
  the liner conference system to the Indian sub-continent where national lines in the developing countries have at least 40 per cent. of the trade. This is very much as a result of past developments going back long before the United Nations Liner Code became a practical issue. For instance, in Brazil, Argentina, and to some degree Indonesia, in the last 20 years, Governments have encouraged national lines to claim from conferences shares gradually escalating as far as 50 per cent. It is a paradox that some of those developing countries are worried about the 40-40-20 formula because it will mean a diminution in their share of the trade. There is already some opposition to the code as nations realise the extent of the value of existing shares in liner conferences.
  I shall then probably be asked by the hon. Member, "What about the other cases where national lines do not have as much as 40 per cent.?" In most of those cases, if not all, the national lines have insufficient capacity to carry 40 per cent. of the trade. There is no serious problem in that respect because established lines in conferences are gradually yielding more and more of the trade as a State's national line developes its capacity. Although I recognise that there is a need to assimilate the emerging ambitions of developing countries, I believe that we can set the record straight by appreciating that liner conferences have recognised that need for many years and have already been catering for it.
  The second part of the argument must lead us to accept what the Minister said and to recognise that there is a need for a universal code. But we do not accept this incomprehensible and bureaucratic code. We welcome what has been said by the Minister in this debate and urge him, in consultation within the EEC, to find a more effective solution.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of EEC Document No. R/3245/77 on accession to the United Nations Convention on the Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  3.38 p.m.
  The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Terry Walker): I beg to move,
  That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  When I bring Church measures to this House, they are usually concerned with one major subject that affects the Church—worship and doctrine, endowments and glebe, parish registers and so on. But occasionally the General Synod produces a miscellaneous provisions measure which, in common with the measure before us today, picks up a number of smaller matters, none of which would merit a separate measure all to itself. The present measure consists of 13 clauses. I shall not weary the House by going in great detail through the clauses. I shall try to mention the main points contained therein.
  Clause 1 is the most important clause in the measure. Under the Worship and Doctrine Measure, which the House approved in 1974, the General Synod may approve a new service only if there is a two-thirds majority in favour of it in each of the three houses of the Synod—that is, bishops, clergy and laity. If, however, the General Synod wishes to alter the service in the Book of Common Prayer it has to come to Parliament with a measure. As the law stands, such a measure could come to Parliament even if it had a majority of only one in the General Synod. That surely is not enough for a measure that would alter the Prayer Book services of Baptism, Holy Communion and Ordination. Accordingly, the clause extends to measures which alter services the two-thirds majority principle that applies to the authorisation of services.
  I give the House an example. If ever the General Synod wished to enable women to be ordained in the Church of England, it would be necessary to bring a measure to Parliament that would, among other things, alter the Prayer Book Ordination service. Clause 1 would ensure that such a measure could come
  618
  to Parliament only if there were a two-thirds majority.
  Clause 2 protects a clergyman who was appointed to his living before 1976, in a case where that living is subsequently affected by pastoral reorganisation. The 1975 measure, which laid down that clergyman must retire from their livings at 70 years, was not retrospective, and so the clergyman appointed before 1st January 1976 is exempted from the rule of retirement at 70. However, if his benefice is included in a pastoral reorganisation scheme, it is doubtful whether he retains his exemption. The clause ensures that he does.
  I do not think that Clauses 3, 4 and 5 need much explanation from me. Clause 3 allows the Church Commissioners to alter their financial year to the calendar year. Clause 4 makes some minor changes in the Commissioner's constitution. Clause 5 seeks to ensure that whoever represents a diocese on the Central Board of Finance of the Church of England should also be a member of his own diocese board of finance in his own diocese.
  Clause 6 implements an undertaking that I gave to the House when the Parochial Registers and Records Measure was before Parliament. It sets a ceiling to the search fee that may be charged when parish registers are deposited in an independent repository, namely, a records office that is not under the control of a local authority. We gave an undertaking that that would be done at the time of the passing of the measure.
  Clauses 7 and 8 deal with rather obscure matters. Clause 7 enables the Church to sell land which it does not need but which under the tightly drawn provisions of the New Parishes Measure 1943 is at present inalienable. Clause 8 enables the Church to comply with a compulsory purchase order in respect of land vested in an incumbent even if the benefice is vacant.
  Clause 9 widens the scope of the Inspection of Churches Measure 1955. It enables the bishop to direct that buildings that are licensed for public worship but have not been consecrated shall be liable to inspection by the diocesan architect every five years on exactly the same basis as consecrated buildings.

  619
  Clause 10 concerns the honorary canons of Christchurch Cathedral, Oxford. The cathedral is outside the general provisions of the Cathedrals Measure because of its special relationship with the College and with the University of Oxford. In most other cathedrals honorary canons are required by the cathedral statutes to vacate their canonaries on retiring from full time ministry or on reaching the age of 70. In Oxford there has hitherto been an exception in the case of canons who continue to reside in the Oxford diocese when they retire. In practice, so many of the Oxford honorary canons have continued to live in the diocese after retirement that the Bishop of Oxford has found himself with fewer opportunities than other diocesan bishops to confer honorary canonaries on clergymen actively involved in the full-time ministry of the Church.
  The clause, which will not apply to existing honorary canons, will bring Oxford into line with other dioceses in this matter. It is, of course, customary for an honorary canon who retires to have the title of canon emeritus conferred upon him, and this practice will be followed in Oxford when the clause takes effect.
  Clause 11 makes a couple of technical corrections in the Endowment and Glebe Measure 1976, and Clause 12 relieves the Church Commissioners of a quite outdated requirement to have certain property transactions enrolled in the High Court.
  This is an unexciting and, I believe, quite uncontroversial measure. When it was given final approval in the General Synod, 38 bishops, 124 clergy and 124 lay people voted in favour of it. Only one vote—that of a member of the House of Laity—was recorded against it. I hope that the House will see fit to give this modest but useful measure an affirmative resolution.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

  MISS SARAH DIXON
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
  3.47 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I am grateful for what is the second opportunity in 23 years as an Essex Member of raising on the Adjournment the plight of a constituent. In so doing, I declare my interest as the father of an autistic child in the care of the National Health Service. It happens that my daughter shares the same christian name as Sarah Dixon, the multiply-handicapped girl who is the subject of my Adjournment motion. Moreover, my wife and I have experienced some of the difficulties encountered by the parents of Sarah Dixon, of Stewards Green, Epping. We, too, have had to balance the needs of a handicapped child with the needs of the rest of the family.
  Sarah Dixon is now getting on for eight. She was one of twins. The other was stillborn. Sarah was born with brain damage which was not immediately diagnosed but required an operation at Great Ormond Street before she was three. Sarah is spastic, mentally retarded and registered as blind. She has the size and strength of a normal seven-year old and is difficult to carry and exercise. Everything has to be done for her.
  The House may imagine the burden upon her mother and family. I should like to salute their patient and heroic devotion and to pay tribute to the physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, teachers and others who have striven on Sarah's behalf in conjunction with her parents.
  In a restrained and sensible letter to me dated 14th March, Mrs. Dixon writes:
  "Although one feels one should be accustomed to this after 73- years, I find we all get very much on edge, possibly because as a family we have to be on duty 24 hours out of 24, whereas in a unit obviously the staff would have periods of duty of about eight hours only, and, of course, they would not be as emotionally involved as we are."
  The parents had to consider, rightly, the heart-breaking decision that many of us have had to make and look for a residential place for their child away from home. That was in June of last year. The only place then offered was

  621
  Essex Hall, in Colchester, some 40 miles away. Sarah went there for two three-week periods of short-term care. Essex Hall is now closed to children of a serious category. Although the embargo on the admission of older children has been lifted, the hall is overcrowded and short of staff.
  Since I sought to raise the case in the House, the Harlow district administrator, Mr. Webb, whose ready assistance I acknowledge, mentioned two holiday places then available, at Great West Hatch, Chigwell, and on 19th May Mr. Dixon told me that he and his wife had gratefully accepted an offer of short-stay care at Hargrave House, Stansted.
  We also appreciate the interest of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children which said that a place might be found for Sarah at its home in Norfolk. The society is the first to acknowledge that it is far away for visits and short holidays. For Sarah and those in her position there is no permanent residential unit within reasonable distance of their parents.
  There is no disagreement between the two sides of the House that specialised mental illness hospitals should in time give way to psychiatric units forming part of district general hospitals, to day centres and to residential accommodation different from the old hospitals, one of which I know from my own family experience.
  The aim is sound. Surely, it is right to rely as much as possible on the loving family, on home care sustained and relieved by day centres, and places of short stay to give respite to the parents and others.
  I understand that a hospital for the mentally handicapped is planned and it is intended to site it near Epping. But building will not begin until some time between 1981 and 1986. I am not quite clear how such a hospital would accord with the new aim that I have summarised. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to say precisely what is intended. Will the right hon. Gentleman also assure me that what is planned for North-West Essex—this new unit—will receive priority no lower than will the unit being considered for the City and East London area?
  622
  For a layman such as myself the scene is bewildering. I am uncertain whether the needs of North-West Essex have yet been clearly defined and whether, despite a plethora of joint consultative committees and so on, decisions have been reached on the future siting and financing of the long stay, the short stay, and assessment units and of holiday services for the mentally handicapped of all ages. Is there yet a precise definition of responsibility of health, education and other services and local authorities? It may be that I am not adequately informed, and that is part of the reason for raising this subject this afternoon.
  In general, in the National Health Service—I say this because I do not want to be accused of being one of those Members of Parliament who are desirous of curtailing public expenditure but who ask for more public expenditure because of their particular constituency interests—waste abounds. There is misdirection of resources. There is a loss of revenue to the National Health Service of between £30 million and £40 million from the ideological extravagance of closing pay beds and turning consultants into whole-time State employees. That administration, as distinct from treatment and care-of patients, is excessive—
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I should hate the hon. Gentleman to go down a wrong track. There has been little loss of income to the NHS as a result of the withdrawal of pay beds because most of the pay beds withdrawn up to now have been beds which have been authorised but have not been used. There is no intention of turning consultants into full-time State employees, because they are entitled to carry out any private practice that they can outside the NHS.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am obliged to the Minister. I merely want to raise the matter lest anyone should say that Conservative Members of Parliament are asking for more expenditure when they are not concerned with the proper economy of the resources available. I do not think that the figure I have mentioned is necessarily the wrong figure. The Minister has not said that it is wrong.
  Mr. Moyle: The figure is wrong.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: In that case, I will pursue this matter—which is slightly extraneous—in another way, perhaps by means of a Parliamentary Question or by letter to the Minister.
  That there is waste and misdirection of resources is not just the impression of outsiders such as the hon. Member for Epping Forest. It is the complaint of workers of all grades within the services and, indeed, of union representatives. The Minister of State might like to have a look at the white elephant of Witham. I believe that the Royal Commission has already made an interim criticism of the top-heavy and over-elaborate management system. This is something for which I do not wish to blame the Minister of State or his administration, but I hope that he will be able to tell the House of clear, firm decisions that can be given to parents such as my constituents who have nowhere within reach to which they can send children who have become too heavy a charge upon their energies and emotions.
  3.55 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): There is a point upon which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and myself can agree. I am very pleased that he has raised the case of Sarah Dixon in the House this afternoon and the difficulties her parents are experiencing, because it enables me to talk about her case and the prospects of solving it and the needs of severely handicapped children in the country generally and in Essex in particular.
  I am prepared to agree with the hon. Gentleman that in many respects there is a misdirection of resources in the Health Service. This has been going on for 30 years, since the service was founded, and possibly even before then. The acute services have always attracted the great bulk of medical, nursing and health interest and, therefore, the great bulk of Health Service financing. Therefore, throughout the country, services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped have been neglected and over most of the country are out of date and possibly inadequate because they are out of date.
  It is our intention to redirect resources to the sectors of mental illness and mental handicap. Services for looking after the elderly, which often involve the psycho-
  624
  geriatric elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, are top priorities in the allocation of Health Service resources.
  The circumstances of Sarah Dixon have been the concern of the Essex social services department and of the health services since about 1972 when attention was first drawn to the implications of the severity of Sarah's handicaps, both mental and physical. The lack of a comprehensive mental handicap service in the Harlow district means that patients and relatives must rely on a service from Essex Hall, Colchester. This is unsatisfactory.
  The social services department has maintained close collaboration between the various voluntary and statutory services to ensure that appropriate help and guidance has been made available to Mr. and Mrs. Dixon in addition to regular social work support. Short stay periods of care at the Spastics Society Family Help Centre at Bury St. Edmunds were suggested, eventually tried and subsequently accepted by the family as being beneficial. However, the few specialised long-term centres that do exist in the country would inevitably take Sarah further away from her family. That is one of the major criticisms of Essex Hall. However, should a suitable vacancy occur in any such registered home which the family may choose, the county council would undertake to accept financial responsibility.
  Mr. and Mrs. Dixon naturally wish to ensure the most congenial therapeutic environment for Sarah, because she will be leaving a home environment which is obviously highly caring and they wish to provide the closest substitute for the family home life which Sarah has been enjoying up to now.
  I am entirely with the hon. Member in his wish to see children such as Sarah receiving the best possible care. It must be admitted, however, that our services for these children are far from satisfactory and, although the present situation is a great improvement on the position in the past, both my right hon. Friend and I—
  It being Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
  Mr. Moyle: Both my right hon. Friend and I have consistently stressed the need to improve services for these children. The speed with which these improvements can be made is limited, of course, by a number of factors, but we have stressed again the priority which local authorities should place on residential accommodation for mentally handicapped children.
  We issued planning guidelines to health authorities this March and we stressed the need to plan for improved supportive facilities to families. As well as issuing guidance, we have also made available joint financing moneys to local authorities. These are National Health Service moneys, but we are willing to see them used for local authority purposes which will assist the NHS in the discharge of its responsibilities, and this includes provision for children in the community.
  The amount of money available has risen from £8 million in 1976–77 to about £32 million in this financial year, and it is aimed to level off at about £43 million per year by 1981–82 at today's prices. A large proportion of these moneys have in fact been spent on mentally handicapped children and their provision.
  Turning to the Harlow health district, the voluntary association WISH, which stands for "We're Involved with the Severely Handicapped", manages a special care unit at the Great West Hatch Adult Mental Handicap Hospital at Chigwell with the help of some joint finance money, and this unit will shortly be moved to St. Margaret's Hospital, Epping to cater for a larger number of severely handicapped in an improved setting.
  Harlow health district is financing the cost of the conversion of that building, and the revenue costs will be shared between the voluntary association, the health authority and the social services, using some of the joint finance money. In the longer term, therefore, if Mr. and Mrs. Dixon find it possible to keep their daughter at home, day facilities will be available in the Harlow district to support them.
  But we also want to improve the hospital services for these children. Here we want to aim at giving them the specialist services that they need and an
  626
  environment which furthers their development in every way.
  I wish to pay tribute to the work of the staff in children's wards of mental handicap hospitals, and I take this opportunity of doing so publicly. None of the observations which I am about to make about our mental handicap hospitals should be taken as a criticism of the invaluable work performed by the staff in these hospitals. But they are working under several different sorts of constraint. First, all our efforts and the efforts of staff at bringing about improvements are made considerably more difficult by the legacy of huge, isolated hospitals, of which Essex has quite a number, with which we have been left by our predecessors. Hospital communities of 800, 900 and more than 1,000 are unnaturally large, and it is very difficult in those circumstances to create a homelike environment for residents and, equally important, an environment which attracts staff to work in the service.
  In the long term, therefore, there is a need for locally based hospitals for the mentally handicapped where they can be in contact with their communities and their relatives. In the case of children needing hospital care, they should wherever possible be accommodated near their own homes in small domestic units separate from adult units and with close links wherever possible with the children's department of the district general hospital. Together, all these local units should form a comprehensive district service for mentally handicapped people.
  In our guidelines which we have issued to authorities, we say that buildings should be designed with the needs of individual residents in mind and for domestic small group living. Children should be looked after in small family-size groups in homelike environments, and their daily lives should be as near to those of non-handicapped, non-hospitalised people as possible. Obviously this will all take a great deal of time.
  It was largely with the residual problem of the large hospitals in mind that my right hon. Friend and I asked the National Development Group for the Mentally Handicapped to give us a report on how to improve the existing services in the mental handicap hospitals. After about 12 months of work, it is hoped that the

  627
  group's report will be shortly presented to my right hon. Friend. This will make recommendations about hospital services for all mentally handicapped people, but the group will be particularly concerned about services for children. I gather that it has devoted a section of its report to them.
  Besides this, the Development Team for the Mentally Handicapped has been specially set up by my right hon. Friend to give advice to health and local authorities on a whole range of services for mentally handicapped people. It has been asked by the Secretary of State to pay particular attention to the needs of children, and its panel includes specialists in child care. Its individual reports to authorities normally contain a special section on children's services. The team has completed two years of activity. Its first report of the work that it has been doing is due to be published this month.
  Of course, all the good buildings in the world and the proper layout are of no good unless there is adequate staff to provide the services. There is a severe shortage of some of the types that Sarah might need. Physiotherapists, speech therapists and other paramedical staff are in particularly short supply, but this is a national matter and is not necessarily confined to mental handicap. But we wish particular attention to be paid to the development of the rehabilitation services in general.
  We are very concerned, too, about the poor staffing ratios that still exist. Some hospitals have still not achieved the modest ratio laid down in the 1969 minimum standards for mental handicap hospitals, but, on the other hand, the number of nursing staff in those hospitals has increased from about 15,000 in 1969 to 23,000 in 1976, whilst the number of in-patients has fallen by about 10 per cent. It is possible that some definite improvement has been taking place, although I readily concede that the patients remaining in hospital probably represent a heavier burden of nursing care than the patients used to represent in days gone by, because, obviously, the patients that have been discharged to the community are the ones who are more capable of looking after themselves and were in times past capable of making
  628
  a contribution to the running of the hospital.
  We shall have a report this year from the Jay Committee of Inquiry into Mental Handicap Nursing and Care. This will give advice on the work of staff who provide residential care for the mentally handicapped, including children, and on the training that they need.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set aside £50 million for the National Health Service in 1978–79, in addition to the moneys that we already knew we would be getting this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told authorities that he is very concerned to see that it is used for the improvement of staffing ratios and amenities in mental handicap hospitals and units. Here is an example of action taken by the Government to use additional resources as may become available for priority needs such as services for the mentally handicapped.
  The North-East Thames Regional Health Authority received, as a result of this, £1,390,000 extra, and has decided that 50 per cent. of that sum, about £695,000, will be devoted to the improvement of staffing ratios and amenities in mental illness, mental handicap, geriatric hospitals and other similar units, and of this sum the Essex health authority's share will be £284,000.
  One of the problems facing Essex is the need to maintain its existing very large mental handicap hospitals, which were originally built to serve very wide catchment areas, including many patients from London.
  I hope that these facts and figures will show the hon. Gentleman that, on one of his concerns, not only is Essex receiving the same priority as the City and East of London Health Authority but that in the current financial year it is receiving a much greater priority than that area from the regional health authority.
  The long-term strategy of Essex is to provide local facilities. To this end it plans the provision of a unit to serve the Harlow health district; it currently relies on the Essex Hall hospital, which has not been found entirely suitable for the Dixon family. This unit would provide not only long term care but also

  629
  assessment and short-stay facilities to relieve families.
  The area health authority's proposals are therefore to seek to provide in the Harlow district the services that Sarah requires. I understand that short-term care is being considered at Hargrave House, Stansted, which is a hostel for mentally handicapped children run by the Essex social services department and that there will be short-term care, possibly, at Essex Hall. I hope that, with continuing liaison between the health and social services, it will be possible to provide the necessary support to Mr. and Mrs. Dixon until the health authority's proposed unit becomes available.
  We are actively seeking to improve the services required for severely handicapped children nationally. In particular, the Essex AHA is aware of
  630
  the shortcomings of the services in the Harlow district and is taking steps to provide the facilities to which children such as Sarah are entitled.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the system of administration of the National Health Service as a result of the 1973 Act leaves much to be desired. That is common ground between us and that is why we appointed the Royal Commission, which we hope will report at the beginning of next year—I hope in January. Then we shall be able to see what improvements can be made in the organisation of the Health Service to ensure a more rapid and flexible response to situations.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Four o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Central Arbitration Committee
  Central Arbitration Committee
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Employment Appeal Tribunal
  Employment Appeal Tribunal
  Post Office (Industrial Dispute)
  Post Office (Industrial Dispute)
  Bank Holiday (Good Friday)
  Bank Holiday (Good Friday)
  Unfair Dismissals
  Unfair Dismissals
ENVIRONMENT
  Building Society Lending
  Building Society Lending
  Windscale (Radiation Hazards)
  Windscale (Radiation Hazards)
  Public Land (Darlington)
  Public Land (Darlington)
  Farm Workers (Rehousing)
  Farm Workers (Rehousing)
  Council of Ministers (Meeting)
  Council of Ministers (Meeting)
  Welding Institute (Exhibition)
  Welding Institute (Exhibition)
ENERGY
  Oil Companies
  Oil Companies
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Diplomatic Service Staff (Children's Education Allowance)
  Diplomatic Service Staff (Children's Education Allowance)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Peter Neville and John McDonald
  Peter Neville and John McDonald
  Immigrants (European Community)
  Immigrants (European Community)
  British Passport Holders
  British Passport Holders
  Security Firms
  Security Firms
  OVERSEAS DELEGATIONS (ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCES)
  OVERSEAS DELEGATIONS (ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCES)
INDUSTRY
  Microprocessors
  Microprocessors
  Barry Staines Ltd.
  Barry Staines Ltd.
  Postal Rates
  Postal Rates
  Non-Ferrous Foundry Industry Scheme
  Non-Ferrous Foundry Industry Scheme
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Area Boards
  Area Boards
  Road Safety Education
  Road Safety Education
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Niger
  Niger
  Zambia
  Zambia
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Phased Retirement
  Phased Retirement
  Drugs (Safety)
  Drugs (Safety)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  National Health Service (Industrial Disputes)
  National Health Service (Industrial Disputes)
  Hospitals (Hygiene)
  Hospitals (Hygiene)
  Hospitals (Catering)
  Hospitals (Catering)
  National Health Service Buildings (Cleaning)
  National Health Service Buildings (Cleaning)
  Hospitals (Cleaning Services)
  Hospitals (Cleaning Services)
  Hospitals (Domestic and Ancillary Services)
  Hospitals (Domestic and Ancillary Services)
  Hospitals (Security)
  Hospitals (Security)
  Pre-School Health Module
  Pre-School Health Module
  Secretary of State (Visit to China)
  Secretary of State (Visit to China)
  Housewife's Invalidity Pension
  Housewife's Invalidity Pension
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Fisheries Agreements
  Fisheries Agreements
SCOTLAND
  Transport Action Scotland A74 Study Group (Report)
  Transport Action Scotland A74 Study Group (Report)
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Dentists (Glasgow)
  Dentists (Glasgow)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Members of Parliament (Travel Warrants)
  Members of Parliament (Travel Warrants)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Petrol and Derv
  Petrol and Derv
  Giro
  Giro
  Premium Bond Scheme
  Premium Bond Scheme
  Mineworkers and Steelworkers (Home Improvement Loans)
  Mineworkers and Steelworkers (Home Improvement Loans)
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Travel-to-Work Costs
  Travel-to-Work Costs
  National Land Fund
  National Land Fund
  Economic Prospects
  Economic Prospects
  Shareholdings
  Shareholdings
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
TRANSPORT
  A21 (Tonbridge Bypass)
  A21 (Tonbridge Bypass)
TRADE
  Oil Pollution ("Eleni V")
  Oil Pollution ("Eleni V")
  Ivory Coast
  Ivory Coast
  Copper and Cobalt (Imports)
  Copper and Cobalt (Imports)
DEFENCE
  HMS "Bulwark"
  HMS "Bulwark"
  Royal Naval School of Music, Deal
  Royal Naval School of Music, Deal
  Sub-Harpoon
  Sub-Harpoon
  Entertainment Allowance
  Entertainment Allowance
  HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid"
  HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid"
  "Equal Opportunities Commission News"
  "Equal Opportunities Commission News"
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay
  Pay

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

THE YEAR OF THE CHILD:STAMP
Lord CROOK: 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, as supporters of the Declaration by the United Nations of 1979 as"The Year of the Child ", they have secured that the Post Office will issue an appropriate stamp during 1979 as has been decided by other nations.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as was announced by the Post Office on 16th May last, they intend as part of their 1979 special stamp programme to issue a set of stamps in July 1979 on the theme"The Year of the Child."
Lord CROOK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply and say how good it is that at last we can have an Answer which does not refer us to writing to the Chairman of the Post Office Board. May I ask the noble Lord to congratulate the Foreign Office in that this time they have managed to get a stamp for a United Nations year, whereas they managed no action at all when they tried for the blind, where this country has led for so long?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his very welcome answer.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government will seek assurance from the Post Office Board that, unlike the instance of cheap mail at Christmas or Sunday collections, they will obtain favourable permission from the unions for this step?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is quite a different question.

CIGARETTE EXPORTS TO THIRD WORLD
11.8 a.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 prohibit the export from Britain of"high tar cigarettes to Third World and other countries.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the Government are deeply concerned about the effect of smoking on health, but they do not consider that unilateral action by the United Kingdom to prohibit the export of"high tar"cigarettes to Third World and other countries would serve any useful purpose. The trade would not stop, because there are many other sources of supply.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Is he not aware that British companies are seeking to compensate themselves for the loss of"high tar"cigarette sales in this country while exploiting the Third World? In many countries"high tar"content cigarettes are being sold at a higher rate than in this country—in Sri Lanka and Malaysia it is 61 per cent. higher, in Kenya 72 per cent. higher—and there is no health warning on the packet.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, my noble friend is obviously quoting from the booklet issued by War on Want entitled Tomorrow's Epidemic,by Mike Muller. Several accusations are made in that book but, of course, I am not in a position to confirm or deny any of these accusations. That is a matter for other people to investigate. The United Kingdom has done what it could to encourage multilateral action to prohibit trade in"high tar"cigarettes. It has taken an active part in all the conferences organised by the World Health Organisation to discuss the dangers of smoking: and a further conference is planned for 1979. The agreement in this country is on a voluntary

1553
basis and it is not our policy to impose conditions on other countries which we do not impose on ourselves by law in this country.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may we hope that there will be some international action? Is it not the case that plantations in these territories are being established for tobacco growing, at the cost of food growing, where people are actually dying from hunger? Is the noble Lord aware that the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Development Corporation are helping to finance these plantations for cigarette tobacco? Would he draw the attention of the Ministry of Overseas Development, which am sure would be sympathetic, to this report which War on Want has issued?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, strictly speaking, that is an entirely different question because it does not deal with export. On the other hand, I will certainly undertake, on behalf of my noble friend, to draw my honourable friend's attention to the question of overseas development.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to promote the development of the substitute materials in lieu of tobacco?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am quite at a loss to understand how this arises under the question of the export of "high tar" cigarettes. However, several attempts have been made in this country, but I rather gather that they are not successful.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the great majority of cigarettes with British brand names sold overseas are not exported from this country and are, by agreement, made entirely by either America or other countries?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, that is true. There are agreements for various tobacco companies—some of them British—to manufacture their products overseas in some of the countries. Of course, there is a point here about the economic position of various countries.
1554
This does give employment and one must take all these factors into account when discussing the problem.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that these countries which have been mentioned are all self-governing, and it is up to them to set their standards for their own population, and it is not for us to lecture them on what is right and wrong in a self-governing economy?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, that may be so, but our position is that we can set an example and give advice in world conferences. However, the final decision—we must face this, my Lords—must be made by the countries concerned. I believe that some development is taking place in Malaysia. If that is so, that is at least a start. We can give an example.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that this is another instance of the unacceptable face of capitalism?

ARMED SERVICES: RELEASE REFUSALS
11.13 a.m.
Baroness VICKERS: 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 to state how many men and women have been refused permission to leave the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army, and for what reason.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Services do not require anyone to serve beyond the period to which they have committed themselves. It is, in general, our policy to allow those men and women who wish to leave the Armed Services prematurely to do so, but the timing of their release must be subject to the Services' manning requirements and other considerations such as the need to secure an adequate return of service following expensive training.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but I asked for numbers, which I have not got. Does he not think that it is very unfortunate to train, for example, a pilot, which costs over half a million pounds, and then not to pay him adequately so that he can keep his family and remain in the Service? Surely this is a waste of taxpayers' money.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Baroness the precise figures for which she asks for all men and women in the Armed Forces. That is a very wide question. I can let her know the position about officers. The number of trained officers who have applied to leave prematurely is 288 in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, 600 in the Army and 418 in the Royal Air Force. But, as I pointed out in our most recent debate on the subject, many people who apply for premature retirement do not, in fact, exercise their rights; they change their minds in the course of the period of waiting.
With regard to the question relating to the Royal Air Force, it means that the timing of the release of an Air Force pilot must be subject to the Services' manning requirements and to an adequate return of service following expensive training.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, can the Minister tell us the average length of time that these restrictions are imposed on individuals?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, yes, I have an approximate figure. At present, for the Royal Navy and Royal Marine officers the period is between nine and 15 months from the time of their application; for the Army, seven months. In the Royal Air Force the average waiting time at the moment is 20 months.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I did not quite follow the Minister's figures. I think he said that about 1,200 applications had been received, if one takes the three together; my arithmetic while he was speaking is not my strong point. He did not tell us whether all those 1,200 or so are being held up and not being allowed to leave
1556
when they would wish. Is this what he is saying?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, what I am saying is a linked reply to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and to the noble Baroness. Approximately 1,300 have applied and the times they have to wait vary from seven months in the Army to 20 months in the Royal Air Force.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the Minister explain why he cannot provide the figures for warrant officers, NCOs and men, because I should have thought that these figures were the easiest possible to obtain? Perhaps he would be good enough to tell the House (a>/i>) whether the figures exist, and (b) if he has not got them, why he has not. (c) if he has not got them, would he get them, because I can see he wants to know how to do it? I should be quite willing to revise them if he can get them during the course of the day.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Answering (c) alone, if the noble Lord will put down a Question, I will give him the answer.

COMMONS REGISTRATION (CARDIGANSHIRE) BILL
11.17 a.m.
Read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons with the Amendments.

TRANSPORT BILL
11.18 a.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill which we have before us today and of which we are considering the Second Reading is, as my right honourable friend said in another place, a good and necessary one, but it is also very varied. It deals with matters as diverse as concessionary fares on public transport, pensions in the National Freight Corporation, payment of grants for rolling stock on private sidings, the legality of giving lifts in cars for payment, county public transport plans and bicycle racks.
This seeming motley, however, is only its exterior garb. Its hidden form is as coherent as the White Paper of last year

1557
from which so much of it derives, and is as logical as the Government's transport policy which it expresses. I have arranged for detailed notes on the provisions of this necessarily sometimes rather complex Bill to be available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office. But the general considerations of the policy are not so evident from that document, and I hope to make both the direction of our policy and the nature of its expression clear as I pass through a description of the provisions of the Bill.
Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill are concerned with county transport planning. The White Paper on transport policy, which was published last June, reiterated the Government's commitment to public transport, and to rural transport in particular. This commitment means a generous level of support for buses both for regular services and for less conventional arrangements. The White Paper was, as my right honourable friend has said, unashamedly"pro"bus; and our commitment to rural transport calls for some shift in resources towards buses in rural areas.
It is not simply a matter of resources, important as they are. It is a question of how we get best value for money and of how services can be matched most closely to needs at a time when travel patterns are continually changing and more and more people are turning to the private car. This means not only proper planning; it means that someone somewhere has to take decisions. As the White Paper emphasised, this must be done locally, by people who are accountable locally, within a national framework of policy and allocation of resources. The responsibility for promoting an efficient and co-ordinated public transport system in the shires was laid on the county councils in 1972. It is they who have the power to make grants to public transport undertakings and it is they who are responsible for structure planning, for highways, and traffic management. Therefore, the counties have an imposing panoply of authority relating to the transport field.
Some counties exercise these powers constructively, and with a judicious eye, both to local circumstances and to national policy; and Cheshire, Lancashire,
1558
Devon, and Clwyd in Wales, have come to our attention in recent months as counties which in their differing ways have taken a constructive stance in public transport planning. There are no doubt others but some counties do neglect public transport, and none of them can afford to relax.
The TSG settlement for 1978–79 ensured that all the shire county support for buses qualified for that grant. And it also gave more for new road schemes and other capital spending—after taking into account all other factors—to those counties whose public transport policies were in line with the White Paper. The way in which counties develop their public transport policies will be monitored and will be taken into account in future TSG settlements. Therefore, without a negative approach, and without any county being penalised, the settlement should encourage counties which may not have done as much as they might to pay more substantial attention to their rural transport.
The Bill seeks not to impose on counties a whole new range of duties and powers, but to clarify and extend the responsibilities which they already have. County public transport plans, which are proposed by the first clauses of this Bill, will provide the opportunity for counties to consider the public transport needs and resources comprehensively and in consultation with the transport industry, with transport users, and in consultation with other local authorities and public interests. This should encourage the counties to adopt a systematic approach to the problems, and will ensure that there is informed local debate about options, so that a clear statement of needs and how they are to be met can be arrived at.
Noble Lords will be aware that such plans will build on the foundation that has already been laid. County councils submit each year a statement of their transport policies and programmes which is taken into account in making the TSG settlement. So in terms of effort it is not going to be a very big step—at least for those counties which already take seriously their responsibilities for public transport—to produce a public transport plan from the material already in a TPP. And in terms of impact on the transport industries and the public, it will be a major step forward to have by statute a published plan for public transport.

1559
The way in which these plans will be prepared will be important. Both management and workers in the passenger transport industries—publicly and privately owned—have a wealth of knowledge and experience to offer, and it is hoped that all counties will develop close working relations with operators and district councils so that they can fully contribute to county policy. There are all those who rely on public transport, who must also be consulted in the preparation of plans. Counties will need to provide an opportunity for parishes, trade unions, consumer bodies and others who are especially concerned to express their views on a draft plan.
A well-considered county plan will be a foundation on which transport operators can build in order to maintain an efficient service, but the co-operation between county and operators needs to find expression in firm agreements between them, and these agreements could embrace a whole range of mutual interests—the pattern of services, the fares, the policy and the investment opportunities. But there is one thing which must be covered by agreements, and that is the revenue support which counties decide is necessary in the light of their plans. These agreements will normally extend for three years, and will he so framed as to safeguard operators against changes in county policy which are too rapid to be matched by orderly adjustments in services.
Clause 4 was inserted into the Bill in another place, and this adds a further requirement; namely, that the plans shall contain information about both existing and proposed concessionary fare schemes on public passenger transport services in the county which are financed wholly or partly by local authorities themselves. This provision will bring into relief the policies of both the county and the district councils and will ensure that the subject is fully discussed at local level.
So much for the legislation. But legislation can only provide the outline; it cannot, and it must not, seek to provide detailed answers for every difficulty and irritation that may arise, ft is the cooperation between the counties and the operators which is the key to success. Both will have to give up some measure of freedom in the interests of the public
1560
who need public transport. The county councils will have to adopt the discipline of a published plan and agreements for revenue support, and to conquer the temptation to change the level of support with little or no warning. The operators, too, will need to see their services as part of a network prescribed in the county plan, and not simply as something to be varied to suit their own commercial circumstances. This is simply a recognition by both parties of their mutual interest in serving the public.
It is the ordinary user of transport, too, towards whom the provisions of the next clauses in the Bill are directed. Transport will serve us best if it can react to change; and it cannot do this if there is insufficient flexibility in the licensing system. Additional scope must therefore be given for cost-effective local transport which is responsive to community needs. Community buses and social car schemes can be made easier to run; the antiquated restrictions on neighbourly car sharing can be removed; the criteria for granting road service licences can be recast to lay greater emphasis on the interests of the public, and the streamlined procedure for permits can be extended.
Clause 5 of the Bill would exempt community buses, defined as eight to 16-seater minibuses, and their volunteer drivers from public service vehicle licensing, provided that the services are not operated for profit and that the vehicles and drivers meet prescribed safety requirements. Community buses will be able, of course, like any other bus service, to carry the public at large. Accordingly, the clause provides that they will remain subject to the road service licensing control of the traffic commissioners. In practice, we expect that most community bus services will be able to get a permit under the streamlined and simplified procedure, by Section 30 of the 1968 Act, which is extended to cover them by the provisions in Schedule 2.
The community buses already exist. They have been operating for some time in rural areas: in Norfolk, in Clwyd, in East Sussex and elsewhere. They have already proved that they have a valuable contribution to make towards solving the transport problems of rural areas. They are an excellent example of what community self-help can do when there is

1561
no other form of public transport available. But at present they are subject to the full system of bus licensing. We must not allow their impetus to be lost, and by removing unnecessary restrictions we shall make it much easier for the new schemes to be set up.
Clause 6 and Schedule 1 revise the complex law which governs the use of small vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares, and which at present prevents the carrying of passengers for payment by drivers of ordinary private cars. The form of the provisions is somewhat technical and, although both clause and Schedule were helpfully recast in another place, it has not been possible to simplify them beyond a certain point, as it is important in this difficult field to retain wording which has been tried and tested in the courts.
The substance of these proposals is two-fold. First, they will remove the historical anomaly which forbids regular informal car sharing and makes it, for example, illegal for one's neighbour to accept a cup of coffee for taking one to the station twice a week. Noble Lords will be aware that regular lifts are often given for payment. The law is impossible to enforce, and is frankly an archaism. The provisions of the Bill in this respect are only intended to legitimise common activities which we are unwilling and, indeed, almost powerless to prevent. At the same time the proposals will retain the necessary safeguards for commercial services—both buses and the licensed taxi or hire-car which is hired as a whole—which are subject to licensing systems that, in their different ways, afford protection to their passengers. Finally, these provisions will allow social car schemes, run perhaps in rural areas by organisations like the Women's Royal Voluntary Service who seek to improve the mobility of the old or disabled, to be publicly advertised and to receive financial support from the local authorities.
Clause 7, taken with Schedule 2, revises the criteria in the Road Traffic Act 1960 to which traffic commissioners must have regard in exercising their road licensing functions. The most important change here is that traffic commissioners are now to be required to have regard to the counties' policies and plans for local transport, including the new public transport plans dealt with by Clauses 1 to 4.
1562
As a result of debates on the Bill in another place, they are also to have regard to the convenience of persons who are disabled. I am sure that this is a new feature which your Lordships will welcome.
On a more technical note, again as a result of the proceedings in another place, the traffic commissioners will be able to leave out of account certain of the particular criteria in considering licensing applications for what are known as extended tours—broadly these are coach tours involving an overnight stay and no part of the ordinary network of bus services. We are also widening the scope of the streamlined licensing procedure under Section 30 of the Transport Act 1968 and giving the traffic commissioners a power to issue short-term licences. Both of these measures will make it easier for new experimental services to he started without having to go through full road service licensing procedure.
Greater flexibility in licensing will be an important contribution to the welfare of the bus passenger. But in the field of transport people are not confined to one role. A passenger in the morning may be a pedestrian in the afternoon, and go home to a house on a lorry route in the evening. As far ahead as we can see, lorries are likely to remain the most important means of moving goods about this country and it is essential that we do all we can to temper the impact they have on people's lives, and in particular to reduce the dangers that they can cause. Overloaded and badly maintained lorries can be a serious hazard to other road users; and it is important that we have an effective system of enforcement to ensure that the standards that we set are maintained. Clause 8 and Schedule 3 of the Bill are designed to widen and strengthen our present controls. They do so mainly by extending the catchment areas in which lorries can be diverted at the expense of their owners to testing stations and weighbridges, but also by providing that a lorry that has been prohibited may be required to be re-examined at a testing station or reweighed before it is put back on the road. Our purpose is to strengthen existing procedures so that present resources can be better deployed and the risks of detection for those who run overloaded or badly maintained lorries are increased.

1563
Better maintenance, of course, does not just prevent accidents. It also reduces breakdowns and improves the efficiency of the transport flow. But, equally, many millions of pounds are wasted each year through traffic congestion. This is the background to Clause 9, which is concerned with the control of off-street parking. As the White Paper pointed out, in some towns local authorities' traffic management policies may be frustrated because much of the public off-street parking is privately owned and outside local authority control. Authorities need to have an adequate range of powers to manage and control the traffic in the interests of their areas. My right honourable friend has not sought at this stage to legislate on private non-residential parking; these provisions are solely to control privately operated public car parks. Clause 9 provides for the extension of the GLC's existing powers to license such car parks to all county councils in England and Wales, and to regional or islands councils in Scotland.
Parliament gave these powers to the GLC in the Transport (London) Act 1969. They were extensively debated then, and we do not propose to alter them. The clause therefore provides for their extension almost without amendment. County councils will be enabled to designate controlled areas within which all POPP car parks must be licensed by the district local authority; a licence would specify such matters as hours of opening, numbers of spaces, and charges. Regulations proposed under these provisions must he copied to my right honourable friend together with any objections. He then has the option to call in the regulations, or to require them to be modified, and he may order a public inquiry to be held if appropriate. An operator could appeal to him against a refusal to grant a licence or against the conditions attached to a licence. Compensation would be payable in respect of any car park adversely affected by the licensing provisions, and a later clause, Clause 19, would make any such compensation eligible for transport supplementary grant.
The powers will be entirely discretionary, and county councils will be free to decide for themselves whether their use is appropriate in their areas. We in Westminster
1564
and Whitehall are not the fount of all wisdom and I think that, as with the public transport planning, so with traffic management, it is important that the local authorities responsible to their own electors should have available what powers they may need to carry out their duties to the satisfaction of their own local communities.
The final clause in the early part of the Bill, Clause 10, which was added in another place, makes it plain that the powers of local authorities under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1967 to provide parking places extend to the provision of cycle racks. The importance of cycling was emphasised in the White Paper last summer, and it is hoped that local authorities will find this minor but significant clarification of their powers also to be constructive and helpful for them, and that their use of the power will encourage the development of cycling.
I now turn to the realm of transport as an industry. Clause I1 translates into substance the Government's commitment to continue, by revenue support, to enable a national railway to be run. The public service obligation, as it is known, obliges British Railways Board to maintain a railway whose costs are greater than its revenues. This is a policy, as noble Lords will he aware, which is not peculiar to Britain. The full social cost of the German national railway in 1977 probably exceeded £4,000 million. In France, Government support for the railways in the same year is estimated at£1,750 million. Yet in recent years British Rail have managed to contain and even reduce in real terms their call upon public funds: in 1977 total Government grants to British Rail were of the order of£475 million. The funds we are now providing in this Bill are essential to enable the railways to continue to run the passenger service we expect and require. The sums needed each year are voted by Parliament in the normal way—the figure in this clause is an aggregate limit, which will initially stand at £1,750 million, but can be raised later to £3,000 million.
The funds we are proposing will begin to be spent at the start of 1979 and will undoubtedly last for some years. Their precise duration will of course depend on the continued good management by the Board and on continued success in the struggle against inflation. But their

1565
provision is an absolute prerequisite for the passenger railways in this country.
Clause 13, if noble Lords will permit me to take it out of its strict order, is fundamentally a technical matter. It is designed to remove doubts which have been expressed about the powers under which the Secretary of State pays grant to the cost of rolling stock, as part of the scheme to encourage private rail sidings for environmental reasons. This scheme is making a very worthwhile contribution, and already grants have been committed which will secure more than 8 million tons of freight to rail, which would otherwise have gone by road; so it is clearly sensible that technical doubts about the law should not be allowed to stand in the way.
Clauses 14–18 of the Bill deal with the reconstruction of the National Freight Corporation. I shall also deal at this point with Clause 12, which transfers the Freightliners to British Railways, since this is essentially a part of the NFC reconstruction. These issues are technical and complex. Difficult matters of judgment are also involved. But the Bill puts forward the most practical and effective solution that the Government have been able to devise. We have been gratified by the constructive consideration that has been given to our proposals in another place, and I think it is fair to say that the broad elements of this package received considerable support across the Parties.
As the White Paper made clear, the NFC's financial difficulties derive from the problems of its former railway businesses, National Carriers, and, to a lesser extent, Freightliners. The remaining subsidiaries, taken as a group, have always traded profitably, and, under the proposals in the Bill, will continue to operate within their existing capital structure, but their position will be strengthened in that they will not be required to cross-subsidise National Carriers.
The effects of the proposal are, therefore, confined to Freightliners and National Carriers. As was announced on 21st November, it has been decided that NFC's 51 per cent. controlling interest in Freightliners should be transferred to British Railways and Freightliners would, therefore, become a wholly-owned British Rail subsidiary. This was not an easy decision. The NFC have done much
1566
to put that company on a sound financial footing, but the conclusion was reached that Freightliners' best long-term interests would be served by transfer to British Rail. The rail haul is the essence of Freightliners' operation and, as part of British Rail, their services could be planned and marketed alongside British Rail's other freight activities. The Government have aimed to secure that Freightliners should not be impeded by lack of powers from carrying out the operations which they undertake at present and for this reason power is to be given to British Railways Board to enable Freightliners to continue the type of road operation currently undertaken.
British Rail, who have successfully eliminated their own freight deficit, will pay careful attention to the company's financial performance and the Chairman of British Rail has already said that he intends to build on Freightliners' strengths and maintain the company as an independent profit centre within British Rail. It is Clause 12 of the Bill which provides for the transfer and makes the consequential provisions, including protecting the position of the staff who are to be transferred.
The financial reconstruction proposals are in Clauses 14 to 18 of the Bill and they would rid the National Freight Corporation of any financial liabilities relating to Freight liners. But its main purpose is to deal with the financial problems of National Carriers, who are the National Freight Corporation's main problem area. As well as paying interest on debt to finance past losses, the company has to make a substantial extraordinary pension provision in addition to employers' normal contributions—liabilities which derive from the same source as those of British Rail, whose own historic pension liabilities are now being funded by the Government. At trading level, the company also has to make annual payments to British Rail and London Transport in respect of travel concessions enjoyed by NCL's former British Rail employees. The combined effect of these charges is to worsen NCL's position by some £8-£10 million a year.
It is clear from the detailed reviews of NCL's prospects which have been carried out over the last two years that the company will not be in a position to meet these charges in the foreseeable future.

1567
Under the reconstruction proposals. NFC's debt attributable to National Carriers will be written down to£5 million. National Carriers' liability to make historic pension deficiency and travel concessionary payments will remain, but from now on these will be reimbursed by the Government.
These measures will relieve National Carriers of the burdens of the past. But the company's future viability depends on its ability to achieve and maintain an acceptable level of trading profit, and in order to do this National Carriers will need to carry out capital expenditure which, for the next three to four years, it will not be able to meet from internally generated resources, and the reconstruction proposals therefore include a provision for a tapering grant specifically for this purpose, subject to a maximum limit of £15 million. The grant will last only until the end of 1981, and from then on National Carriers will be expected to manage on their own.
The reconstruction will be effected by means of the Bill as follows. Clause 14 would reduce the National Freight Corporation's capital debt to the Secretary of State to £100 million, a reduction which relates entirely to debt attributable to National Carriers and Freightliners. Clause 15 will empower the Secretary of State to make grants not exceeding £15 million in respect of capital expenditure by National Carriers for the period from 1st July 1978 to 31st December 1981. Clauses 16 and 17 will set up arrangements for meeting National Carriers' and Freightliners' historic pension liabilities to National Freight Corporation's pension funds.
The arrangements are complex, but it may help the House to know that they are broadly similar to the arrangements for funding British Rail's historic pension liabilities under the Railways Act 1974, with one important exception. Following the comments of the Public Accounts Committee, the Government are currently reviewing the arrangements for funding nationalised industry pension schemes. Until final decisions have been reached, the only payments will be payments of interest on outstanding capital debts to the Fund. The redemption of the debts themselves would require specific approval of the House of Commons in the form of
1568
the Affirmative Resolution. Both National Carriers and Freightliners also have liabilities to British Rail funds, but it is the intention that these should be reimbursed under the Railways Act 1974, so no specific provision is required in this Bill. Clause 18 provides for National Carriers' and the National Freight Corporation's payments to British Rail and the London Transport Executive in respect of the travel concessions to former railway staff, which is now to be reimbursed by the Government.
These proposals alone cannot guarantee the future viability of the Corporation. That will also depend on the ability of the National Freight Corporation and their subsidiaries to earn an adequate level of profit, hut these measures will ensure that the National Freight Corporation is not held hack by burdens attributable to National Carriers and Freightliners. The NFC are going to he left in a position to pay their own way and the recent substantial improvement in their trading performance shows that they have both the ability and the determination to succeed.
Lastly, we come to Clauses 20 to 22 and Schedule 4. These, of course, are technical clauses which complete the pattern of this Bill: a Bill which is closely woven and harmonious. Its various strands will be applied to different problems of our transport system, but the overall effect will be one of substantial enhancement over a very broad area. It will resolve difficulties for drivers and for cyclists, for operators and for passengers, for those whose task it is to watch over the networks, and for our nationalised transport industries. It is an important Bill and a good one and I ask noble Lords to give it their support and to add the agreement of this House to the approval which this Bill has received in another place.
I apologise to the House for the length of time that I have taken in explaining the provisions of these clauses. We have a number of speakers and I thought that if I explained the provisions simply perhaps noble Lords would need to take a little shorter time in the debate which follows, although I have no reason to wish to stifle that at all. With those few words, I hope that the Bill will now be read a second time. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Stedman.)
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I point out that, whatever is the position of the State railways in Britain, France and Germany regarding their charge on public funds, I have always understood that in America the railways are no charge on public funds; that they are run by private companies and they show very good profits. I often feel it is a pity we could not imitate them over here.
11.54 a.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I hope I may thank the noble Baroness for the way in which, in her usual friendly and efficient manner, she has described the provisions of this complex Bill. To her it is a closely woven and harmonious piece of legislation, which reveals the inner logic of the Government's views on transport. I am sure that her noble colleagues on the Government side of the House agree with her, although it seems to be a subject that arouses so little attention there that only the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, have put their names down to speak.
But, looking at it from the Opposition side of the House, I cannot admit to having detected this hidden logic or this closely woven, interlocked structure that she herself has found. It seems to me to be more of a miscellaneous provisions Bill and a ragbag of not closely connected legislative proposals. That does not necessarily mean that the individual parts of the Bill are themselves any the less worthy because they may add up in all their different aspects to something which is worth examining. But I would submit to the noble Baroness that a Bill of this nature, with a very varied subject matter contained within it, is not one that we should start debating at 12 o'clock on a Friday because every Peer is an expert on transport, every Member of this House has something to contribute on a subject like this, and I hope that the noble Baroness will he able to tell us that, in the interests of common understanding across the Floor of the House, we will not be subjected to this kind of treatment as the Committee stage of the Bill proceeds.
The noble Baroness explained in considerable detail, for which we are grateful,
1570
some of the major provisions contained within the Bill. But I think it is equally important for your Lordships and for those outside to reflect for a moment on what has been left out. We know that the Government, or some members of it would have preferred other subjects such as the Blennerhassett Report to have been implemented in the Bill. This is one of the reasons why one is forced to conclude that this Bill is not as full of meat which would command support in all quarters of the House as it might have been.
Taking note of omissions which we may regret, there are other omissions for which we must be profoundly grateful. We must indeed be delighted that a number of promises in the most recent Labour Manifesto have not been implemented in this Bill. The extended public ownership of road transport has not found its way into this piece of legislation. Can the noble Baroness say whether this happy state of affairs will continue? It is something for which we must be glad as long as it lasts. The White Paper, when mentioning road transport, did not make explicit what in the long run the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to be so far as the extension of the public ownership of road transport is concerned.
There has been much talk over the years of detailed direction of traffic to the railways and a national plan to integrate our transport services. These themselves have found some reflection in the White Paper but not in the Bill. Can we be sure that the policy of the Bill will remain the policy of the Government?
There is also the topic of the nationalisation of the ports which is another longstanding commitment of the Labour Party. Will that remain buried in the files and not find its way on to the Statute Book? These are items on which we need reassurance so that we can be assured that the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill connected with transport contains all that this Labour Government wishes to sec enacted in the field of transport at the moment.
I shall not try to compete with the noble Baroness in the comprehensiveness with which she dealt with most of the clauses of the Bill. At this time of the week it would be something which your Lordships would not welcome. The noble Baroness has indicated to the House the burden of

1571
the main provisions of the Bill. But I should like to dwell for a moment on some aspects of the Bill because I think that it is necessary to pick out one or two particular directions in which this Bill is going. I would like to acknowledge that there are some provisions of the Bill which, even if they may need further development, strengthening or amplification—and I hope we may return to this at the Committee stage—are welcomed. I think there is a great deal to be said for the clause which deals with the community bus services, even if it needs further attention at a later stage. But what worries me is that, when it is linked with Clause 6, which follows and which deals with car-sharing and the like, I am slightly anxious in case we may have the balance of an approach to these particular transport problems out of kilter. I am not sure that the confidence with which the noble Baroness expressed her views on the insurance provisions for car-sharing is widely reflected outside Parliament. This again is a subject that we shall need to look at in greater detail in Committee and I am delighted that the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Leek and Lord Wigg, will be taking part at that stage.
There are other aspects of transport provision by which one can try to cope with this particular problem at which the Government are looking in Clauses 5 and 6. I believe that we should examine in greater detail the viability of commercial minibuses and shared minivans going to and returning from work. At the moment I feel that the provision is not as wide-reaching as it should be.
However, without wanting to go into full detail, I am not happy, and I hope I can speak for my noble friends, about what the Government claim they will achieve with their county transport plans. I accept that they have analysed the problems, but I do not think that they have come to a wholly satisfactory conclusion. The method by which they propose to deal with what they analyse as the problem does not have enough teeth. The-relationship with the Transport Commissioners is not explicit, is not plain. It is nor clear how the plans will be paid for. It is not clear how continuity will be assured when there are changes of Government at the local level and at the national level, and when there are changes of
1572
county council at the local level. I think that if this elaborate piece of machinery is to be set up—and my noble friend, Lord Sandys, may have further points to add on this topic—it is no use for the responsibility to appear to have been placed somewhere and not to ensure that that responsibility can be properly discharged. I think we shall need to look at this again in Committee because there is a danger that, by creating too much officialdom and paperwork, an appearance will he given without reality. I do not think as much power has been devolved in this respect as appears to be the case.
This brings me to another point, and I hope that at the Committee stage we shall be dealing not only with some of the more objectionable items that appear in the Bill but also examining the more positive ideas that we feel have been omitted. I do not think that the Government have yet fully resolved for themselves what they see as the future role of the traffic commissioners. As I have already mentioned, they have made some steps towards giving the counties greater authority in the field of the planning of transport. But they have not linked this up with any development in the role of the traffic commissioners. The traffic commissioners have been in existence since 1930. This, in itself, is no criticism, especially from a member of your Lordships' House. Historic continuity is not something of which one should be ashamed. Nevertheless, one must be aware that traffic needs have developed since that time and we should look again at whether the traffic commissioners can still discharge all the roles that they have been asked to carry out over the years, especially since local government itself has developed.
I think that we on this side can see a continuing role for the traffic commissioners in the field of the oversight of safety and all the precautions that are necessary to ensure that the travelling public is protected. But if Her Majesty's Government believe, as they say they do, that local authorities should have more power and authority to develop transport services within the regions and areas for which they are responsible, is there not something to be said for seeing whether the boundary between what the traffic commissioners do and what the local authorities do is in the

1573
right place today? I believe that we must be prepared to look again at the role of the traffic commissioners to see whether we have given local councils enough power to develop new services, to allow experiments and to respond to demands that may arise within one locality or another.
I could go through every clause of the Bill and make similar comments. I will restrain myself and reserve my views for the Committee stage. However, there are just two points on which I feel I must develop a few more thoughts before sitting down, leaving your Lordships to pursue your own comments. One is Clause 9—the control of off-street parking. The noble Baroness knows me well enough, and I am sure she will not misinterpret me when I say that I felt that her explanation of Clause 9 might have been verging on the disingenuous. It is impossible to implement the controls that the Government want for public off-street parking without, in the long term, moving towards private non-residential car-parking. I do not see how the two can be separated.
The noble Baroness was talking about the "inherent logic" of the Government's transport policy. It is the inherent logic of Clause 9 that, if one starts with what is proposed in the Bill, this will lead inevitably into the sort of control that they have put off for the moment. I may be misquoting the noble Baroness and I hope that she will correct me if I am wrong, but she was careful to say something on the lines that they were not moving towards control of private non-residential parking for the moment—or, at least, it was not planned. I see what is planned as the first stage.
I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government have thought through the consequences of what they propose in as thorough a way as this problem deserves. The dangers of what they are doing are these. If their proposals are implemented one will find that there is increasing difficulty for those who are employers within the centre of cities. The Government profess to he interested in inner cities. We must not make difficulties for employment within inner cities and inner urban areas, because this will be frustrating the policy, which to a very large extent is bipartisan, of ensuring that those who live and work within inner
1574
cities are not driven away. I think we shall have to look at this very seriously indeed during Committee, because I find the content of this clause rather reprehensible.
Moving on to Clauses 11 to 13, this is a subject on which I find it extremely difficult to express a view which could command any sort of authority, because the sums are so large and the problems are so vast that any noble Lord who has not great expertise in the field is hound only to be scribbling in the margin. But I think we need to examine the logic of what it is that the Government propose. We need to look very carefully at this transfer of Freightliners. The noble Baroness herself said that difficult matters of judgment were involved.
Difficult matters of judgment are involved in Clauses 11 to 13, and I think that we in your Lordships' House have an opportunity to look at these difficult matters in a calmer and perhaps more deliberate atmosphere than sometimes occurs in Standing Committee in the middle of the night, to see whether this difficult matter of judgment has been decided the right way. There are other parts of Clauses 11 to 13 which give one considerable concern. We are talking about huge sums of money. We are talking about £3,000 million. Without in any way wishing to criticise the achievements of British Rail in recent years or their efforts to improve their services—I would not dare to do so as I travel on a high-speed train regularly—we must have some alarm about the amount of accountability which exists. How long will this money be given to be spent? How will it be accounted for? What sort of time limit? What does an aggregate limit really mean?
In Committee stage these will be the questions that we shall need to examine. Subsidies always need close scrutiny, and blanket subsidies need even closer scrutiny; and, while we on this side fully support British Rail in its efforts to maintain and to improve, its standards of service, I believe that we need to go into considerable detail to be sure that all the necessary safeguards, particularly as regards accountability, have been built into the Bill.
Before I conclude I should like to make one plea to the noble Baroness. I hope

1575
that she will not allow her colleagues on the Front Bench opposite to buffet her into treating the Bill as an unimportant dustbin measure, because we need some good days of the week so far as timing is concerned. I am talking about getting some reasonable days for Committee. We need to have some reasonable days for Committee to examine what it is that we have started off examining on a Friday. We cannot spend the second half of August on Fridays looking at this Bill and do our job satisfactorily. For her own sake as well as ours, I hope that the noble Baroness, will press this point upon those in charge of these matters.
My Lords, I have spoken for long enough. I believe that this Bill is a mass of important, sometimes apparently unconnected but nevertheless important, details. There is no obvious threat to all its provisions. Because that is true, and despite the length of time which the House of Commons spent in looking at the Bill, I believe that we need to do our duty, in the complementary way that we in this House should try to achieve, in examining what it provides. In particular, we must be sure that it does not clash with any aspect of the Scotland Bill or the Wales Bill. We should look at it as thoroughly as we can. After food, transport is still the biggest item in many family budgets. This is a Bill which will affect the lives of the vast majority of the people of this country, and although we may regret some of the directions in which it goes and be glad at some of the omissions, I think that we can do a useful job in scrutinising what it contains.
Your Lordships may remember Dr. Johnson's definition of a net. Dr. Johnson said that a net was anything made with interstitial vacuities, or—in modern language—a series of linked holes.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, it could be a spider's web!
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I think the Bill does at least contain a series of interesting linked holes. Some of them are welcome holes and some of them are not so welcome. During Committee we must make serious efforts to re-examine the shape of the net and to fill some of the interstitial vacuities.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have listened to his most interesting speech but may I ask him why he included that very ungallant request to my noble friend Lady Stedman? He knows perfectly well why we have this accumulation of legislation at this time.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I wish I could speak on behalf of those who are responsible for the Government programme. I believe that all the Bills which we are discussing are Government measures and, as long as the Government continue to produce measures, we in this House must examine them thoroughly. I think that I shall do best by sitting down and allowing the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, to speak on behalf of his Party.
12.11 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, the House is indeed indebted to the noble Baroness for her very clear and comprehensive explanation of this Bill. I must confess that, like the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, I have failed to discover the thread running through it which identifies it as the mainstream of Government policy. To me the Bill still appears to embody a number of more or less disconnected components. However, I am happy to tell your Lordships that I do not think that there are any of these proposals to which we on these Benches have strong objection in principle. There are many points of detail which we may need to discuss when we come to the Committee stage.
In these circumstances a Second Reading speech can and, I hope, will be reasonably short and I shall detain your Lordships for as short a time as I can. We warmly welcome the provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 which remind the non-metropolitan county councils—I believe that we are allowed to call them shire councils as a sort of shorthand—of their responsibilities in regard to passenger transport; and, indeed, widen those responsibilities and make them more specific. The existing law lays upon the county councils the duty to develop policies which will promote the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient system of public passenger transport. I think that that is a very woolly concept and I am not altogether surprised that in many cases little has been done to

1577
translate these admirable sentiments into effective action. The Bill, by requiring the shire councils to prepare and submit five-year plans and to update them annually, ensures, as it seems to me, that they take their responsibilities in this field seriously and, if they do not, that they are seen not to be so doing.
I am also very glad that it is provided that consultations must take place with the district councils in the preparation of these plans. Personally, I should have liked to have seen the consultation go further down into the grass roots. It is small, scattered, isolated villages which are worst hit by inadequate transport services. If a solution is to be found—and I do not believe that it can be a complete solution because it is a very difficult problem—to these problems of rural transport services, it seems to me essential that the problems be looked at through the villager's eyes. I would remind your Lordships that, as a result of the last reconstruction of local government, the district councils are in many cases quite large; and, because the district councils include in many cases three or four sizeable towns, there is a real danger that they may acquire an urban rather than a rural outlook. This is one of the great pities of the reconstruction. The old rural district councils were purely rural and expressed the rural view. Because of the inclusion of the towns, although they are not over-represented because they are more populous, they have an undue influence in the working of the district councils, which may tend to become urban-orientated.
I appreciate that it would be impracticable to suggest that the shire counties should have a duty to consult parish councils, or community councils in Wales. This would be an impossible task. But I do hope that we may be able to find some means by which the views of these bodies which are closer to the people can really be heard and taken into account before the plans are prepared. I know that, under Clause 2(4), after a draft plan is prepared, it is to be open to comment by the parish councils. However, I think we all recognise that, by the time a lot of work has been done in producing a draft plan, it is very difficult to get it altered except in very small particulars. I hope that we may be
1578
able to think of some way in which parish councils, and community councils in Wales, can really have some influence on the framing of the five-year plans.
The proposals in the Bill to simplify the procedure and expand the systems of community buses and car-sharing, if they become effective, will certainly be very helpful to the outlying villages. I hope that they will, in fact, prove effective, although, as the noble Baroness admitted, the details are somewhat complicated. When we come to Committee, we may wish to examine rather carefully the constraints under which they are expected to work. In particular, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that we must have a good look at the insurance provision, because there are real dangers, unless we are careful, that things will be developed and then somebody will suddenly discover that his insurance is invalid and that the passenger whom he is carrying has no standing.
The arrangement, if that is the right word, in Clause 4, to encourage travel concession schemes is expressed in rather an unusual way. I suppose the idea is that publicity in relation to concession schemes, whether they exist or not, will somehow shame the non-providers into doing something about it. That must be the logic behind that particular clause because otherwise it does not seem to have very much effect: within the area itself people will know whether there are concessionary fares.
I want to make only one comment about concessionary fares: concessionary schemes are of no value where there are no bus services. I am not sure that senior citizens—to use the current phrase —in isolated villages will greet very enthusiastically the idea that their friends in the neighbouring town will get free rides while they are not getting a ride at all. They may well begin to think that the money might be better spent in providing them with something instead of giving their friends something for nothing.
Turning for a moment to the question of lorries, I agree that it is a very desirable thing that we should improve the existing powers of inspection and control of these vehicles. I welcome the provisions in Clause 8. I am rather less happy, as indeed was the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, about Clause 9 and public off-street

1579
parking. For one thing, I think that there is a trap in this clause. It says it applies to urban areas; but, of course, when one looks at subsection 4(c), one discovers that the definition of urban areas is, in effect. anywhere where there is a 30 mph speed limit. That goes into a large number of villages and all sorts of places.
Quite apart from that particular point, it seems to me that, if it is necessary to introduce some kind of regulation—and I am not at all convinced that it is—it would be better for that regulation to come further down the line and be exercised by district councils or even by parish councils. They are much more concerned with what one does in car parks, I should have thought, than the county council sitting some 50 to 100 miles away.
If I may go back for a minute, I had intended to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan said about the traffic commissioners. It is quite clear to me that if we increase as we are increasing the responsibility of the shire counties for transport matters there must be some change in the relationship between the shire counties and the traffic commissioners. Some people suggest that the traffic commissioners have reached the end of the road and that there is no further purpose for them. That I would disagree with, because, apart from their special functions in regard to safety and so on, one must remember that counties are not, in fact, self-contained units even so far as local services are concerned, and the traffic commissioners may well have a role to play in co-ordinating local services that cross from one county into another.
I turn very briefly to Clauses 11 to 17. These deal with very important financial and organisational matters on which one is really not fully qualified to express a view without knowing much more than I do about the working arrangements of the several nationalised undertakings in the freight transport sphere. On the ' face of it, I agree that it looks logical to transfer Freightliners to British Rail. But this and other related matters could, it seems to me, best be decided upon by the boards concerned. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, when she winds up, will tell us whether the boards
1580
of the various concerns agreed to these proposals. If the reorganisation is being carried out over someone's dead body, figuratively speaking, it is a recipe for disaster.
Speaking of dead bodies, during the past week or two I have been trying to pick up some old trends and I had a look at the Transport Act 1968, and was reminded that in that Act, Parliament established a body called the Freight Integration Council. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether that body is still alive? One never hears about it. Perhaps it was still-born. I am not sure. But if it is alive it seems to me that that is just the body that ought to be recommending to the Government on issues of this kind.
I think I differ slightly from the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in doubting very much—and I have expressed this view before—whether Parliament is the right place to deal with issues of this kind, which really call for people to sit round a table with a great many figures and facts in front of them. Whether Parliamentary debates can produce the right answer to this sort of problem I am not sure.
In conclusion, may I take a short ride on one of my hobby-horses. It seems to me that an issue such as transport is, broadly speaking, one on which it should be possible to achieve a general all-Party agreement as to what line we should pursue. Of course, if the noble Lords opposite decide that they want to nationalise the freight transport industry, that is a political issue and they will find opposition both from these Benches and from the Benches behind the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. But, apart from that, most of these issues are ones which sensible people could sit down and agree upon, and we could avoid a great deal of the quarrelling that goes on about such subjects. If it is not impolite to say so, I was rather disappointed when I read the debates in another place to find the extent to which party political points were being thrown backwards and forwards, and front side to side, on issues which are not party political at all. I think that there are many other areas in which we could with advantage get a non-Party agreement, but transport seems to be a very simple one, apart from the one question that I have

1581
mentioned. I hope that perhaps in the years to come we may in this country be able to achieve the possibility of advancing general policies of this kind on a broad basis that will be followed whichever Governent is in power.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he answer a question? By saying that transport should not be a Party political issue, does the noble Lord mean that no important issue should be a Party political one?
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I do not think that I said so. I did not mean that. It is not because it is important, it is because intelligent people can sit together round a table and can forget which Party they belong to and reach a consensus on the right way to deal with minibuses, and so on.
12.26 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, looking round the Chamber, there are some 13 or 14 noble Lords whose assiduity nobody would doubt on a beautiful June Friday morning, yearning to get out of the Chamber. Nevertheless, fortified by their belief in their duty to the House and this Bill, they sit hoping that the next speaker to stand up will be brief. Having spent many hours studying this problem, I shall try to reduce my speech to seven minutes. That should get at least a smile from some of the irascible Lords on both sides of the House.
May I thank the noble Baroness on the Front Bench for having provided Members with a mass of information and complete notes on all the clauses. Noble Lords will see that I have marked this very carefully. Regretfully, however, but nevertheless in a most comradely spirit, I shall throw it aside and wait until the Committee stage to bring up some of my points when noble Lords are urging that A, B, C and D should have been in this Bill. Most of us are old-timers. We know the game. Almost all the speeches could have been brought forward when the relevant points were reached in Committee.
What are we talking about? If I say, "I enjoyed the noble Lord's introductory speech from the other side",
1582
there is no malevolence in my remark. But what are we trying to do? This Bill is to provide for the planning and development of public passenger transport in the counties of England and Wales, and to make provision for public service vehicle licensing, the regulation of goods vehicles and parking, to make amendments affecting rail transport—I am paraphrasing—Freightliners Limited, the finances of the National Freight Corporation, and other transport bodies. It is a tall order and important—perhaps too important for a Friday morning. Nevertheless, I congratulate my noble friend who managed to get through a mass of detail coherently.
I want to pick out three clauses on which to pass brief remarks with general reference to transport. Clause 9 relates to street parking, and Clause 6 deals with car-sharing for social and other purposes. Let me pick that one up, as it has been mentioned both by the Front Bench speakers for the Liberal Party and from the Opposition Benches. Many of us have no doubt had a note from the AA, and I think the public should be made aware of this. When we talk of car-sharing we should note the important point brought up on insurance. All of us have picked up people. When I leave the Chamber I shall do almost a 160-mile run, some of which I make purposely through country districts. Three times out of ten I pick up someone. I do not ask for any payment. But the AA, and many of us, here and outside, are concerned about car insurance cover which may, without our realising it, be invalid even under this Bill, if a vehicle is used to participate in regular car-sharing involving payment arrangements.
In my own constituency of Leek, which covers nearly 1,000 sq. miles, one could drive for 16 miles across it. There are 3,000 farms, 1,400 of them consisting of less than 30 acres. We do not have many millionaires in my area. A lot of picking up goes on. The Buxton Hospital, the North Staffs Royal Infirmary could be 20 or 30 miles away in many cases, and out of good neighbourliness, whether they are Christian, Mohammedan or of any other eclectic religion one likes to pick up, they carry the people willingly. Sometimes they may ask for a donation. If they give more than the price of the petrol, the insurance could be invalid. If one takes more than

1583
the price of the petrol from a passenger, the insurance could be made invalid. There is no allowance for wear and tear, nor for oil; only for petrol.
I do not know how the Government can change that, but there should be discussions with actuaries in insurance companies if we want to civilise the transport system in remote country areas about which the noble Viscount Lord Simon, spoke, picking up the people and giving them lifts. They price of petrol, wear and tear and garage repairs being what they are today, there should be some clearance for the man who with neighbourliness carries a person to his destination or gives him a lift. That is the end of it. I could reiterate, pad and colour and make a beautifully broad canvas of it, but the point has been made, which everyone in this House understands. The question is, can we do anything vis-à-vis the insurance companies to change it?
I have looked up Clause 9 and the Schedules. It can be vague. Is it really necessary? In country areas, especially since the reorganisation of local government, a great city may lose some of its powers to the county councils or vice versa. I know places in the country where they have a donkey fair with little donkey races, and perhaps 1,000 people turn up with their cars near the farmland. The farmer says: "All right, I will open up my field for you to put the cars in." But this Bill talks of private car parking and regulations. Some bureaucratic official of the county could come along to one of the noble Lord's farms—the noble Lord's offices are full of the Christian spirit; we are not sure about this side, but we do know about that. What happens? People open up their fields and along comes a bureaucrat from the county—he might even be the local mayor—who is feeling a bit rough because the cider was not very good that day. He can make a charge. You think I am joking, but it is a fact. The reality is that this needs clarification. That point is made and everyone understands it; there is no need to pad it or expand it.
A question was asked about the Freight Corporation. This is the right place to pay a tribute to the National Freight Corporation. I hope that noble Lords will study the 1977 report. Britain is expert
1584
at denigrating itself. I sit in chi-chi hotels in London and listen to a British business-man talking. He does not know who I am. I am only 18 inches away from him. In ponderous financial language he is discussing the lack of ability of the British workers. Everything in England is wrong. A German talks to him and says he does not understand it because he had one of the loveliest holidays in Scotland only three weeks ago. The Scots had not played in Agentina at that time. He enjoyed the holiday. He said he found England, Scotland—even Wales he mentioned en passant—cheerful places to be.
I must say that so far as our lorry drivers are concerned—they have put in private lorry drivers and those under the National Freight Corporation—I have driven in many places, like most noble Lords, in various parts of the world. I still find them to be among the most courteous and considerate lorry drivers in the world. Instead of denigrating continually, it is time we paid a little tribute to some of this public ownership. Whichever Government wins, public ownership has now become a part of world life. America, Germany and everywhere find that public money has to go into essential commodities.
Having said that, and having promised to speak for seven minutes and spoken for nine, it is time I sat down so that other noble Lords may speak. I assure my noble friend that we do need to look carefully at this Bill. I want to repeat the appeal of noble Lords on both sides of the House, that we hold our Committee stage on days that are suitable and not in the middle of August when the sun is shining or the cricket balls are being hashed all round Lords.
12.35 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, it seems that I am joining a steady chorus, first, in my appreciation of the dexterity with which, in her introductory speech the noble Baroness crammed a very clear quart into a pint pot, and also with others in feeling that she perhaps rather overstated her view of the importance of this measure, which, at this stage of the game, at any rate, must regard as rather modest in relation to the problems of the transport field to which it really does not make a very significant contribution, even as it

1585
stands, in the terms of which I am speaking. I thought the noble Baroness was perhaps a little more guilty of describing the glories of the mountain rather than the mouse to which it had given birth.
I shall not spend one moment on what might or ought to have been in the Bill, because one could spend a very long time doing that. Certainly, this is not the moment to do so. I should like, however, to hazard three brief reasons why so many of the these things are not in the Bill. Quite frankly, one would not want to "stir it" at this stage, when it is generally thought that an election might be in the offing. That is one very good reason, but if you did want to "stir it", the present rather hilarious state of the Parliamentary timetable will not permit you to do so. There could he a third reason: that is lack of real policy to put in a Transport Bill at this time.
For very many years we have heard extolled from the Benches opposite the virtues of an integrated transport policy. For years, despite repeated questions from myself and others, what that might mean has remained unspecified and unexplained. We have heard a great deal about this. We have heard today from the noble Baroness about the inherent logic; again I appear to be joining a chorus in saying to all of us it is not quite so obvious as the noble Baroness might have thought. We have had White Papers and debates, particularly the White Paper on transport policy last year. We have had at the same time a number of cuts in the road construction programme. We have had high level theorising of every kind, even from the noble Baroness herself today. If all that adds up to a policy, then the Government's idea of a transport policy is very different from my idea of it.
There are just three points I want quickly to make. So that neither the noble Baroness nor anyone else thinks there is any ill-feeling, I should like straightaway to welcome and applaud the measures towards relaxation on the bus front, particularly in the rural areas. There is no need to explain; a good case has been made for that. I think that what is proposed is a useful and acceptable measure. I would only join with my noble friend Lord O'Hagan in saying that it would be well worth looking at between now and the Committee stage in the hope
1586
that perhaps it could be even more widely liberalised.
I want to turn to Clause 9 and the control of car parking. I think I am probably right to do a rather unusual thing; namely, to declare a non-interest. I have heard many noble Lords declare their interest when speaking on a subject, but I think that I should declare a non-interest because some people may know that I have been a director of National Car Parks and associated with that company. I am no longer and have not been for a clear period of time. I speak for myself alone; neither have I any financial interest of any kind. I thought it as well to make that clear, but I would claim that the experience gained there gives me something of a background from which to speak now.
It seems to me—and nothing said by the noble Baroness in her original explanation did anything to divert my thoughts in any other direction—that this is a measure which can only be described as doctrinaire. I have no doubt that it probably embodies some good Socialist principle, but it also has to me the inherent likelihood in the embodiment of such principles that we get a system of control which is not necessary or desired by the people on whom the control is imposed, neither operator nor customer, and for which one must create a large and expensive inspectorate if one hopes to enforce it. I believe that must be the reason because there seems to be no other.
The noble Baroness did nothing to advance any reason apart from a theoretical and, to me, doctrinaire one today that control was a good thing. These powers have existed in London since 1969. Existed, yes; been used, no; presumably because they were not required and would have served no useful purpose. Therefore, I would ask if they have not been needed —and no evidence has been presented about precisely why this should be a good thing —why they should be needed now? Or if they were imposed, whether they would be effective? I would go so far as to say that what evidence is available points in the opposite direction because, having had in the early stages of its organisation quite a lot to do with the Nottingham zone and collar scheme, I think that is now moving into the category of expensive disasters. If

1587
these powers are granted—and I hope they will not be—and widely used, I should have thought that the estimate of £2 million to £4 million in the Bill to be given in compensation, would be quite an underestimate. I can understand that £3,000 million to the railways is probably a generous figure, but I think that this £2 million to £4 million would prove in fact to be a fairish underestimate.
If we are to make progress in this organisation of traffic and traffic management, the mentality of restriction, hoping that it will work, must be replaced by intelligent construction. After all, we live in a motorised society and we might as well get used to that fact. If there is anything in the lip-service being currently widely paid to urban renewal, plans to accommodate the wishes and needs of a motorised society must be constructively devised, otherwise the towns and the cities will not be able to service their social, industrial and commercial needs and will not be able to maintain their health.
A rather similar thought applies to the financial provisions for the railways and that same £3,000 million that I just mentioned. I quite understand—and if I had not understood the explanation of the noble Baroness would have made it crystal clear—exactly why this money is required; and how it is to be spent. I understand the EEC implications of it; and that the railways would get into a thorough financial mess if this money were not provided. All well and good, but the question that I want to ask is this: How much real contribution to transport efficiency of the country will this make? I do not mind very much whether they accept running the railways as a social burden. Perhaps we should do this. I do not mind whether they do in Germany, France, or anywhere, or cannot work their railways better without. All I want answered properly is the question—and £3,000 million is quite a lot of taxpayers' money—whether what we are doing is what we ought to be doing. Are we proposing to spend all this money on propping up something that, on the noble Baronesse's own admission, is becoming less and less desired by the population as a whole?
I agree that many hundreds of thousands or millions do use the railways, usually in
1588
a concentrated manner. I am referring to the commuter traffic which is the main passenger traffic of the railways. I have always thought that there is a great part to be played in freight, but that it is not being played right, because I think that the industrial contribution of the railways is questionable in its efficiency and is a contribution which could be improved, although again I doubt if this could be done by compulsion. My Lords, there is of course no question of resisting the Bill at this stage. I would not be a party to doing so, and would not wish to do so. Even if it is with enthusiasm slightly more lukewarm than that of the noble Baroness, go on it must. But it will require close scrutiny and attention in Committee, particularly with regard to Clause 9.
12.48 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I feel that this is a disappointing Bill: it merely tinkers with a number of problems. I appreciate that there were certain matters which needed legislation, but these seem to have been used as an excuse to introduce a number of other basically cosmetic alterations of doubtful value. I shall confine my remarks entirely towards the clauses which deal with passenger road transport. First, there are the provisions in Clauses 1 to 4 concerning county transport planning. Since powers of transport co-ordination were given to shire counties by the Local Government Act 1972, these counties other than those the noble Baroness mentioned, have mostly dragged their heels and put the blame on the traffic commissioners, whose jurisdiction they covet. It is a pity that they have not been firmly told to get on and make the system work—as it can—rather than create their own problems and use these as an excuse to seek to supplant the traffic commissioners.
The way in which many counties exercise their power is a matter for concern; they do not even use the money provided by central Government for securing the best possible level of bus services. Far from giving shire counties greater licence, they need the constraint of a little discipline. If there were a right of appeal by those adversely affected by country transport plans—the long-suffering public, experienced bus operators and district

1589
councils—it would concentrate county policies on practical realities in a way which in too many cases has been lacking up to the present.
I am conscious that the Secretary of State has voiced his reluctance to superimpose his views over those of locally-elected representatives who should have a closer knowledge of local requirements. Yet, in considering appeal, he would, in fact, be bringing his technical knowledge to bear in an objective way in considering the merits of arguments which, on both sides, would have the benefit of local knowledge. It is the objectivity which is important and I believe the omission of an appeals clause from the Bill is a defect.
Next I should like to mention the clauses on public service vehicles licensing. I am concerned that these clauses anticipate the results of the Passenger Vehicles Experimental Areas Act 1977. When the Government introduced this Act, they obtained ready support from all quarters for experiments in unconventional forms of public transport, or, rather, less conventional forms. It was agreed that such experiments were right, only because they might provide new alternatives to improve the transport system; but also that they would eliminate ideas which seemed good in theory but which did not work in practice.
It is funny that everyone thinks they can run transport better than professionals. Like football and the weather, it is a subject which as the noble Baroness said, everyone is an expert in transport, which is the precise reason why we should exercise caution lest rash and unfortunate decisions might be made. To introduce the experimental schemes through the general law will, in many cases, damage the existing network of services to the disadvantage rather than the benefit of the public. This is why experiments were right, why it is regrettable that the Government should be introducing permanent relaxations to the licensing system which have not been properly considered.
I accept that there is room for a wider examination of licences for public transport and that is why I feel that the propose changes should have been dealt with in the framework of a full and proper review and with the benefit of practical experience
1590
under the Experimental Areas Act. I should now like to say something about a clause—I realise that this is something of a hot potato—a clause that was introduced into the Bill in another place during the Committee stage and then removed on consideration at Report. I refer to the excess fares clause, which would have permitted a special fare to be charged where a passenger was deliberately over-riding.
This particular form of cheating, for want of a better word, costs bus operators an estimated £20 million every year and it is the taxpayer, through the transport supplementary grant, and the honest passenger who is paying for these people. This clause was carefully designed to protect the innocent and, with this in mind, was limited to those who had purchased a ticket for a shorter journey than they intended to take, because it was recognised that it is easier for a passenger accidentally to fail to buy a ticket at all than accidentally to buy a ticket to a destination far short of that intended.
Here, I should like to make an odd note. Where there is a bus with a conductor, it is much less likely for this to happen because I know from personal experience that there were plenty of people around who wanted to do this sort of thing but you got to know, particularly when you had a full bus. You only had to find somebody who was doing it and just make a few polite remarks and say, "Get off here or you pay extra" and the whole matter was settled. But this problem has mainly come from areas where there have been one-man operators, particularly where there are machines where you pay. You can pay your 7p ticket and, unless the inspector comes along, you can just get away with it, which is absurd.
Some suggested collection of excess fares should have been limited with inspectors, though there are reasons why this should have been impractical. Also, from personal experience again, I wonder whether a full force of inspectors would have been found working its way through the crush of passengers at the difficult periods of peak travel. It seems, however, that the opponents of the clause have scruples regarding this deterrent to be dishonest. They made exaggerated criticisms of the scheme, particularly

1591
claiming it created a precedent. Yet, others said just the same concerning the introduction of parking tickets for traffic offences. We accept that, despite its imperfections. This form of fixed penalty is not a great inconvenience to the motorist who does not have to give up his time to go to the court when he knows he is guilty and, above all, to the courts themselves both in reducing the congestion of cases before them and their courts in administering the law. I hope it will not be long before this sensible concept of excess fares takes its proper place in British law.
Finally, after being somewhat critical of a Bill that was introduced so convincingly by the noble Baroness in glowing, cheerful and enthusiastic terms, I sincerely agree that there are good parts in it—like the community bus service which, I am sure, will benefit many and is already doing so. Here, I should like to say that not one single existing community bus service has not been promoted by the professional bus operators, in particular the National Bus Company. One hopes that this service will be further developed, but it will not jeopardise the existing stage bus services which, although they have been eroded for one reason or another over the years, nevertheless have a record of which the nation can be justly proud.
12.57 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, first, I should like to compliment the noble Baroness on the charm and efficiency with which she moved the Second Reading of the Bill. There are those who criticise it because they think that it is bits and pieces, and so on and so forth, and that it in no way reflects the Labour Party's approach to an integrated economy. But those critics seem to me to overlook the fact—and it is a point that I am almost tired of making—that one of the first principles of effective democratic politics is to be able to distinguish between the things you want and the things you can get. This Bill of course is a very careful assessment of what the Government and the Secretary of State think is politically possible at the tail end of a Parliament—not necessary what he wants; it is what he thinks he can get.
I want to go perhaps a little wider, as one is permitted on the Second Reading of
1592
a Bill, than the contents of the Bill itself, although in general may I say right away that it has my support. The issue is not one, I would suggest, of an integrated transport system, but the extent to which the British people as a whole have accepted the concept of a mixed economy, not as a formula for words but the applications of the principle. The conflict in the world, in the Western World and the Eastern bloc, in my judgment is a conflict between the consuming society of the West, which finds its impetus through consumption and through the exercise of the free market, whereas in the Eastern bloc it is based on conservation and upon restriction through a system of central planning.
Our two societies being what, in fact, they are, a free society in the sense that is seen in practice in the West—from the Industrial Revolution down to the present day—is not capable of application in the Eastern bloc and, conversely, with a society such as we have in the West a system of rigid planning imposed from the top is also not practical. Yet the demands of the society of the world as a whole require that, in fact, whether or not we like it, we have to combine the applications of the two principles to live with them and to be intelligent about them.
The spokesman for the Liberal Party, as he glanced heaven-ward at every full stop, seemed to think that the problem could be solved by an all-Party conference where what he regarded as intelligent men, presumably all Liberals, would forget all their principles and sit round a table; and if they sat there long enough they would then find common agreement. The difference between the Liberal Party and myself is to be found in the words of the late Harry Tawney. For me, the politics of free discussion based upon differences is the price of progress. It is a virtue to be practised, not a vice to be avoided.
For the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, with his attachment to held differences, honestly held differences must be not submerged. They need to be brought out into the open and looked at. I will therefore ask your Lordship to bear with me for a minute or two; after all, we have plenty of time. Others have spoken for a quarter of an hour so there is no reason why I should not have my ration, particularly as the only speaker on this side also spoke for just about the same time.

1593
Let us look at the events of the last 100 years. The progress of the West has been inextricably mixed up with the development of transport. Prosperity—the great burst forward of human progress in the realms of material gain—came with the steam engine, the steamship, the railway engine, the building of the railroads and, when it began to peter out, Britain began to lose her lead. We were in the forefront hut, by 1870, our pre-eminence in the world had come to an end. The United States had passed us by the end of the century.
I have said this to your Lordship many times before and I shall say it many times again: by the end of the century we had not only been passed by America but also by Germany. The consciousness of the weakness which stemmed from that fact was present at the turn of the century in the Entente Cordiale. Then we caught the wind again through the coming of the motor car, but that first impact of the motor car had begun to work its way out before the First World War, and indeed it may have been a major cause of the First World War that there was emerging the most acute unemployment problem which was beginning to he expressed in all countries in violence.
After the war there was a period of reconstruction and an abortive attempt by the Conservative Party in this country to return to the status quo ante, to return to the gold standard, and so on and so forth. It did not work, and we ran into slump, and permanent slump, and, again, the emergence of unemployment on the most massive scale because the motor car too was no longer providing the necessary impetus.
The late Lord David Lloyd George produced his Yellow Book on the concept of reconstructing and getting the economy going again through doing what the Germans had done—the building of a massive road programme. It was turned down by the Tory Government of the day and the world did not catch the wind again until there was a great rearmament programme. This inevitably resulted in war, because the one thing one cannot do with bayonets is sit on them; if there are enough armaments, some day somebody will use them.
1594
Then the war came, so the economies of the world flourished again. After the war, we once more ran into a period of reconstruction and then the thought was that going to the Moon would save us. We have gone to the Moon and it has not saved us. Now the West is in permanent slump because it has failed to solve its transport problems in terms which wi II both solve them and put transport on a viable basis.
I was greatly amused to hear an interruption this morning at the end of the noble Baroness's speech from a Conservative spokesman who was anxious to make an entirely non-political point. It is interesting how these non-political points emerge. The point had been made as to what happened in Germany and France in terms of loss on rail transport. He said that in America they run transport without subsidies; it is run by private enterprise. I was in America a week ago today. I went to Seattle and I wanted to to to British Columbia. So how did I go? I went on the "Princess Marguerite" the second version—the first was sunk by a German submarine off Crete during the war—up the Puget Sound, from Seattle to Victoria. I then went by bus up to Cape Swartz, another hour or so, and then across from Cape Swartz to Soissons, taking an hour and 40 minutes, and then I went by bus again from there into Victoria. I wanted to come back by train. "Train!" they said, "There is only one train a day from Vancouver to Seattle ". One train a day, at six o'clock in the morning. I spent some time when I went to British Columbia going into the question of transport because it is vital to the communities there, both on the Canadian and on the American side. The only thing that keeps Seattle going is the Boeing, which is kept going by public money spent on defence. The truth is that the American transport system is bankrupt and there are no services. I saw traffic blocks there miles long. These are apparently normal, and the truth of it is that the foremost country in the world which maintains a curious failure to take up all the implications of a mixed economy is Great Britain. The reason for it is the kind of thinking implicit in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who has not the faintest idea of anything he says having any relevance to the world in which he lives.

1595
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in his speech gave some signs—only signs but complete signs—that he may still see the light. He sees the importance. He is speaking from the brief prepared by the Tory Civil Service which is made up in substance of much the same people as serve the Minister. There is not much between them, and on this occasion I must congratulate the Civil Service. They gave the noble Baroness a much better brief today than the one they gave her the last time she and I crossed swords. This time it seems to be reasonably right. It is on the whole a carefully prepared brief and it deals with the facts of the situation in so far as the Minister is allowed to. It comes out in my judgment in Clause 9 in the question of handing over or of enforcing right across the United Kingdom the same powers as are possessed by the GLC. If there is an example not to be followed, it is the example of the GLC. I have had three recent experiences as a ratepayer in Westminster, a wholly Conservative area, certainly the richest in this country, certainly the richest in the world. Let us see how it works out in practice, as opposed to in the headlines of the Daily Mail or the Daily Telegraph or whichever Conservative organ—and I must include The Times—wants to make the point.
I use a garage—I shall not mention which one because I do not want more people to go there, which would mean that the service would become more difficult. It is a garage in an area which, over the years, has run down. The properties are owned by the Church Commissioners and they have quite rightly sold them because they are concerned about income. The properties have been handed over to another Government body, the Crown Estates, the chairman of which is a member of this House. They are to re-plan and the last garage in Westminster is about to close down, so all those Members of this House and another place who, over the years, have gone to that garage for service will not be able to get any service. At the same time, Westminster City Council is continuing to pull down properties right, left and centre, pouring more and more people into flats and granting more and more people parking permits. But there is nowhere to park. At one time, one
1596
used to be able to park in the daytime. Now one cannot park either by day or by night.
I go to the chief executive of Westminster pro bono publico, or as a second-rate edition of that mythical character, and say to Mr. Witty, "Come and look. You must be interested, as a chief executive, in Westminster, not only about the provisions for Members of Parliament but for all the other citizens who are coming crowding into Westminster who have no garage services ". He said, "Yes, I have made protests. What do you think you can do? "So I said. "Right, I will go to the Church Commissioners".
So I go to the Church Commissioners and they hand me on to Lord Thomson's office for all the good that is, and then they come back again and say that they are going to do something. "We are going to provide alternative accommodation in Maida Vale ". So I say: what the hell is the good of providing garage services in Maida Vale for the people of Westminster? Because if anyone's car breaks down now within a mile of the House of Commons, who is going to tow it away? Garage after garage has been closed down without the local authority making any provision at all.
I then come to parking arrangements. This week I have had a conflict with the Westminster Council on the basis of the application of the regulations, and again I go to Mr. Witty. He says that he agrees with me, if you could do something: but this is the GLC, and a more insensitive and a more incompetent body I do not know, unless it is the Home Office. The Home Office must always he candidates when it comes to administrative inefficiency. I would put it and the GLC as just about a deat heat. I believe that the Government proposals are about right. The principle behind them is one that I should have thought—if the Tory Party were true to its Toryism, and of course the old time high Tory would agree with me, but the Tory Party has been infiltrated by the Simons of this world—a soppy, sloppy, canting, humbugging Liberalism.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, not on behalf of the Liberal Party but of the

1597
noble Viscount, Lord Simon, might I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, to moderate his language?
Lord WIGG: Moderate my language? All I have said is that I take the view that I am taking Lord Simon as the spokesman for the Liberal Party, and if he comes down here and makes a speech on behalf of the Liberal Party, I am entitled to comment in the terms I wish, and I am going to do so. Moderate my language? All I am saying is that the things in which he believes have permeated the Tory Party. He may regard it as elevating but I regard it as enervating. That is all the difference between us. If that is attacking it, heaven forbid that I should ever really strike form.
I am saying that the principle of the Bill is right, but subject to control. It is the public good which must prevail. Lord Simon is saying that we should sit round the table and subordinate the principles. I do not believe that. I believe that you should stand by your principles, and my principle, my Socialism, is based upon the concept of the public good, but I do not want to masquerade, using the public good, as a means whereby there is a cloak over administrative inefficiency, either because it has not been thought out or because it has been ineptly applied. I think the Minister is right on Clause 9—and this has been raised by more than one speaker—but subject to one condition; and on the Committee stage I shall endeavour to put this right. The principle should be that the Minister can call in planning permission and that there can be an appeal, but there must be the right of appeal by the aggrieved party. That is to say that, whatever the private organisation may be that has made a submission to the Minister and which has not received consideration—if noble Lords think that that should be interpreted more specifically, they have not got the answer that they think they ought to have—it should have a mandatory right here to hold a public inquiry. That is what I believe. The principle I am applying here is the principle of the public good, and that is the principle that must apply, and in so far as this Bill stands fast to the principle of public good it will have my support.
The Bill does not contain all that I would like it to contain. It is not as wide and sweeping as I would wish, but I realise the limitations which are imposed
1598
upon the Minister by the facts of the political situation with which he has got to live, whether he likes it or not. But I completely reject—and I must be very careful in what I now say—Lord Simon's approach, that one should take all this and sit round the table and imagine that if you sit there long enough, which may be from now to 1,000 years, you will ever find an answer.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I do not want to be aggressive as a human being, but I am frankly confused. I have not heard Lord Simon's speech, but the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, started by talking about his travels from Seattle to Vancouver, went on to unemployment, then finished by talking about a garage in Westminster. I do not see any relation between the three main points that I grasped in his speech, and I would be grateful if he would come to the point and say what he is objecting to and what he wants to happen.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, let us deal with them in this order. I dealt with unemployment because, to my mind, unemployment and the malaise of Western economy stem from the fact that they have failed to solve their transport problems. They are being choked with the motor car, which at one stage provided a dynamic, and now does not. I was dealing with Lord Simon because Lord Simon's approach to this problem was to nit pick in the Bill and then to make the point that the way it should be solved is by intelligent people sitting round the table and finding a solution. I made the point that intelligent people, according to Lord Simon, were presumably all Liberals. T reject the Liberal approach, whether it finds expression through an adulterated form as expressed by Lord Simon or, if I may say so, when it comes in a more adulterated form from the Front Bench opposite, or indeed the Back Benches for that matter. I am saying that the limitations on the Bill, its incompleteness, is inherent not in the Government's thinking, but in the political situation in which they have to live. This is the maximum amount that they can get through.
I then go on to say that, so far as the Bill is concerned, accepting the limitation

1599
imposed by the political straitjacket, it is as much as one can expect. It has my support subject to one condition, that it serves the public interest, and that in Clause 9—a point that has been raised on a number of occasions—it seems to me that to do what the Government wish, which is to take the powers which the GLC possess and make those same powers available all over the United Kingdom, is all right up to a point, but I object to the GLC as such because of the point that Lord Chesham has made about the GLC. He said that these powers have never been used by them, and if they had been used by the GLC they would have been used very badly.
I gave two or three personal examples which I could enlarge on, and in each case I have gone to the Chief Executive of Westminster and pointed out what the consequences are, because there are problems being left at the ground level, and problems which will not go away and which will get worse. Therefore, I want to see the Bill debated, and so far as I am concerned, it can be debated any day or night or at any time- -I am getting used to it with the Wales Bill and Scotland Bill—and into August and September if they so wish. That is because it is important, and when it is debated, so far as I am concerned I shall seek to amend it. Certainly I shall seek to amend Clause 9, and I shall also seek to support the Government in the retention of Clause 9. In my view there needs to he an amalgam between the public and private interst, but the public interest must dominate always provided that the private interests are given a chance here to express themselves. Therefore I would make it mandatory upon the Minister to hold a public inquiry, so that these interests, if they are to survive, must also he able to survive on grounds which enable them to be viable; because if they are not viable they have to be subsidised, and I do not want private enterprise to be subsidised by the public. I want private enterprise, when it operates, to operate standing on its own feet, viable, operating through the pricing system, which is a safeguard for efficiency. But the dominant factor, which, as I say, as a Socialist I believe in—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, also believes in as a high Tory—is that the public interest must prevail.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and as he mentioned my name several times, I wonder whether I may be permitted to put one point to him. In the first place, I think he was a little unfair—unwittingly—in attacking the Liberal Party. At the end of the particular part of my speech to which he referred I did say that for a few minutes I would ride a hobbyhorse of my own. Perhaps I ought to have stepped round into the Bench behind, but I did not. The noble Lord perhaps also misunderstood the point that I was making. I was not suggesting that anybody should abandon their principles. There are, of course, matters of principle on which we shall disagree and about which, I hope, we shall argue sensibly with each other. I was saying that there are issues, like the issues of transport, which can in fact be settled on a more non-political basis, because the aims of everybody in this field of transport are basically the same.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I entirely accept that, except that I do not understand the term "non-political ". I am a political animal, and I believe that I am a virtuous animal to the extent to which I am political. I believe firmly that political principles are virtues to be practised, not vices to he avoided.
1.22 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Baroness will no doubt he delighted to note that we have got half way round the course, so we are entering the second half. I will try to be as quick as I can. I am sorry that share the view of other noble Lords in their general description of this Bill as being a sack of holes or an odd collection of bits and pieces. In fact, about the only thing on which I could agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, was when he said that transport was so vitally important, and if this Bill should represent the sum total of Her Majesty's Government's thinking on transport by mid-1978, I think that it is an extraordinarily sad thing. The noble Baroness shakes her head, and I can understand that too, because at this particular stage of our proceedings, as summer approaches, it will be very difficult to put too much into the Bill. It seems to be a "miscellaneous provisions" Bill, as my noble friend Lord O'Hagan said, with one or

1601
two other odd things thrown in, and I want to come to one or two of those in a moment.
It is disappointing, in an area of transport, that the noble Baroness has, with the exception of her noble friend Lord Wigg, no support behind her, or indeed alongside her. I think your Lordships would share with me the regret that we shall not have the benefit of the late Lord Popplewell to help our debates. He and I so often had disagreements about the relative merits of road and rail. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that all of his experience was extremely valuable to us. I would not suggest that I can make up for his absence.
I look first at the explanatory memorandum which says towards the end that financial implications for Clause 9 might come to £2–4 million; in terms of manpower, perhaps 20 posts. Other measures may include additional manpower of a minimal nature. That really is rather like saying "how long is a piece of string? "It is so absolutely and totally unrealistic as to be not worth bothering about any further.
I am so sad that in an important measure such as transport there are two notable exceptions. One is any kind of support for the Blennerhassett Report. This debate, coming as it does immediately after the publication of a report in the Which? magazine which suggests that the drink-and-drive laws are being blatantly disregarded, and also on top of a report which was published, I think, also yesterday by the Christian Economic and Social Research Foundation, which points out that the number of drinking offences in the past three years has fallen, seems to suggest that we are not making quite the strides we ought to in overcoming this problem. We may perhaps wish to return to this in some form and try to get something included, or perhaps even only air the matter a little more widely when we get to the Committee stage. This might be helpful after next week's debate on road safety.
The other exclusion which I am sorry to note is that of introducing transport into one of the planning special categories. I shall return to this when I get to Clause 9. Other noble Lords have dealt specifically
1602
with the first series of clauses, Clauses 1 to. All I want to say here is that I am disappointed that so far concessionary fares seem to bear some inqualities up and down the country. It is particularly distasteful that so many concessionary fares with regard to the movement of schoolchildren have been dropped in recent years. Nevertheless, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, pointed out, at least the provisions contained in these clauses will highlight an authority's reluctance to do anything about this.
So far as Clauses 5, 6 and 7 are concerned, I am not entirely happy here. The noble Baroness referred to these clauses, at least in part, as removing some of the antiquated restrictions, and my noble friend Lord O'Hagan and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, referred to the insurance implications. First, I am always cautious about anything that has to do with licensing and permits. What appears to be a very good thing in removing what has stood a certain test of time reasonably well and replacing it with something else is to me highly suspicious. I have no doubt that we shall want to look at some of those changes with a good deal of care. So far as insurance is concerned, I do not wish to advance any great arguments this afternoon. But, certainly, as there are so many areas in which the buyers of insurance are misled, any claification that we can obtain as to the insured's rights in at least the large print of the policy, if not perhaps the small print, will be welcomed.
It will not be any surprise to your Lordships if I turn now to Clause 8. I do not know quite where to start. Heavy lorries are always an emotive subject, and I have little doubt that this clause is by popular demand. It gives Her Majesty's Government the right to pick up a good beating stick to beat, by popular demand, the heavy goods lorry. The noble Baroness has advanced no proof whatsoever—and we shall debate this at much greater length during the Committee stage—that these provisions are necessary. Desirable they might be; necessary—No. In fact, the provisions are an enormous sledgehammer to crack the wee-est nut.
I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not get it exactly right, but she said that at least this provision

1603
would enlarge the catchment area of the offenders. I think that suggests that that is just about all that it will do. It will enlarge the catchment area, but it will do nothing else. Indeed, when we come to talk about figures, as to who will get caught and who will not get caught, my suspicion is that those people who are not committing an offence are far more likely to be caught than more of those committing an offence.
The list of problems which will be involved with this is enormous: drivers' hours, factory fixed-time deliveries, product deterioration and so on and so forth, which we could go into at greater length. I shall, however, if we are to stick with this clause, attempt to move an Amendment at least to draw into the net of responsibility the shipper: I am not talking about a shipping company, but the loading company or one who is shipping the goods, because the majority of the infringements, particularly in container work and loose goods, occur in this direction. So much then for Clause 8: a sledgehammer to crack a wee nut.
I turn to Clause 9 briefly to support all the noble Lords who have found objection to the Bill. I noticed in the notes which the noble Baroness was kind enough to provide for us that in the comment it said:
"The broad objective of this clause is to give the authorities powers to manage traffic and transport.".
In fact, of course, Clause 9 does nothing of the kind. Clause 9 is a completely negative attitude: indeed, so much of the Bill is negative. There is very little positive; very little to encourage the use of the roads and motor vehicles: there is more in it to discourage. For example, it goes on,
"This will enable the local authority to control the volume entering central areas.".
This provision does not control any volume entering central areas: it provides a deterrent for them, the user—a totally different kind of argument.
Indeed, when I think of how much I have to pay to get my daughter to school in the mornings—48 pence for a five mile journey and a 15-minute walk; 48 pence back for a 15-minute walk and five-mile journey—I am not surprised that many of the
1604
residents in Chandler's Ford send three or four motor cars laden with children to join the morning peak-hour queue of traffic into Southampton.
"To limit peak hours commuting ": this is absolutely negative as well, because, of course, the control of private off-street parking will not do that at all. Then the last thing is, "to encourage the use of space by short-term parkers "; it is not an achievable objective. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg—I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—said that a pricing policy is a safeguard for efficiency: nothing is further from the truth. Sheer competition encourages efficiency, not local authority—
Lord WIGG: My Lords, what I said was that the free exercise of the pricing system would control efficiency.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Exactly, my Lords, it is the same thing, and I disagree with him, because a pricing policy—he said "the free exercise ".—
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I said that the free exercise—that is to say, the functioning of the pricing system—is a safeguard for efficiency.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I suggest that a pricing policy by local authorities is not necessarily a recipe for efficiency. Within this context of parking, I want to draw attention to the report of a working party on lorry parking which reported in October 1971. It seems to me that the Bill would have been far more useful if it had contained some provision, and indeed some measure, for the promotion of lorry parking, as distinct from off-street private car parking. We have gone seven years now and have not advanced one bit in the provision of lorry parking.
Indeed, when the regional working party in Hampshire dealt with this matter it came up with only two sites. One was at Tipner, Portsmouth: local inhabitants complained very vigorously and that scheme was abandoned and Fratton railway goods yard was substituted instead, which means that all haulage has to go through the centre of Portsmouth to Fratton goods yard. The other was at Nursling and I happen to know, although I assure your Lordships that I am not in the

1605
least connected, that commercial undertakings have looked at the Nursling site but planning restrictions are so onerous that that looks like being a non-starter.
If heavy goods lorries are so emotive, I think that Her Majesty's Government should direct some of their energies to putting this emotive product somewhere. Lastly, if I may just have a moment on the transfer of Freightliners to British Railways. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, drew attention to the National Freight Corporation's achievements and to the report. I noticed that in their report on page 10, it says:
"The Corporation (that is the NFC) has felt obliged to state its categorical opposition to the proposed transfer.".
This is of Freightlines to British Rail. I wonder whether that is still their attitude. Certainly I think that the Railfreight Speedlink Services is a huge improvement and I know that it is used a great deal by the private haulage industry. I am not so sure that the decision to make this transfer is necessarily the best one. Again, my noble friend on the Front Bench drew attention to this.
These are some of the areas which I and undoubtedly some of my noble friends will wish to probe further at the Committee stage and possibly offer Amendments for consideration. Perhaps, on a slightly humorous note, one might be reminded of the rhyme that deals with children which begins with "Monday's child who is fair of face ", and come straight to "Friday's child who works hard for a living ". I fear that this Bill is a Friday's child. It will have to work very hard to live with some semblance of sensibility.
1.38 p.m.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I propose to confine my remarks strictly to the dark side of the Bill, namely the financial provisions. The most important of these is Clause 11, which provides for £3,000 million of Government expenditure. This, I suggest, is more important than the regulation of off-street car parking; and, indeed, perhaps more important than the provision of bicycle parks. The £3,000 million will in the end have to be paid by somebody and that somebody is the taxpayers of this country. I think that in these circumstances we are entitled to probe this figure rather carefully.
1606
The money is expected to be necessary to enable the Secretary of State to make grants to British Rail to meet what is described as its public service obligation. "Public service obligation" is the current euphemism for losses made by British Rail on passenger services. It seems to me to be an interesting use of the English language to describe losses made by a nationalised industry as a public service but this is nevertheless the position. If one is talking about public expenditure, it is very important to draw a distinction between public expenditure on goods and services on the one hand and public expenditure on subsidies to meet losses on the other hand. If public expenditure on goods and services is reduced, the goods and services we buy are reduced. But, if we improve the efficiency of a service and thereby reduce the losses it makes, public expenditure is reduced without any sacrifice of the service. It is from this point of view that we ought to look in detail at the £3,000 million expenditure for which the Bill provides.
The first point which needs to be made is that the public service obligation grant is a blanket subsidy covering the whole of the passenger services of British Rail. This comes out clearly from British Rail's own report. From the figures set out on pages 11 and 12 of the report, it is perfectly clear that what British Rail do is to add up their total revenues, add up their total costs, deduct one from the other, and come up with a figure. They then come along to the Government and ask for that figure as a public service obligation grant. It is interesting that there is no attempt made anywhere to segregate the profitable services which presumably require no grant from the unprofitable services on which a grant may be necessary.
It is also of considerable interest that if one goes back to the order made by the Secretary of State under the 1974 Act, we find that it is under that Act that the obligation actually arose, not under EEC regulations. If we go back to that order, there is no requirement even to run the services efficiently, let alone to see whether they are required; that is, whether anybody wants them. I have no doubt that both the Secretary of State and British Rail keep these matters very much in mind. But I wonder whether they are matters which ought to be left to the

1607
unfettered discretion of the Minister and British Rail. Nor is there faith and hope that these matters will be dealt with properly to provide a basis on which a grant of £3,000 million of public money can be justified.
If we turn to the accounts of British Rail, these show that the actual public service grant for 1977 was £363 million. That is the figure that it turned out at. The original estimate was higher than that. The figure estimated for the current year is £403 million. Now British Rail themselves admit that there are wide-ranging —these are their words, not mine—opportunities for cost reduction. In their response to the Consultative Document on which this Bill was ultimately based, British Rail estimated that a manpower reduction, in the railway business only, of 40,000 by the end of 1981, was possible. The Select Committee on page 45 of its report, says in Roman italics, that in fields that it actually specifies:

"somewhat greater reduction should be attainable "
—not "could be ", or "might be ", but "should be attainable ".
In another place the Government have shown a considerable coyness in translating these figures into terms of actual cash. In order to be helpful to the noble Baroness I will give her some figures of my own which are readily calculable from British Rail's report of 1977. If we take British Rail's own figure and allow for the reductions in manpower which have already occurred, the reductions that they say are attainable by 1981 would represent £175 million. I do not suggest that the whole of this would emerge as a cost reduction. There will no doubt be restrictive practices that have to be bought out. There may have to be payments for productivity deals and so on. Nevertheless, if we look at the actual current public service obligation grant, which last year turned out at £363 million, the extent of the admitted overmanning accounts for nearly half of that total figure.
We all realise how difficult it is, after a period in which fares have been going up drastically, and in the face of public reaction, to put up fares further. We know, too, that in many directions the
1608
service could be improved, and there has been public pressure that this should be done. But none of these are true reasons for a bottomless subsidy. They reinforce the argument that what is essential is an improvement in the efficiency of the operation of the organisation, an improvement which is admitted to be possible and one which I think we should all want to give British Rail the utmost encouragement to achieve.
The 1974 Act provided for grants totalling £1,500 million. This has lasted British Rail, or will last them, four years; that is, 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978. The present Bill makes available a further £3,000 million which comes in two tranches; namely, £1,750 million which is available unconditionally, and £1,250 million which is available subject to Order in Council. Without allowing for the improvement in efficiency, which again British Rail accept is possible, and without allowing for inflation, the original tranche of £1,750 million should last four to five years. There is a factor moving in one direction and a factor moving in the other. But taking both into account, the indication is that the sum should last for another four or five years.
If we take the conditional tranche into account as well, this would extend the period to seven or eight years. I know that my noble friend Lord O'Hagan was asking for this figure and the Government were relutcant to give it in another place. But on the face of it, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the figure provided in the Bill would last in the aggregate for something like seven, or possibly, eight years.
The question I really want to ask, however, is this: At a time when the need to control public expenditure is much more widely recognised than it was in 1974—and I am not trying to make a Party political point about this, because I think we are all much more aware of the need to control public expenditure than we were in 1974 and of the need to improve efficiency and productivity—why, in these circumstances, does the Bill provide double the amount of money that the 1974 Act did, and potentially a sum of money which would last double the period? I suggest that we must accept that long-term the viability of British

1609
Rail depends on their ability to run their services with the maximum degree of efficiency. The description of a subsidy to meet losses as a public service obligation does not in any way alter the fact that, at the end of the day, by way of taxes, the taxpayers have to provide the money to meet those losses. And people will simply not be prepared to go on indefinitely paying taxes if they believe that these taxes are being used to meet unnecessary or unjustified losses.
There is therefore a heavy onus on British Rail and they must accept that they will always remain subject to searching public scrutiny. One wonders, therefore, whether it is right or acceptable that this Bill should give the Secretary of State and British Rail seven or eight years of rope before they are brought up short. We must ask whether there ought to be provided in the Bill itself a closer and more effective means of control than the Bill at present provides.
I had intended to talk about the National Freight Corporation at some length, but I shall refrain from doing so. All that I should like to say is that this is a somewhat unhappy story. As the noble Baroness will know, the National Freight Corporation received grants of £52 million in 1976 and 1977, so the public support is more than the £53 plus £15 plus £30 million, plus another unspecified figure for the travel concessions, which this Bill provides. In fact, the degree of public support in the Bill made available in the last two years is £150 million-plus.
If this corporation is to be kept within the public sector, it is, of course, imperative that it should be put on a sound financial basis and then subjected to proper financial discipline. Unless it is put on a sound financial basis, there will simply be endless argument in the future as to whether or not it is doing well or badly, whether or not its figures can be believed, whether it is dealt with unfairly vis-à-vis the private sector or is unnecessarily subsidised vis-à-vis the private sector. But reading through these provisions, I am left with an uneasy feeling—let me put it no higher than that—that this is a series of ad hoc decisions, or even compromises; there is a bit off here, a bit off there, something given somewhere else.
I should have thought that this was pre-eminently the sort of corporation
1610
where, if you were looking at it as a private concern and wanted to reconstruct it, you would start by valuing its assets and liabilities and then capitalising it accordingly. All I want to ask is this. Does the figure that emerges from the Bill represent a proper commercial capitalisation of this corporation? If it does, this is fine, we know where we stand. If it does not, suggest that serious consideration ought to be given to clarifying the situation.
I only want to say in conclusion this one thing. The noble Baroness described this as "a good and necessary Bill "—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, necessary it most certainly is, because without the Bill two public corporations would find themselves in serious difficulties. Whether it is a good one is a very different matter indeed. So far as its financial provisions are concerned—and I quite deliberately confine my remarks to the financial provisions—I, frankly, would describe it as an unhappy Bill.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and after listening to his sour and rather old-fashioned attack on the Bill, may I ask him whether all his criticism simply adds up to a great increase in unemployment?
Lord COCKFIELD: No, it does not.
1.48 p.m.
Viscount CRAIGAVON: My Lords, I should like to make a brief contribution on one of my hobby-horses; the subject of bicycling. I am a member of the all-Party Friends of Cycling group, as well as being a frequent cyclist myself. I am not sure how grateful we should be for the single sentence which makes up Clause 10, which simply enables authorities to provide parking for bicycles.
This clause is the only direct reference to bicycling and it was accepted by the Government at Report stage in another place from a number of clauses introduced by what might be called the bicycling lobby. I realise the difficulty of making a Second Reading speech on a subject so lightly touched upon the Bill, but I should like to make some general comments on the Government's policy and attitude towards cycling.

1611
May I congratulate the Government on another small step, besides Clause 10, which I understand they have taken: that is, the appointment within the Department of Transport of an official with full-time responsibility for cycling. I accept that, compared with some of the subjects that have already been mentioned in this debate today, the claims of cycling may appear to be small and that the great financial and economic decisions on transport are not centred around cycling. But cycling, for all its small scale and cost, affects large numbers of people and much can be done for relatively small expenditure, combined with intelligent planning.
What I would hope is that the Government could develop, at little present cost, a serious long-term strategy for the active encouragement of cycling and do this in such a way that it is not just a response to passing pressures of fashion, as with skate-boarding. My main point is this. One of the chief difficulties in fitting cycling into our urban transport system now is that our towns were not, in the past, planned with the potential of cycling in mind. Are we now planning our towns any better for the future, so that cycling facilities can readily be added when they are required and when we can afford them?
I am really just saying that a little thought now for a future with increased cycling would cost us very little. For example, in planning for new shopping centres, municipal centres and even offices, could not some convenient space be required to be set aside for the parking and access of bicycles, even if now, at present, we cannot afford to provide proper cycle racks and security?
One simple, practical problem for many people who own bicycles is simply where, in their homes, to keep this large piece of machinery safely and conveniently. I have no answer to that and I am not expecting that the Government should provide one, but that is the sort of consideration that long-term thinking about bicycles should include.
In the White Paper on transport paragraphs 128 and 129 make encouraging noises about bicycling, but Clause 10 of the Bill seems a rather minimal result.
1612
I realise that some useful, individual experiments have been taking place and that the response of cyclists to facilities offered to them is far from predictable. The role of the cyclist, historically and legally, seems to have been one of an afterthought, to be fashioned into transport systems after other users have been taken care of. The law on bicycling has developed almost by accident rather than by design and is to be found in over 10 major pieces of legislation. Including bicycles in the same category as motor vehicles often leads to anomalies. For example, I believe I am a law-breaker if I padlock my bicycle to a lamp post or if I wheel my machine on the pavement the wrong way up a one-way street.
Also, bicycle planning law suffers from being an apparent appendage of the planning of highways for motor vehicles. I understand that there is still doubt in the minds of some local authorities as to their legal entitlement to construct cycle-ways separately from roads, and I say this despite what has been already said in another place. I hope that that particular point can be made clearer in the technical note on this subject which the Department of Transport is meant to be sending to local authorities: I say "meant to be sending" because I understand that this technical note is in its eleventh draft and has been floating around for almost two years. May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to urge her Department to get this valuable document into official circulation before her Leader decides to call an election?
Finally, having tried to show the disarray of bicycle law, I do not think it is being merely rhetorical to say, as I do, that what is really required eventually is a separate Bicycle Bill. More realistically, I address that suggestion to the next Government, together with my hopes that they will take a serious long-term view of the role of the bicycle in transport.
2 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, as usual I have to declare an interest in that I own and drive my own farm lorry. At least, I do so when I more or less keep within the many regulations produced by the 101 various bodies which have the power to control me and my lorry. It will therefore come as no

1613
surprise to your Lordships if I complain about Clause 8 of this Bill. In principle, I should like to complain about the whole Bill, but I am told that I must allow our legislators to legislate, otherwise they might get up to worse mischief. Indeed, after listening to the description of the Bill by the noble Baroness, I must say my strength has been somewhat weakened, but I hope that this brief and sad weakening of spirit will soon go away. If there is a weakening of spirits, it is entirely due to the charm of the noble Baroness in putting across this Bill. So I will concentrate my few words on Clause 8 and Schedule 3, which has a particularly harmful effect on lorries operating in the agricultural sphere, particularly in the more remote areas. Until my noble friend Lord Lucas spoke, I thought I might be a little lonely in criticising this clause, but I am flattered to be in such expert company.
I will not bore your Lordships at this stage, though I will at Committee stage, with the exact details of the damage and problems that Clause 8 and Schedule 3 will cause to hauliers, particularly agricultural hauliers in remote districts. Suffice it to say that the clause allows an innocent and guiltless driver to be diverted five miles, and indeed more if the Secretary of State feels that way inclined, without compensation. Although there is a well-established myth that farmers have all the time in the world to hang over gates and philosophise with their animals, I need not tell your Lordships that this is not entirely true, particularly at harvest and seed time. We are as much under pressure as anyone else, if not more so. These regulations will make it that much more onerous at such times, and as the load carried is nearly always perishable, and alive occasionally, and therefore subject to being perished, any delay caused by unnecessary inspection —and I consider this clause of the Bill to cause that—can, to say the least, be expensive, wasteful and even cruel.
The noble Baroness said in her speech that lorries will remain the main source and backbone of moving goods in this country. So be it. Let us try to help them to move goods more efficiently and quickly. I cannot understand how this will be achieved by giving inspectors extra powers to divert further and hold in custody for longer innocent and guiltless lorries, their loads and their drivers.
1614
I will, however, bore your Lordships now with a repeat plea that the Government should be consistent. Most people now realise that our greatest single problem is to increase productivity and reduce unemployment. To achieve this, many if not most now agree that help should be given to new and small businesses to thrive and to start, particularly in the less developed areas of the United Kingdom. Like it or not, the provisions in Clause 8 and Schedule 3 will add yet another nail in the coffin of small businesses, farmers and hauliers in those areas and add, if I may say so, another strawberry leaf to the coronet of that ogre, unemployment. This provision might be possible in our industrial areas—personally, I think not—but it will cause real hardship in our less-favoured remote areas, and I hope when the Bill goes into the Committee that the Government may spare a little thought for those who live in such areas as Devon, Cornwall, Scotland and, last but not least, Wales, and look with favour on the odd Amendment to return this load from the haulier to where it should he, on the instigators and composers of this Bill.
2.5 p.m.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, I begin by begging to differ from my noble friend Lord Lucas. The lines of the poem he quotes, so far as I can remember, run:
"Friday's child is loving and giving;
Saturday's child works hard for its living".
What effect that will have on the Bill I leave to your Lordships' opinion. I certainly wish to support all those, beginning with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who spoke about the community services, particularly where those in rural districts are concerned. I have seen it myself. In bygone years I remember the vital part played by the small and private bus company, usually operated by one or two men, who provided a bus service from the rural village into the nearest town taking both passengers and mail, going out in the morning and coming back in the evening with the incoming passengers and mail and then being prepared to take either lorries or private cars out even to the most remote farms. Circumstances have hit a lot of these people and the result is that some of these outlying farms have been abandoned because of the difficulties caused by lack

1615
of transport. I certainly hope that this Bill will help put back some of these missing aids to the countryside.
My main contribution in this debate is merely to ask the noble Baroness a question. I should appreciate it if she can give the answer in her summing up, which I hope will be in a few minutes' time as I know she has a train to catch. It is rather a hobby-horse of mine regarding Customs clearance. The noble Baroness will remember that on 26th January I asked a Question in this connection about the interest shown by the German Transport Minister, Herr Gscheidle, and the noble Baroness gave a very encouraging reply on which I was able to tender my congratulations. I had also put down a Question, which was to have been asked on the last day before the recent Recess, about the success of the talks with the Transport Minister, and everything had been arranged for him to come over here and discuss matters with Her Majesty's Government. But then the distinguished statesman did not turn up, so I was prevented from throwing any more verbal bouquets at the noble Baroness. I would be particularly grateful if she would let me know, either today or at some convenient time, how much this Bill can help clearance of Customs freight, particularly now that there are complaints that rail transport has been held up while motor transport has seemed to have the priority. Now new regulations have been brought out about which it seems that even the motor transport is getting a little worried.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness has been shown a copy of the magazine Freighting World, of 26th April 1976, in which there was a headline "Port of Dover in diabolical straits", showing how the new entry into the port had been causing delays. Apparently the new system involves computers. I do not know much about computers except that if they are fed the right sort of information they can be very efficient, but if the wrong data go in or if a document has been lost or misfiled or in some way misdirected by some simple human error, it can cause a tremendous tangle to get it all sorted out. The result has been, I believe, an unfortunate loss of confidence by foreign traders in the use of Dover as a port. Therefore, I would ask the noble Baroness if this Bill can assist in the speeding up of
1616
Customs clearance, if there can be any clarification; and if she can give any encouraging replies I am sure they will be very gratefully received by anybody who reads an account of this debate in Hansard.
2.10 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, having listened to all the speeches up to date with the greatest interest, with one notable exception, I have come to the conclusion that it would be in the interests of the substantial remainder of business and also in the interests of the noble Baroness's train to keep my remarks to the minimum. I believe that the Bill which we have examined in some detail this morning is far from the description so glowingly quoted by the noble Baroness. I wish to deal especially with the earlier part of the Bill. I think the noble Baronesss said —I quote her words—that the Bill does not seek to impose new obligations; it should encourage the counties to submit proposals. I believe that the first part of the Bill, contained in the first four clauses, is very far from that description.
The Government have claimed that they wish to devolve transport planning powers, but in reality the effect of the first three clauses is to lay heavy new responsibilities and obligations upon counties. We believe that the effect of these is two-fold, first to erode the freedom of county councils to determine local priorities within the pattern of expenditure on public transport, and secondly, to involve county councils in the straitjacket of a five-year public transport plan which really has no guarantee whatever of financial stability.
Since its introduction in another place the Bill has been amended so that district councils are statutorily drawn into the consultations; this we must welcome. But this is only one small step in the right direction, and your Lordships must remember that in the background are the traffic commissioners who have retained their full powers of veto. Is this consultation, so agreeably applauded, genuine? Is the combination necessary of the five-year public transport plan to be updated annually with a deadline of 31st March and combined with the existing obligation to produce a transport policy proposal with a deadline of 31st July?

1617
These are two extremely complicated proposals run in a double harness. I believe there is an inner conflict which has not totally been grasped either perhaps in the speech we listened to by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, or in certain remarks made by other noble Lords. I believe there is a very great obligation cast upon planning staff. We heard from the noble Baroness that there were four county councils who had followed satisfactorily the procedure up to date, but I cast a doubt on the possibility of all county councils in England and Wales being able to run this duo system—duo system it certainly is—with a degree of accuracy and encouragement. The noble Baroness —.I do not wish to labour the point—said that it should not be too difficult to submit proposals. I believe there is the inner contradiction here that if one knows, as county councils must know, that there is no financial stability to the plan, how can they submit their five-year rolling programme with any degree of confidence? Will there not be an inclination on the part of some county councils to say it is unlikely to be promoted and will they really have to examine the whole thing and expend a great deal of skilled time and effort, or shall they re-submit last year's plan in a new jacket?
We believe, moreover, that there is a particular problem here, because the word "consult" bears further reflection. I think most of us would agree that it means a joint discussion with persons who have a mutual interest, but to the Government, from the drafting of this Bill, it must have a somewhat different connotation. It appears to mean the process of announcement or pronouncement without a degree of willingness to listen, which one would like to see. "Consult" has many meanings; perhaps one of the shrewdest ever written was of that great civil servant and administrator, Samuel Pepys. In his diary of 19th May 1665 he wrote:
"Not to do anything suddenly but to consult my pillow".
I believe there are many occasions when all Governments should consult their pillows before proceeding with a plan so ill-advised as to impose a double harness of proposals in Clauses 1 to 3.
Turning aside from that aspect, I should like to look at the known concept
1618
of the Bill. Here one must applaud the proposals to improverural transport. One of the main aims is to encourage this, but unfortunately commercial minibus services are specifically debarred. Greater use of the school bus and further developing postal bus services have been set aside. Alas, although there is an opportunity here, it has not been fully grasped in the terms in which the Bill is at present drafted.
We are glad that the Private Member's Bill which became an Act at the end of last Session—that is, the Minibus Act promoted by the Conservative Member, Mr. David Hunt—is such a success. This is firm ground on which to build, but we believe that the Government could have made greater use of that. We must welcome from this side of the House, as my noble friend Lord O'Hagan has done, the removal of unnecessary licensing restrictions. Nevertheless, there are still some inhibitions on licensing. I have referred already to the situation regarding minibuses, but there is a specific point; that is, that on no account must drivers be paid professionals; they must be volunteers. Evidently, the Government thought there were some useful possibilities in promoting the concept of the minibus, but we believe that a dead authoritarian hand has clamped down on any really fruitful articulation and extension of this scheme.
I will not refer at any great length to other speeches, despite the fact that I enjoyed them, especially those of my noble friends. References to Clause 8 and the road transport situation made by my noble friends Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Stanley of Alderley will promote Amendments in due course. My noble friend Lord Chesham speaks with great experience in regard to the whole field of transport, but especially in his more recent experience as Director of National Car Parks.
We believe that one of the core clauses in the Bill is the supply clause, Clause 11. I was very interested therefore in the whole speech and remarks of my noble friend Lord Cockfield in this regard. I cannot understand how the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, could so chide him after making such interesting and relevant remarks as he did and referring to the fact that there is no requirement to run the services efficiently; that is, the railways.

1619
My Lords, I believe that my noble friend spoke with realism when he recognised that there are restrictive practices which may have to be bought out, and when he quoted a particular remark—and it does bear repetition—that what is really important is an improvement in the efficiency of the organisation. We shall seek to ensure that that efficiency may perhaps be promoted by Amendments to this Bill, and we shall discuss the matter together.
After speaking for 10 minutes, I must content myself with the reflection that your Lordships have considered this matter now for two hours and 20 minutes, at considerable length; and many of your Lordships have shown a high degree of restraint which alas! was missing from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg.
2.21 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, may I first express my thanks to those of you who have come in on a Friday in order to attend the Second Reading of this Bill. May I at the outset assure the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and other noble Lords who have referred to it, that so far as I am concerned I have no intention whatsoever of spending my August sitting on these Benches dealing with various stages of the Transport Bill, and will certainly do what I can to see that we deal with it at what noble Lords have referred to as a more reasonable time, and that we have adequate time to discuss all the things that have been raised this morning.
I recognise that the Bill does not contain provisions which make all noble Lords happy. At this time of the day, with a long programme in front of the House still, it would be neither right nor proper for me to reply in any very great detail to the many points that have been raised; merely to say that we look forward to an extremely interesting and possibly long Committee stage, with the various hints that have been thrown out this morning. But I hope that I can deal with one or two of the more specific and recurrent points that have come forward.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, apart from referring to the timetable and making a plea for no more Friday sittings on this Bill, I felt gave a muted welcome
1620
at least to parts of the Bill, and did ask why we had not included other major measures, such as action on Blennerhassett. I can say only that this is a short Bill; that we had to be aware of the pressures on Parliamentary time. But it is still our policy, in a future Session of the Government, to introduce a rather more major Transport Bill which will take care of things like drinking/driving, seatbelts and many other perhaps much more contentious items than we have in this Bill. May I also assure the noble Lord that it is the Government's policy to encourage as much traffic as possible off the road and on to the rail, where this is possible and practical. But it is not always so in every case.
So far as the insurance point is concerned, I appreciate the many noble Lord's concern. There was a considerable amount of debate on this when the Bill was going through the Committee stage in another place. My right honourable friend pointed out from the Government side that the law is at least clear, that anyone who uses a vehicle on the road must have a policy, covering that use, in respect of liability for death or bodily injury to third parties, including passengers; and the onus of ensuring that there is proper cover lies with the motorist.
A Press Notice was issued by the insurers in 1975—and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary referred to it—to the effect that receipt of contributions from passengers towards the cost of petrol only would not infringe our normal domestic policies, but that motorists who wished to accept contributions to other costs ought to check with their insurers, and this covered the normal situation where motorists accepted money for lifts. My right honourable friend explained in discussions that the insurers had had with our officials that he was pressing them to go further in bringing the facts to the attention of the individual motorists, and he undertook to probe this further at a meeting that he was to have with them.
I can now bring that story up to date and say that that meeting took place only three days ago. It was most useful in helping to clear a way towards dealing with the kind of problems that have been referred to here and in the earlier debates in another place. The insurers' representatives have now gone away to consult

1621
with their colleagues generally on the matters that were discussed, and they will be reporting back to the Minister on the outcome. I expect to be able to make a much more detailed statement by the time we come to the Committee stage. I hope that perhaps that will meet some of the fears that noble Lords have expressed today.
The question of parking was also raised by most speakers. It is quite obvious that we shall have to devote a lot of time to that section of the Bill—the privately-owned public car parks. But this is only a permissive clause. I think it was my noble friend Lord Wigg who said that the GLC have had the powers but they have not used them. Perhaps none of the other counties will use them, but we feel that, in order for them to have adequate means for traffic management, this is the sort of permissive power that ought to be given to them. However, I cannot see any widespread rush from counties to use it, except where it is necessary for them to carry out proper traffic management.
On the question as to what proposals and effect this Bill would have on devolution, or the effect of devolution Bills on this Bill, which again I think was raised by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, mention has already been made in the course of the passage of the Scotland Bill through this House that some Amendments might have to be made. Indeed, this Bill contains provisions that affect some of the matters that are being devolved under the terms of the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, and Amendments will have to be made to deal with these. For technical reasons—because all Bills are still in the process of passage through the House —they will have to be made at a later stage, either to this Bill or to the relevant constitutional Bill. But in any case, taking the Transport Bill on board in the context of devolution does not really involve any changes of substance to the devolution provisions, and the necessary alterations that we shall have to make in due course will really be only consequential on the progress of this Bill and how it eventually emerges.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, also gave the Bill a modified welcome, and expressed regret about the concessionary fares and the problems of people who
1622
live in countries who may have a concessionary fares scheme but who have not got a bus service on which they can use it. This is one of the hopes arising from the introduction of this Bill which provides for the relaxation of some of the licensing restrictions and the introduction of some of the experimental traffic systems which we are evolving, and that we hope might lead to some considerable improvement in rural transport.
So far as the concessionary fares are concerned, the counties will now have to show them in their reports to the Secretary of State. While I would not go so far as the noble Lord and say that they might shame the other counties into doing better, they might at least be aware of the fact that if they are not doing as well as perhaps the Secretary of State thinks they ought on concessionary fares, this would influence the size of their transport supplementary giant. Those counties which do most to help rural transport are the ones which are likely to get the biggest share of the cake.
The noble Lord also asked me a question about the Freight Integration Council. I understand that that had its last meeting formally on 30th June 1971; that its second and final report was made in July 1973, and in that report it stated that there were no outstanding references to it and it saw no need for any continuous investigations. Since then the Council has been in abeyance, but it has not gone out of existence altogether.
My noble friend Lord Davies and others referred to this rather knotty question of the privately operated car parks and the fact that we are extending the GLC powers to the other counties. The details have to be sent to the Secretary of State and, as I said in my opening speech, there is the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who may order a public inquiry. We are not, in this Bill, getting at the generous farmers alleged to be sitting opposite me who open their fields as car parks on various occasions, and I am sure that we shall get very much more clarification of this clause and shall all understand much more after the Committee stage. But I should like to endorse the tribute that my noble friend made to the performance of the National Freight Corporation. Our aim, through this Bill, is to secure the best possible financial future for the Corporation.

1623
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, referred to the lack of real policy. Our last White Paper really was generously received, and if we come to the situation, after this Session, that we have the Parliamentary time, that we have conquered inflation so that more resources are available, then we will perhaps be able to present a much bigger Bill, one with much more bite in it, and can finish the job. But the real knowledge which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has of the organisation and the running of the car parks I am sure will turn out to be of very great use to all of us when we reach the Committee stage. He asked how much the grants will improve transport efficiency. I should have thought that, if they are freed of the burdens that have been placed on them, then British Rail and the National Freight Corporation would be in a much better position to improve their services; and, certainly, British Rail have made very great efforts over the last two or three years.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, took up again the point of the excess fares. The clause was put in by his honourable friends in another place and was taken out by his honourable friends when it got back on to the Floor of the House. The arguments were well rehearsed in that place, and I am sure that he is as aware as any of us of the problems and the furore that were raised at the thought of bus conductors having to collect the extra fares.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way, but although it might have been done by my honourable friends in another place, it was agreed by the Minister in another place and it was only because of pressures from outside that the clause was again taken out.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, there were very great problems. A considerable furore was aroused about it and I think, perhaps, at this stage we are right to have left it out, but no doubt the noble Lord will return to it if he thinks we ought to put it back now that the Bill is in this House.
My noble friend Lord Wigg, in a very long speech, demonstrated how wide one can go in Second Reading; he was setting
1624
the Bill in a very much wider context than most of us had thought of doing today. But I was delighted to have his general Second Reading support for the Bill, and I look forward to having some support from him when we get to the Committee stage. He also, of course, was very concerned about the question of public parking.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I seem to meet regularly on transport points, and I have no doubt we shall be spending a lot of time together over the next few weeks on this Bill. Clause 8 and Schedule 3 were designed to improve the enforcement controls over badly-maintained and overloaded lorries. The need for stricter enforcement was indicated, we feel, by the fact that one in four of the 25,000 vehicles diverted by the Department's examiners to weighbridges are found to be overloaded; one in five of the 7,000 vehicles diverted by our examiners to testing stations are found to be badly maintained, and one in six in another 63,000 vehicles stopped at the roadside are found to be badly maintained.
Heavy lorries have a great responsibility in moving our goods about the place, in moving them safely, and they must have some regard to good maintenance and to road safety. While the noble Lord referred to a very heavy nutcracker to crack a very small nut, I think it is essential that we build up these aspects of road safety and things that are going to help with it. The present one-mile limit around the weighbridges and the testing stations severely limits our choice of sites for checkpoints; they can readily become well-known and avoided, and the extension of the distance to five miles will widen the choice of sites and will enable more of the lorry routes to be policed more effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has asked for information on the financial aspects. I am sure at this stage of play he would not expect me to go into all the details of that today; no doubt we shall come back to them. But the reconstruction measures are a coherent package. The capital write-down is no larger because it is only for National Carriers and Freightliners. The other companies can be viable within their existing capital structure, so the provisions of the Bill in this respect are not ad hoc or opportunist. A great deal of deliberation went into the

1625
final conclusions, and no doubt we shall be going into much more detail when we come to the Committee stage.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, referred to the needs of cyclists which I could not endorse more. I was delighted at his reference to the perhaps very small but, I think, significant increase in staff at the Department of Transport with special responsibility to look after cyclists. The Under-Secretary in the Department is himself a keen cyclist, which may have some effect. I used to be until my lungs and legs gave out, and I am now a motor cyclist; but we do want to see cycles coming back much more into use, although perhaps it is easier for me to say that, who lives in the flat Fen country, than for people in hilly country. Many of our new towns are showing the way by planning cycle-ways and older towns provide special cycle routes through their streets. I have noted all his comments about the proposed technical note, and I will certainly make inquiries in the Department and see whether it be resurfaced fairly quickly. The Government really do want to encourage more people to use cycles and to use them safely.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, referred to the problems of farmers with agricultural lorries in the remote districts, and again, raised his objections to the diversion for testing. Again, I can only add at this point that it is a question of road safety and that we need sound mechanical vehicles. But I will check in Hansard all the points he made, and if I can help to assuage his fears by writing to him between now and Committee stage, then I will certainly do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, referred to rural transport and also to his hardy question on Customs clearance on rail transport. Here, while I cannot admit that the Bill is going to help particularly in regard to that problem, I can at least give him one bit of good news that we learned only this morning, that Herr Ghsceidle is visiting us on 26th June, and perhaps after that we may have something more to offer him.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to the fact that we are now encouraging the counties to submit these proposals. It should not really be too difficult for
1626
them to work out the proposals in the form we now want them. They have their TPPs, and if they have been doing their job properly, as most of them have, in submitting those, they should be able to abstract the information and send in their plans.
The traffic commissioners? Yes, certainly, they still have a veto, but they are now bound to take account of the counties' plans. They do not necessarily have to accept them, but at least they have to know the way in which the counties are working; and, certainly, we hope the five-year plan will give some stability to the transport provisions that we are asking the counties to make, particularly in the rural areas.
I hesitate to take any longer in replying to points that have been raised in the debate. I know I have not dealt with all the difficulties that noble Lords have raised, and I know that even the ones I have referred to are going to be raised again, in more detail perhaps, at Committee stage. But it is the early clauses that deal in one way or another with the concrete effect of transport at local level. We think it is going to help the local authorities to identify the problem areas of public transport, to tackle the difficulties and to improve their traffic management. It is going to assist the bus operators to plan ahead. It is going to make a contribution to community transport and help us to try out new solutions.
We hope that this Bill will, in a sense, nourish the world of transport in both its realms: that of operations, of the movement of passengers and goods with the least waste, the least danger and the least disturbance that can be contrived; and that of the structure, of the conduct of the public corporations with the greatest efficiency, the greatest harmony and the greatest social concern that can be achieved. I think these are meritorious goals to aim at and I hope, and am reaonably confident, that noble Lords will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I point out that she has not given the customary undertaking that she would write to noble Lords whose points she has not answered verbally. Is she going to do so, particularly to my noble friend Lord Cockfield?
Baroness STEDMAN: I hoped, my Lords, that that was taken for granted, and I will certainly do so.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE AND HOUSING CORPORATION GUARANTEE BILL
2.40 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the sixth major housing measure of this Parliament. It underlines the determination of this Government to give help to those who need it, whatever type of housing tenure they prefer. It is right that housing policy is increasingly expressed in terms of choice and this is the central theme of the Green Paper on housing policy. People should have every possible opportunity to choose their own kind of home. For the Government, this means extending home ownership, strengthening of housing associations and wide-scale provision of public rented housing.
The Bill is about widening choice in both the private and the public sector. It has two major objectives. First, it helps first-time buyers. Secondly, it increases the financial limit on the Housing Corporation's power to guarantee loans. These objectives develop the Governments' policy of concern with the householder, irrespective of the form of tenure he prefers. We need to get away from the sense of conflict between the interests of the home owner and the tenant which has been divisive socially, and has had a malign influence on housing policy.
Most people are either owner-occupiers or tenants in the public sector. These are the dominant tenures and the pattern is unlikely to alter significantly in the future. We have a firm commitment to a continuing public sector programme and it is essential that that public sector should be attractive. It can be so only if it meets needs by providing the homes people want.
1628
As I am talking about the public sector, I shall reverse the order of the Bill and describe its second part first—namely, the Housing Corporation guarantee powers. I believe that that would be for the convenience of noble Lords. Clause 5 of the Bill extends the current upper limit on the power of the Housing Corporation to guarantee loans raised from private sources, mainly by housing associations.
Our 1974 Housing Act provided the impetus for the growth of the housing association in the last few years. The associations now have a programme of over 35,000 homes a year, more than double the level in the years up to 1974. Working with local authorities, associations provide a range of rented accommodation in the public sector, most of it in stress areas. These are housing action areas, general improvement areas, and the inner cities. Another of their streneths lies in meeting the needs of special groups such as the elderly, the disabled, the single young, and mobile workers. They also play a pioneering role in fostering alternative forms of tenure, such as equity-sharing and co-operatives which cater for those who would like a stake in their home but are either not looking for, or cannot afford, complete ownership.
This Bill will help housing associations to build up their activities by raising the £100 million ceiling on the Housing Corporation's power to guarantee the loans they raise from private sources. This ceiling is laid down in Section 10 of the 1974 Housing Act and has now almost been reached. It has been used partly for overdrafts and short-term loans from the clearing banks, and partly to offset the effects of the December 1976 public expenditure cuts. No additional cost will fall on the Housing Corporation, or on public funds, as a result of the increase. The Corporation meets the liability only in the unlikely circumstance of its guarantee being called upon. The decision to allow the power to be used will be one for the Government of the day. The Bill proposes that the limit should be raised to £300 million which, with the approval of Parliament, could be increased to £500 million, which should meet the needs of associations during the foreseeable future.
Therefore, the second part of the Bill will help housing associations to provide

1629
rented accommodation and to increase choice through new forms of tenure. But —and I return to the first objective of the Bill—we recognise that many people want to buy their own home. This is not a new departure. Labour Governments have a good record here, and it is nothing novel for us to recognise that people aspire, quite rightly, to own their own home. For example, in the last 10 years, Labour Governments have introduced the option mortgage scheme, ended the mortgage famine in 1974, developed the concept of mortgage stability, persuaded the building societies to set up support lending, and have taken action to counter excessive rises in house prices. With this Bill, we introduce a unique measure to help first-time home buyers.
The Bill aims to bring home ownership within the reach of more families, and has two main objectives: first, to ease the financial burden in the early years on those who can now only just afford to buy, and, secondly, to help into home ownership some who are now just on the margin, and who could with a little help buy at the right time.
About 40 per cent. of all first-time buyers move from privately rented housing. A further 40 per cent. are setting up a home for the first time, and many face a struggle to raise the deposit. The Bill will ease the financial strains on first-time buyers, especially young couples, and help them to buy earlier. Others will be able to leave unsatisfactory rented accommodation or crowded conditions when they are living with their parents. Too often the strains this puts on marriage lead to marital breakdowns and divorce. And whether family conditions are good or bad, young people should have domestic independence as soon as possible.
The schemes were devised with the building societies, the local authorities, banks and insurance companies. The Bill's proposals should not impose undue burdens on the institutions, especially the building societies, which will carry them out and bear the administrative costs. I should like to record our gratitude for their co-operation and help with the provisions of the Bill.
I must emphasise, however, that savings are fundamental since these are not
1630
"give-away" schemes. Buyers have to prove ability to save over two years or more. The savings requirements demonstrate, first, that people can save—which they must do if they are contemplating house purchase; secondly, we do not want to tempt into home ownership people who do not have the capacity to save and keep up their mortgage payments. Three broad elements determine whether help will be given. The purchase must be for the first time. It must be with a mortgage, and it must be at a price below a regional limit. A £600 loan will be available to those who, first, save for two years; secondly, who keep at least £300 in the account for the 12 months before they apply for a loan; and, thirdly, to those who accumulate £600 by the same date.
For five years the loan will be interest-free and without capital repayments. The benefits will be a major help in building up the necessary initial deposit. And for those who have already saved the deposit, savings are then freed for the expenses normally associated with purchase. The interest freedom means a saving of nearly £4 a month at today's interest rates. The loan, I stress, will be additional to money which the institution would have lent. The mortgage offer which buyers receive will show the amount the society is prepared to offer plus the extra loan. The cash bonus is a further encouragement to save. Again, savings are needed for two years, with at least £300 in the account for the year before they apply for benefit. This qualifies for the minimum bonus of £40. Every £100 over £300 kept for the final year earns an extra £10 up to a maximum of £110. It is cash tax-free and is not repaid. It is worth up to 13 per cent. on savings over the final year.
The lending institutions will pass on bonus and loan at completion of the purchase. After five years, institutions will repay each £600 loan, in full, to the Government from their own resources. At this point the purchaser begins to pay off the £600 to the society over the remaining life of the mortgage. His payments are thus increased at a time when he should normally be better able to afford them.
These are the main elements of the help—and it is worthwhile help. Most

1631
qualifying purchasers will have about £700 extra available at the time of purchase. Forty per cent. of first-time purchasers have a deposit of under £1,000, while nearly 70 per cent. have less than £2,000. So we shall be adding very significantly to their funds. By the mid-1980s, 200,000 buyers a year should benefit, and perhaps for 30,000 the help will make the difference between buying and not buying.
The Secretary of State will set area price limits from time to time, based on prices paid by first-time purchasers in the previous year, and adjusted for price increases. Limits will be set, so that about two-thirds of all first-time purchasers in each region are eligible. This effectively but simply directs help towards the lower end of the market. We estimate that this year two-thirds of first-time purchasers will buy houses of below £16,200 in London, £11,100 in the West Midlands and £10,400 in the North West.
About two thirds of those buying below the price limits should meet the other requirements. On this basis, about 40 per cent. of all first-time purchasers should get help. Benefits will begin to flow in the autumn of 1980. The costs in the first 12 months are estimated at £100 million, but after five years or so costs will decline as the institutions begin to repay the Government loans in full. The finance after that date will be recycled as continuing expenditure on the loans is largely met by repayments of earlier loans. There will be some net public expenditure—perhaps £10 million to £15 million—as the bonus will need to be financed, but the public expenditure for the first two years was allowed for in the last White Paper on public expenditure.
Now, as to the date of implementation, the benefits of the scheme must not be dissipated in higher prices. We shall therefore set an appointed day, as soon as possible after enactment. From then people can save under the scheme and will qualify two years later. This will allow the increased demand to be largely absorbed by increasing the supply of new houses and conversions, without forcing up prices. This is, I believe, very crucial. Proposals were discussed in another place to count savings held before the appointed day and bring payments forward. We have looked at this in great detail to see
1632
whether we could—and should—move in this rather attractive direction. There are merits, I agree, in early implementation, and obviously there are political advantages. But we decided that this would pose major difficulties of equity and administration. And, I repeat, the effect on house prices could throw away the benefits.
I believe that we have put together an effective package of help for first-time buyers in a way in which aspirations can be fulfilled. We are giving all first-time buyers who can meet the savings conditions an enhanced opportunity to get on the housing ladder at an earlier stage in their lives. This Bill may sound financially complex, but its implications are human, and even the rather dull sounding Housing Corporation guarantee power part is really all about homes for people. I hope that this House will expedite the Bill's passage, so that the savings period can begin as soon as possible and people can plan their future with greater confidence. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Baroness Birk.)
2.53 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, all of us, I think, will want to welcome anything, however paltry, which may help to solve the housing problem and also to assist home ownership. Having said that, I am bound to say that I doubt whether either of these two Bills—as I prefer to look upon it—will help very much as they stand. We welcome them all the same, and we welcome them particularly because we believe that some of these powers could be used to particularly good effect when the happy day comes when we have a Conservative Minister of Housing to deploy these powers.
I must try manfully to resist that temptation to embark upon a general debate upon housing at this stage on a Friday afternoon, which I am sure will be to the great relief of all your Lordships, and I will try to stick strictly to what we are talking about in a short a speech as possible. May I welcome what we would regard as the rather belated conversion, on the part of the Party of the noble Baroness, to a sincere belief in and a demonstrable

1633
wish to support individual home ownership. It seems to have taken the Government a very long time to have come to these conclusions, and I have to say that some people could be forgiven if they harboured the unworthy thought that possibly this was bread—or should I say "a crumb"? —being cast upon the waters in the run-up period to an Election. But, of course, no such unworthy thoughts would naturally be entertained by many of us here this afternoon.
The noble Baroness treated us to a good many figures in her commendably compressed speech—if I may say so—and if one looks at the debates in another place, a good deal of bandying about of figures went on. I do not intend to continue that activity here this afternoon. I think a number of points emerged from those discussions. First, the scheme put forward by the Conservatives in their October 1974 Manifesto is roughly twice as generous to the home buyer as this one. Secondly, the Conservatives have declared their intention to reduce stamp duty on houses at the lower end of the market; and that is absent from the Bill. Thirdly, we would not have wasted very many millions of pounds and a good deal of time in the Community Land Act. Also, at the end of the day, it has to be said—and the noble Baroness herself admitted—that this is a very complicated scheme. It seems to us that it is the very complexity which is leading to the delays in implementation and the costly administrative structure which will be needed to look after it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would give way for one moment. There is a point at this stage on which he could perhaps help me. He referred to the Conservative scheme which would be far more generous. It would be helpful to me, even at this stage, to know how it is proposed to pay for it. Where would the money come from? Would it he public expenditure, and if so, what would be cut? As I understand the scheme, it would involve a very large amount of public expenditure. Incidentally, millions have not been spent on the Community Land Act, so it cannot come from that.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, that is the first source. One always runs into this difficulty
1634
in discussing any form of public expenditure. The fact is that it is possible to make savings in other directions. I mentioned one small activity on which we consider the Government have wasted money. There are many others. Clearly, no Opposition will say ahead of time exactly what their budgetary arrangements are going to be; you really cannot expect us to do so. But the fact is that the Conservative Party is quite clearly committed to making these contributions, and it is there in the Manifesto, and the noble Baroness knows it as well as I do. I am not going to speak for the Treasury, which I could not begin to do.
May I come back to this question, because the noble Baroness made a very interesting point, saying, that one of the reasons for delaying implementation of this was to avoid the increase in house prices. I think that this is an important and interesting point—one that I am bound to question. I am also bound to say that I would think that the activities of the Chancellor in the last day or two would add more to the cost of buying a house than would be likely to happen as the result of bringing in this scheme earlier rather than later. We regard that as a direct result of mismanagement of the economy.
There is one other point which is worth making. In the Report stage in another place the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was resisting an Amendment, the purpose of which was to make these grants transferable when a house was subsequently sold. Reading that debate, one had the impression that he had fallen into the trap of failing to appreciate the impact of any one activity in the housing market on all the other things that happened. First-time buyers affect house sellers, and in turn the availability of accommodation has an effect on people's mobility, which indeed was one of the reasons that the Housing Corporation concept was originally set up.
Of course, if mobility is affected, it then becomes more difficult to tackle unemployment, and in turn the activity of the house market affects the building industry which is currently in the doldrums, and I cannot believe that the affairs of the building industry have been greatly helped by the threats of nationalisation which have been hanging over them. So far

1635
as the first half of the Bill is concerned, I can only say one cheer for the home purchase assistance scheme.
Now, my Lords, may I turn to the Housing Corporation guarantee proposals. I think here there is a serious danger of the possible over-expansion of the Housing Corporation's activities and a corresponding explosion in administrative cost. It was many years ago that I was involved in the voluntary housing movement and I remember then that the Housing Corporation was lending £50 million, I think it was, and many of us were worried that already they were taking too much unto themselves. We feared that there would he bureaucratic delay and frustration and added administrative expense, and that this would lead to prejudice of the services of volunteers. It is worth remembering that, when Sir Keith Joseph set up the Housing Corporation, the original intention was to tap the reservior of willing voluntary expertise, which was capable of identifying and satisfying local needs, and this was to be done by helping them with the provision of finance.
I shall resist asking detailed questions about some of the problems of the Housing Corporation; for example, how payments to departing co-owners are being financed —which I believe is still a problem—the problem of the title of the ownership of the property in co-ownerships, what exactly is meant by housing co-operatives, to which the Minister in another place has referred, and also whether the Housing Corporation has ever had any success in raising outside finance in the market, which I seem to remember has always been one of its intentions. I merely mention these in passing.
Certainly the Housing Corporation has grown very large. We are now talking about raising the borrowing limit to £300 million or even £500 million. This leads me to ask the Minister whether it is in fact the intention to try to concentrate housing in the Housing Corporation rather than with the local authorities. My impression is that the local housing activities are very largely being taken over by the Housing Corporation from the local authorities, who presumably have got existing trained staff and expertise and organisational structures available to do the job.
1636
Here again, what concerns me is that if the Housing Corporation expands too much, and if, as a result of expanding too much it has to set up a very large, and possibly over-rigid municipalised structure, this inevitably is going to have its effect in destroying the interest and the availability of those who work in what is after all called the voluntary housing sector, which is supposed to be the third arm of the housing business.
I call in aid no less a person than the ex-chairman of the Housing Corporation, and I commend to any of your Lordships who are familiar with his speeches in this House, if you want a good and amusing quick read, the preface by Lord Goodman to the last report from the Housing Corporation dated 1976–77, which is very good value indeed and written in his own inimitable personal style. He says:
"We are still an over-bureaucratic organisation, but with time this can be corrected and should be corrected".
He then goes on to say that it is necessary to have greater faith, and he says this in connection with the need to decentralise and not he over-restrictive in some of the bureaucratic controls. I mention this because, if one looks at the accounts, they present a slightly alarming picture. One finds that staff salaries in the Housing Corporation have gone up from £1.4 million in 1976 to £1.9 million in 1977, and, if I read the accounts correctly, the overall administrative expense has gone up from £2¼ million in 1976 to £3½ million in 1977.
If that has happened in the face of the chairman saying that they were overbureacratic and needed to reduce their bureaucracy, what will happen when we lend the Housing Corporation a great deal more money? They have increased their overall administrative expense by 50 per cent. in one year. Is there not a danger that this is a trend which is liable to increase? Finally, may I ask the noble Baroness—and this is not intended to be a destructive question, but we are spending £3 million with the Housing Corporation where there is manifestly no end product as such—what in fact do we get in terms of value for that money?
3.8 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, we have already had a busy day's work for a Friday, and we still have a good deal of

1637
business to conduct, so I do not intend to keep your Lordships for more than a few moments. Nor do I intend to speak on the detail of the Bill, which seems to me intended to regulate in a reasonably satisfactory manner some necessary arrangements in the important field of providing homes. But I should like to try to persuade Her Majesty's Government to adopt a shorter Short Title to the Bill—the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Bill. This cumbersome mouthful almost qualifies to be the Long Title, and in future, once it has become law, it will be tedious to refer to and will almost occupy two lines when written. It is a portmanteau title, which seems to aim at meaning all things to all men.
The Bill itself is very concisely drafted, and I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to consider giving the Bill an equally concise title and a much more dignified one. I am proposing that the Bill should be called the Homes and Housing Bill.
3.11 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome given to the Bill this afternoon. We can tell that it is Friday because we are not on Wales or Scotland and there are very few of us here; but those who are here have been very helpful and appreciative. I naturally expected that in some areas noble Lords might feel that we were not going far enough and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, indicated that. He also commented that this had been a long time coming. I do not really think that this is so because the proposals were first made in a Green Paper last year and these were very much more detailed proposals than the ones I was trying to elicit from him during his speech. The introduction of the Bill following up that Paper has been extremely rapid. We considered it such an important part that it was brought forward before any of the other Green Paper proposals. It is a specific scheme and, as I pointed out in a whole series of figures, something that has been carefully and meticulously worked out. If I may say so, this sort of thing takes much longer than just saying that we shall introduce a very much more grandiose
1638
scheme and then being unable—and I am not blaming the noble Lord because it has not been put forward by his colleagues in either House—-to say how in fact it would be paid for.
The value of the help that people will be given, and the assistance which they will receive, will be extremely great and it will be done in a proper way so that one can then build on it, because the Secretary of State has the power by order to increase it as we go along when we can see what the demand is. Also, we must bear in mind the very important question of not rushing ahead so that there is a highly inflationary effect on house prices.
The noble Lord made some comments and asked a number of questions on housing corporations. I think that, if I may, I will take him up on his offer on the questions which he said he was "mentioning" but not "asking" and will write to him about them, for they deserve a much fuller answer that I could give this afternoon. He also talked generally about the Housing Corporation's philosophy and growth and whether it had become a large and over-rigid, formalised structure.
May I say first that, when one is concerned with working with volunteers, as in the housing associations, one of the important things that a corporation of this sort has to do is to provide a structure so that it can register housing associations. It does this if they satisfy management and other criteria, so that it can monitor their performance. The corporation has already identified and taken steps, as we know, against one or two associations before their misdemeanours, or in some cases I might use a stronger word than that became generally known. It has checked housing association projects to ensure the very thing which the noble Lord pointed out, that there is value being given for public money, which is absolutely essential. It advances loans, pays grants to housing associations on behalf of my Department, and generally acts as a clearing house.
This enterprise is on a national basis and I would not have said that a staff of 400–500 with a cost amounting to £1·9 million was frankly untoward if one takes into accoint the inflationary period through which we have been passing. Also, as I pointed out when I was opening, the

1639
housing programme is now running at 35,000 per annum, whereas, in the three years up to 1974 there were only 40,000 houses built. In fact, one is getting an increased value and an increased growth all the time.
The growth in cost has gone hand in hand with a growth in the work load which is placed on the corporation with this tremendously rapid increase. I do not accept that the Housing Corporation is taking over from the local authorities. They play a large part and will continue to do so in the housing association movement. Both are continuing on their way forward and are really complementary. As the noble Lord himself said, it is important to have a flexible framework in which one can have different types of housing. As I pointed out, the housing associations are very often meeting different needs and different demands from the local authorities. The split between them is about 70 per cent. by the Housing Corporation and 30 per cent. by the local authority.
I am not saying that everything is always perfect: it would be stupid to say so of any organisation. There are, possibly, unnecessary pockets of bureaucracy and maybe there are areas which are developing better and more fruitfully than others. But, overall, the Housing Corporation is doing an extremely good job. It clearly does need more room for expansion and it cannot expand without greater finance. Its activities, I assure the noble Lord, are very closely watched. It also has the opportunity to come forward with different ideas which it wants to try out, which I am sure is something that he would appreciate and support. This gives a better range and more ingenuity in our whole housing policy.
Local authorities are not in a position to carry out these extensive duties nor, because of their set-up and their own responsibilities, are they in a position to take a lead in the way that the corporation does. Therefore, I would say that on the whole the Corporation has nothing to apologise for, although I agree that it is something which one has to keep an eye on. I agree that any body has to make sure that it does not become rigid, and the stress on the need for flexibility and cutting out and unnecessary bureaucracy is absolutely fair. I assure
1640
the noble Lord that that is something which we are watching.
The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, restricted his remarks to the Title of the Bill. I agree that it is a very short Bill and a very long Short Title. I do not think it is very stylish: it has no elegance about it. It does not trip very easily off the tongue but what it does—which is absolutely essential—is to explain exactly what the Bill is all about. It sums it up in one sentence, which is more than one can say about many other pieces of legislation. However, I note the noble Earl's point and next time we have a Bill coming along like this, we will certainly try to do better, not by increasing the size of the Bill—I am sure that he would not want that—but by reducing the size of the Title.
I hope that the two noble Lords who have spoken will be fairly satisfied with the answers they have been given and should like to thank them for their helpful contributions. I really believe, as I am sure they do, that the enactment of this legislation will be a further helpful step in achieving housing objectives which we all share and I hope that the piece about the Bill coming to this House which appears in today's Evening Standard and which says that the Home Purchase Assistance Bill is to be "defeated" in the House of Lords today is a Freudian or a literal error rather than a statement of fact. Therefore, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill and I hope for unanimous support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS AND MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill [80] as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1.]
Clause 6, page 6, line 44, leave out subsection (6).
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. At present Clause 6, which is the clause enabling a court to make a consent order where the parties are in agreement, contains a provision which states that if the court decides not to make an order under that clause, it may proceed with the case as if an application had been made for an order under Clause 2. This provision is in subsection (6); the Amendment removes it. This Amendment was proposed by the Opposition in another place. The Government saw no reason to oppose it. We came to the conclusion that there was justification for saying that Clause 6(6) puts the respondent at some disadvantage.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.20 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2 to 5.]
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement
'.—(1) Where the parties to a marriage have been living apart for a continuous period exceeding three months, neither party having deserted the other, and one of the parties has been making periodical payments for the benefit of the other party or of a child of the family, that other party may apply to a magistrates' court for an order under this section, and any application made under this subsection shall specify the aggregate amount of the payments so made during the period of three months immediately preceding the date of the making of the application.
(2) Where on an application for an order under this section the court is satisfied that the respondent has made the payments specified in the application, the court may, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, make one or both of the following orders, that is to say—

(a) an order that the respondent shall make to the applicant such periodical payments, and for such term, as may be specified in the order;

(b) an order that the respondent shall make to the applicant for the benefit of a child of the family to whom the application relates, or to such a child, such periodical payments, and for such term, as may be so specified.

(3) The court in the exercise of its powers under this section—

(a) shall not require the respondent to make payments which exceed in aggregate during
1642
any period of three months the aggregate amount paid by him for the benefit of the applicant or a child of the family during the period of three months immediately preceding the date of the making of the application;

(b) shall not require the respondent to make payments to or for the benefit of any person which exceed in amount the payments which the court considers that it would have required the respondent to make to or for the benefit of that person on an application under section 1 of this Act;

(c) shall not require payments to be made to or for the benefit of a child of the family who is not a child of the respondent unless the court considers that it would have made an order in favour of that child on an application under section 1 of this Act.

(4) Where on an application under this section the court considers that the orders which it has the power to make under this section would not—

(a) provide reasonable maintenance for the applicant, or

(b) if the application relates to a child of the family, would not provide, or make a proper contribution towards reasonable maintenance for that child,

the court shall refuse to make an order under this section, but the court may treat the application as if it were an application for an order under section 2 of this Act.
(5) The provisions of section 3 of this Act shall apply in relationto an application for an order under this section as they apply in relation to an application for an order under section 2 of this Act subject to the modification that for the reference in subsection (1) of the said section 3 to the occurrence of the conduct which is alleged as the ground of the application there shall be substituted a reference to the living apart of the parties to the marriage.
(6) The provisions of section 4 of this Act shall apply in relation to an order under this section which requires periodical payments to be made to the applicant for his own benefit as they apply in relation to an order under section 2(1)(a) of this Act.
(7) The provisions of section 5 of this Act shall apply in relation to an order under this section for the making of periodical payments in respect of a child of the family as they apply in relation to an order under section 2(1)(c) of this Act.'
Clause 7, page 7, line 23, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 7, page 7, line 28, leave out 'or 6' and insert', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 7, page 7, line 30, leave out 'or 6' and insert', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth

1643

agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 10, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 61, 62, 63, 64, 71 and 74.
The new clause enables an applicant to apply for an order for financial provision in a case where the parties to the marriage are living apart by agreement and there are no grounds in Clause 1 on which an application for an order can be made. It was argued in another place that while the grounds for the making of an order in a disputed case should be as recommended by the Law Commission is set out in Clause 1 of the Bill, and the provision now in Clause 6 for the making of a consent order should also be preserved, there was a further case which merited consideration and which was not covered by the Bill; that is, where the parties to the marriage have agreed to separate and the respondent is making voluntary payments, but he has not agreed to the making of an order for a specific amount under the procedure laid down. Subsection (6) of the clause enables the court to proceed in such a case on the basis of an implied consent by the respondent, and to make an order for an amount which is related to the payment he has made, thus affording the separated wife the security of a court order.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, this is plainly an improvement to the Bill. It adds to the already fairly substantial flexibility of what the magistrates' courts can do. I am very glad that now, even in this Bill, when a gap has been found, the Government have agreed to fill it. It brings about the most enormous number of consequential Amendments, but those will not have to be discussed any further. I am entirely in agreement with the course of taking them all in this way, as the noble Lord has suggested.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 6 and 7.]
Clause 7, page 7, line 34, leave out 'the right of'
1644
Clause 7, page 7, line 34, leave out second ' of' and insert' by'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
With the leave of the House I should also like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 28. These are drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. — (Lord Harris of Greenwich.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 8 and 9.]
Clause 10, page 11, line 1, after '10' insert—
'( ) Where on an application under section 1 of this Act the court, although not satisfied of any ground mentioned in that section, makes an order under section 7(2) of this Act giving to the applicant the right to the actual custody of a child of the family, the court shall have the same powers to make an order in respect of that child under section 2(1) (c) and (d) of this Act as the court would have if it were so satisfied.'
Clause 10, page 11, leave out lines 11 to 21 and insert—
'(7) Where the court, by virtue of subsection (6) of section 7 of this Act, directs that an order made under subsection (2) of that section in respect of a child, or the provision thereof providing for the custody of the child, shall not have effect until the expiration of a specified period or the occurrence of a specified event, an order made in respect of that child under subsection (1)(a) or (2)(a) above shall only require payments to be made from the date on which the order made under section 7(2) of this Act, or that provision thereof, takes effect.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
With the leave of the House, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 45, 46 and 48.
This group of Amendments is intended to deal with a lacuna in the Bill which was drawn to the Government's attention by the Magistrates' Association. Its purpose is to ensure that, whatever the circumstances of a particular case, a court will always be able to make a maintenance order for a child. The existing law is embodied in the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act 1960, and provides that where a court has begun to hear

1645
a case, then, whether or not the court makes the order which is subject to the application, it may in any event make an order for the custody, care, supervision and maintenance of the child. This ensures that whatever the rights and wrongs of the matrimonial situation the court may make orders in the interests of the children.
The Law Commission recommended that the effect of existing law on this point should be preserved. In general, the Bill gives effect to this recommendation. However, there is one type of case which is not covered by the Bill at present. That is where an applicant applies for an order under Clause 1, but fails to satisfy the court on any of the grounds in, that clause. Such a situation could arise either because the applicant does not have a case on any of the grounds in Clause 1 or because, as quite often happens, she and the respondent may come to an agreement not to pursue this part of the application, but to deal only with the question of custody and maintenance of the children. In such a case, if custody of the children is then awarded to the applicant, there is no power to award maintenance for them under the Bill as it stands. The Amendments will enable the court to make such an order.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, this gives teeth to the principle in Clause 13 that we put into the Bill, that whenever the court does have an opportunity to look at the interests of the child or children, it should be enabled to do so. This is a case where the court is being given powers which it did not have when it was omitted from the Bill. It is a tribute to the diligence of the Magistrates' Association that it followed this through so carefully and pointed out a lacuna that even the Government had failed to notice. In my view, it is entirely right that it should be filled.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 10.]
Clause 11, page 12, line 23, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 11.]
Clause 11, page 14, line 12, leave out 'both' and insert 'any'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. This is a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 12.]
After clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Access to children by grandparents
.—(1) A magistrates' court, on making an order under section 7(2) of this Act regarding the legal custody of a child or at any time while such an order is in force, shall have power on an application made by a grandparent of the child, to make such order requiring access to the child to be given to that grandparent as the court thinks fit.
(2) Subsections (5), (6), (7)(b) and (8) of section 7 and subsection (9) of section 9 of this Act shall apply in relation to an order under this section as they apply in relation to an order under section 7(2)(b) of this Act.
(3) Where a magistrates' court has made an order under subsection (1) above requiring access to a child to be given to a grandparent, the court shall have power to vary or revoke that order on an application made—

(a) by that grandparent, or

(b) by either party to the marriage in question, or

(c) if the child is not a child of both the parties to the marriage, by any person who though not a party to the marriage is a parent of that child.

(4) Section 11 of this Act shall apply in relation to the exercise by a court of its powers under this section on an application under subsection (1) or (3) above as it applies in relation to the exercise by the court of its powers under sections 7 to 9 of this Act on an application under section 1 of this Act, and any reference to a party to the proceedings in

1647
subsection (4) or (5) of section 11 of this Act shall include—

(a) in the case of an application under subsection (1) above, a reference to the grandparent who has made an application under that subsection; and

(b) in the case of an application under subsection (3) above, a reference to the grandparent who has access to the child under the order for the variation or revocation of which the application is made.

(5) Where an order made under section 7(2)(a) of this Act in relation to a child ceases to have effect, whether by virtue of an order or direction of a magistrates' court or by virtue of any provision of this Part of this Act, any order made under this section regarding access to the child by a grandparent shall also cease to have effect.
(6) A court shall have power to make an order under this section in favour of a grandparent of a child notwithstanding that the child is illegitimate.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons on their Amendment No. 12. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 49, 58, 59, 65, 66, 67, 70, 73, 75, 76, 89, 90 and 92.
This group of Amendments deals with cases where a grandparent wishes to see his grandchild and, for one reason or another, is denied access. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, there had been concern about this problem for some time. In the last Session a Bill was introduced in another place which would have allowed grandparents to apply for access to their grandchildren, but it failed to make progress because, as is often the case, there was a lack of Parliamentary time. This Bill has now offered another opportunity to do something about this problem. At the Committee stage in another place Amendments were inserted to allow grandparents to apply for access to their grandchildren.
The difficulty about these Amendments was that they allowed grandparents a completely unrestricted right to institute proceedings. The Government have considerable sympathy with the objective of allowing grandparents to see a grandchild where this is in the child's interests. We do not feel, however—this view is shared by those whom we have consulted, including the Law Commission, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the President of the Family Division—that that right should be totally unrestricted. Where a child is living with
1648
both his parents in an ordinary happy home, we think it would be undesirable to allow grandparents to disrupt the family by instituting court proceedings. The Government therefore removed the Amendments which we are now considering at Report stage in another place.
These Amendments allow a grandparent to apply for access in two broad categories of case, first, where the parents have separated and secondly, where one or both of the parents are dead. The Amendments do not deal with cases where the parents are divorced, this is because there is already power under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 for a divorce court to grant a grandparent access. No further provision in these cases is therefore necessary.
I will now describe briefly the effect of these Amendments. There are two new clauses. The first deals with cases where the parties bring matrimonial proceedings under Part I of the Bill; that is, cases where parties to the marriage are separated and are applying for maintenance, custody and so on. The new clause provides that, where the court makes an order in matrimonial proceedings relating to the custody of the child, a grandparent may apply for access. The grandparent may apply either in the course of the matrimonial proceedings or afterwards.
The second new clause introduces a new provision into the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971. This Act is often invoked by parties to a marriage who do not wish to bring matrimonial proceedings, for example because they have regularised other matters by agreement and are concerned only about the arrangements for the children. In that event, there is provision in Section 9 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 for either parent to apply for an order for custody or access. Subsection (1) of the new clause provides that, where one of the parties obtains an order under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, a grandparent may apply for access. As in the case of matrimonial proceedings, the grandparent may apply at the same time or afterwards My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the real credit for these Amendments must be given to my honourable friend the Member for Cambridge who has been campaigning for this for some time. So far as I know, he is entirely happy that the applications that the grandparents can make, either under Amendment No. 12 or Amendment No. 67, which is the other Amendment about which the noble Lord spoke, have to be confined to cases where the court is already seized of the matter under proceedings started by somebody else. That will then give them the opportunity rather than allowing them completely free access which was the original idea. This seems to me to be an improvement, and I welcome the two new clauses and all the consequential Amendments that go with them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 13 and 14.]
Clause 14, page 15, line 32, after 'respondent' insert '(or would be in such danger if the applicant or child were to enter the matrimonial home)'
Clause 14, page 15, line 37, at end insert—
'(3A) Where the court makes an order under subsection (3) above, the court may, if it thinks fit, make a further order requiring the respondent to permit the applicant to enter and remain in the matrimonial home.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which I move en bloc.
These Amendments give magistrates power where they have made an order under Clause 14 subsection (3) excluding a violent spouse from the matrimonial home, to make a further order requiring the violent party to permit the victim of the violence to return to the home and remain in it. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, argued persuasively during the passage of the Bill in this House that magistrates should be given this power. The purpose of the power is to stop a violent spouse who is excluded from the home taking steps such as changing the locks (to take one fairly obvious example) to prevent the other party who has fled, from going back to the matrimonial house and occupying it. The Government agreed to look at the matter again in consultation with the Law Commission, and the result of our consultation
1650
was that the Law Commission and the President of the Family Division both agreed that it would be desirable to make this change. The Government therefore put down these Amendments. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, all I need to say is a word of thanks to the Government for the further consultations and for accepting the idea that I put forward. There has been a considerable clarification of this whole area of the law not only with the introduction of these Amendments but with the decision of this House in Davis and Johnson, and I think that we have now reached the state where there is reasonable consistency over the whole field of the three pieces of legislation that concern this particular matter. I am very glad to see these Amendments and I welcome them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 15 and 16.]
Clause 14, page 16, line 18, at end insert—
'(6A) An expedited order shall not take effect until the date on which notice of the making of the order is served on the respondent in such manner as may be prescribed or, if the court specified a later date as the date on which the order is to take effect, that later date, and an expedited order shall cease to have effect on whichever of the following dates occurs first, that is to say—

(a) the date of the expiration of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the making of the order; or

(b) the date of the commencement of the hearing, in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, of the application for an order under this section.'

Clause 14, page 16, line 21, leave out 'rules made under section 15(3) of this Act' and insert 'subsection (6A) above'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, which I would move en bloc, and with the leave of the House I should also like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. These Amendments have the effect of providing on the face of the Bill for the

1651
duration of so-called expedited orders, that is to say of personal protection orders, which are made in an emergency without the normal procedural requirements being satisfied. At present, the Bill leaves this to be dealt with by rules of court. It was argued during the passage of the Bill in another place that the duration of an expedited order was a matter of sufficient importance to warrant the inclusion of provisions in the Bill itself. The Government undertook to consider the matter and subsequently introduced these Amendments at the Report stage in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 17.]
Clause 15, page 16, line 29, leave out subsection (1).
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17, and, with the leave of the House, I should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 21. These Amendments provide for subsection (1) of Clause 15 to be omitted and for a new clause to be inserted after Clause 15. So far as subsection (1) of Clause 15 is concerned, this provision now appears as subsection (4) of the new clause, so nothing has been lost from the Bill. The change of substance is the other provisions in the new clause. These enable a magistrates' court to attach a power of arrest to a personal protection order or a domestic exclusion order where the court is satisfied that the respondent has physically injured the applicant and considers that he is likely to do so again.
Where the court does attach such power of arrest to an order, a police officer may arrest the respondent without warrant if he has reasonable cause for suspecting that the respondent is in breach of the order, and bring him before a justice of the peace, who may then remand him in accordance with the normal procedure to be dealt with by a court for the alleged breach. I beg to move.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the essence of the new clause in Amendment No. 21 really is speed of action where it has already been established before the court in the first instance that one of the parties to the marriage, or a child, might be in danger. It is not much use at that stage having to go back again to the court next day if the policeman finds the husband standing on the doorstep waving something very large and heavy. Therefore, this does seem a sensible provision, particularly since the court will already have had an opportunity to consider the matter before they give to a constable this power to arrest on the spot.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 18 and 19.]
Clause 15, page 17, leave out lines 6 to 13.
line 14, leave out from 'of' to end of line 16 and insert 'subsection (6A) of section 14 of this Act of an expedited order shall not prejudice the making of a further expedited order under that section.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. These are consequential Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 20.]
Clause 15, page 17, line 16, at end insert—
'(5) Except so far as the exercise by the respondent of a right to occupy the matrimonial home is suspended or restricted by virtue of an order made under subsection (3) of section 14 of this Act, an order made under that section shall not affect any estate or interest in the matrimonial home of the respondent or any other person.'
3.40 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. This Amendment inserts a provision in the Bill to make it clear that the making of a domestic exclusion order under Clause 14 subsection (3) does not affect the property

1653
rights of the parties concerned. Concern was expressed on this point by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, during the passage of the Bill through this House, and the Government agreed to look at the matter again. We have consulted the Law Commission and the President of the Family Division, and they have recommended that there should be an express provision on this point in the Bill.
Where the court makes a domestic exclusion order, this will prevent the excluded party from occupying the matrimonial home for as long as the order is in force even though he may be the sole owner of the home. But a magistrates' court order does not deprive him of his ownership nor does it affect the rights of third parties who might be involved, such as a building society which lent the purchase money on the mortgage. The Amendment makes this clear. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, again I say "Thank you" to the Government. It would be quite wrong for the magistrates' courts to be able to make an order that affects any property rights. It was really the fear of this happening if we had a provision such as what is now Amendment No. 14 that, at the time of the Bill being in this House previously, restrained the Government from accepting my suggestion of Amendment No. 14. I am very glad therefore that they have been able to deal with both parts of this matter.
I think I am right that this House sitting judicially has really laid down the same rule for similar orders in the county court in the case of Davis and Johnson. So again the law will now all be in line wherever one of these disputes has to be settled and wherever these powers of exclusion are used. It seems to me entirely admirable that we should make it clear on the face of this Bill when we have the opportunity.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Nos. 21 and 22]
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
Powers of arrest for breach of s. 14 order.
'.—(1) Where a magistrates' court makes an order under section 14 of this Act which provides that the respondent—

(a) shall not use violence against the person of the applicant, or

(b) shall not use violence against a child of the family, or

(c) shall not enter the matrimonial home,
the court may, if it is satisfied that the respondent has physically injured the applicant or a child of the family and considers that he is likely to do so again, attach a power of arrest to the order.

(2) Where by virtue of subsection (1) above a power of arrest is attached to an order, a constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable cause for suspecting of being in breach of any such provision of the order as is mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above by reason of that person's use of violence or, as the case may be, his entry into the matrimonial home.
(3) Where a power of arrest is attached to an order under subsection (1) above and the respondent is arrested under subsection (2) above—

(a) he shall be brought before a justice of the peace within a period of 24 hours beginning at the time of his arrest, and

(b) the justice of the peace before whom he is brought may remand him.

In reckoning for the purposes of this subsection any period of 24 hours, no account shall be taken of Christmas Day, Good Friday, or any Sunday.
(4) Where a court has made an order under section 14 of this Act but has not attached to the order a power of arrest under subsection (1) above, then, if at any time the applicant for that order considers that the other party to the marriage in question has disobeyed the order, he may apply for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of that other party to a justice of the peace for the commission area in which either party to the marriage ordinarily resides; but a justice of the peace shall not issue a warrant on such an application unless—

(a) the application is substantiated on oath, and

(b) the justice has reasonable grounds for believing that the other party to the marriage has disobeyed that order.

(5) The magistrates' court before whom any person is brought by virtue of a warrant issued under subsection (4) above may remand him.'
Clause 16, page 17, line 19, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. These are consequential Amendments.
Moved, that this House doth agree

1655
with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 23 to 27.]
Clause 16, page 17, line 30, leave out from beginning to 'power' in line 33.
Clause 16, page 17, line 36, leave out 'that child' and insert 'any child of the family who is under the age of eighteen'
Clause 16, page 17, line 37, leave out first 'the' and insert 'such a'
Clause 16, page 17, line 39, at beginning insert 'power'
Clause 16, page 17, line 42, leave out 'the court shall have power'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, which I move en bloc. These Amendments relate to the powers of the court to make interim maintenance orders under Clause 16. As the Bill stands, before the court may make an interim maintenance order it must be satisfied that the applicant, or a child of the family, is in immediate need of financial assistance. There is no such restriction on the powers of the court to make interim maintenance orders under existing law as provided by Section 6 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act 1960. It is simply left to the court's discretion to make an interim order if it thinks it appropriate.
Moreover, the provisions of Clause 16 also differ from the corresponding provisions for maintenance proceedings contained in Claude 40 of the Bill. There is no requirement in Clause 40 that the applicant be in immediate need of financial assistance. We think it is right to preserve existing law on this point; the Amendments therefore remove the requirements at present in Clause 16. The applicant, or a child, should be in immediate need of financial assistance before the court may make an interim maintenance order and it is left entirely to the court to decide whether or not such an order is appropriate.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 28 to 33.]
Clause 16, page 17, line 46, leave out 'the right of'
Clause 16, page 18, line 12, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 16, page 18, line 25, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 16, page 18, line 40, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 16, page 19, line 11, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
Clause 17, page 19, line 40, at end insert—
'(2A) Where a magistrates' court has made an order under section (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement) of this Act for the making of periodical payments, the court shall have power, on an application made under this section, to vary or revoke that order.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 to 33 en bloc. These are consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 34 and 35.]
Clause 17, page 20, line 28, leave out 'or revokes'
Clause 17, page 20, line 31, after 'payments' insert 'as so varied'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. These Amendments are purely technical drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 36 to 53.]
Clause 17, page 21, line 15, after '6' insert '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 17, page 21, line 31, after '6' insert '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 17, page 21, line 36, after '6' insert '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 17, page 21, line 38, after '6' insert '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
Clause 18, page 21, line 40, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 18, page 22, line 8, after '8' insert 'or' leave out 'or 10'
Clause 18, page 22, line 10, leave out 'or 6 ' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 18, page 22, line 14, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
Clause 18, page 22, line 16, after '8' insert 'or'
Clause 18, page 22, line 17, leave out 'or 10'
Clause 18, page 22, line 34, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 18, page 22, line 35, at end insert—
'(5A) Any reference to section 10(1), (2) or (7) of this Act to an order made under section 7(2) of this Act includes a reference to an order made under the said section 7(2) by virtue of this section and to an order made under the said section 7(2) which is varied under this section, and any reference in section 10(3) of this Act to an order made under section 9(1) of this Act includes a reference to an order made under the said section 9(1) by virtue of this section, and where by virtue of an order under this section the right to the actual custody of a child is given to the person who made the original application for an order under section 1 or 6 of this Act, the court shall have power to make an order under section 2(1)(c) and (d) of this Act in respect of that child.'
Clause 20, page 23, line 19, after 'section' insert (Access to children by grandparents) (3)'
Clause 22, page 24, line 13, after 'Act' insert (otherwise than on an application under section (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement) of this Act)'
Clause 22, page 24, line 32, after 'Act' insert '(otherwise than on an application under section (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement) of this Act)'
Clause 22, page 24, line 44, at end insert—
'(2A) Any order made under section (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement) of this Act, and any interim maintenance order made on an application for an order under that section, shall cease to have effect if the parties to the marriage resume living with each other.'
Page 25, line 2, after '(1)' insert 'or (2A)'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree wih the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36 to 53 en bloc. These are consequential Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 54 to 57.]
Clause 25, page 25, leave out lines 36 to 41 and insert 'an order under this Part of this Act'
Clause 25, page 26, line 1, after second 'court' insert 'then, except in the case of an order for the payment of a lump sum'
Clause 25, page 26, line 3, leave out 'under this part of this Act' and insert 'by a magistrates' court.'
Clause 25, page 26, line 5, at end insert—
'(2) Where after the making by a magistrates' court of an order under subsection (3) of section 14 of this Act in relation to a matrimonial home, one of the parties to the marriage in question applies for an order to be made in relation to that matrimonial home under—

(a) section 1(2) of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967 (which enables an application to be made for an order relating to rights of occupation under that Act or relating to the exercise by either spouse of a right to occupy a dwelling house), or

(b) section 4 of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 (which enables an application to be made for an order relating to the exercise of the right to occupy a dwelling house where both spouses have joint rights),

the High Court or county court by which that application is heard may, if it thinks fit, direct that the order made under subsection (3) of section 14 of this Act, and any order made under subsectio (3A) of that section in relation to that matrimonial home, shall cease to have effect on such date as may be specified in the direction.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be taken as prejudicing the effect of any order made by the High Court or a county court so far as it implicitly supersedes or revokes an order or part of an order made by a magistrates' court.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 to 57. I propose to move these en bloc. These are technical Amendments which are designed to clarify the relationship between orders which have been made by magistrates' courts in matrimonial proceedings under Part I of the Bill and orders made by the High Court or a county court in subsequent divorce proceedings.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 58.]
Clause 26, page 26, line 41, at end insert '(Access to children by grandparents) (3)'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58. This is a consequential Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 59.]
Clause 27, page 27, leave out lines 24 to 27.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59 and, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88 and 91. These are drafting Amendments. They take account of a technical change made in Section 15(1) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 by the Administration of Justice Act 1977.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 60.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
Constitution of courts
'.—(1) Where the hearing of an application under section 1 of this Act is adjourned after the court has decided that it is satisfied of any ground mentioned in that section, the court which resumes the hearing of that application may include justices who were not sitting when the hearing began if—

(a) the parties to the proceedings agree; and

(b) at least one of the justices composing the court which resumes the hearing was sitting when the hearing of the application began.

(2) Where, by virtue of subsection (1) above, among the justices composing the court which resumes the hearing of an application under section 1 of this Act there are any justices who were not sitting when the hearing of the application began, the court which resumes the hearing shall before making any order on the application make such inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case as will enable the justices who were not sitting when the hearing began to be fully acquainted with those facts and circumstances.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60. This new clause is intended
1660
to deal with a practical problem which arises at present in matrimonial cases, causing difficulties to the courts and distress to the parties. It provides that where a court has reached a decision on an application under Clause 1 and then adjourns to consider some further matter arising, then, if for some reason it is not possible for the same court to continue with the case, a differently constituted court may resume the hearing.
At present, if the same court cannot continue—for instance, if one of the justices has died or been taken ill—the new court has to hear the entire proceedings afresh. This may cause considerable delay and obvious distress to the parties concerned. The new clause contains three safeguards. The first is that the parties must consent to the reconstituted court continuing with the case. This was a provision which was suggested by the Magistrates' Association. I think it introduces an extremely valuable safeguard to the parties.
The second is that at least one justice on the reconstituted court should have been a member of the court which originally heard the case. This safeguard was asked for in another place and I think it is, in fact, a useful precaution.
Finally, the new clause contains a requirement that the court which resumes the hearing must, before it makes any order in the case, make such inquiries into the facts and circumstances as will allow the justices who were not members of the first court to be fully acquainted with the case.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it is not really just a matter of a justice being taken ill or, unfortunately, dying. If you have a very busy petty sessional division, it is not by any means easy to assemble the same bench of justices because one of them may be sitting on another court somewhere else, or doing some other important business. So the alternative to having this is either to start again or to have a very long wait. In either case, I would have thought that, in these sorts of proceedings, it was undesirable to do that and that this was a very happy compromise. The noble Lord has described the three safeguards, which

1661
seem to me to meet any possible criticism, so I welcome this as a further improvement to the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 61 to 67.]
Clause 31, page 29, line 18, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 31, page 29, line 42, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 31, page 30, line 5, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 31, page 30, line 17, leave out 'or 6' and insert ', 6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
Clause 33, page 31, line 38, leave out 'regarding the custody of a minor'
Clause 33, page 32, line 5, at end insert—
'(3) Any order made in respect of a minor under section 9(1), 10(1)(a) or 11(a) of this Act shall cease to have effect when the minor attains the age of eighteen.'
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
Access to minors by grandparents under Guardianship of Minors Act 1971
'. In the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 the following heading and section shall be inserted after section 14:
"Access to minors by grandparents
14A.—(1) The court, on making an order under section 9(1) of this Act or at any time while such an order is in force, may on the application of a grandparent of the minor make such order requiring access to the minor to be given to the grandparent as the court thinks fit.
(2) Where one parent of a minor is dead, or both parents are dead, the court may, on an application made by a parent of a deceased parent of the minor, make such order requiring access to the minor to be given to the applicant as the court thinks fit.
(3) Section 11A(2) of this Act shall apply in relation to an order made under this section as it applies in relation to an order made under section 9(1), 10(1)(a), or 11(a) of this Act.
(4) The court shall not make an order under this section with respect to a minor who is for the purposes of Part II of the Children Act 1948 in the care of a local authority.
(5) Where the court has made an order under subsection (1) above requiring access to a minor to be given to a grandparent, the court may vary or discharge that order on an application made—

(a) by that grandparent, or

(b) by either parent of the minor, or

1662

(c) if the court has made an order under section 9(1)(a) of this Act giving the legal custody of the minor to a person other than one of the parents, that person.

(6) Where the court has made an order under subsection (2) above requiring access to a minor to be given to a grandparent, the court may vary or discharge that order on an application made—

(a) by that grandparent, or

(b) by any surviving parent of the minor, or

(c) by any guardian of the minor.

(7) Section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973 shall apply in relation to an application under this section as it applies in relation to an application under section 5 or 9 of this Act, and any reference to a party to the proceedings in subsection (2) or (3) of the said section 6 shall include—

(a) in the case of an application under subsection (1) or (2) above, a reference to the grandparent who has made an application under either of those subsections,

(b) in the case of an application under subsection (5) or (6) above, a reference to the grandparent who has access to the minor under the order for the variation or discharge of which the application is made.

(8) Where, at any time after an order with respect to a minor has been made under subsection (1) above, no order is in force under section 9 of this Act with respect to that minor, the order made under subsection (1) above shall cease to have effect.
(9) A court may make an order under this section in favour of a grandparent of a minor notwithstanding that the minor is illegitimate."."
3.49 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 67 en bloc. These are consequential Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 68 and 69.]
Clause 38, page 35, line 17, leave out 'the mother or father' and insert 'each parent'
Clause 38, page 35, line 21, leave out 'the mother or father' and insert 'each parent'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 68 and 69. These Amendments make a small, technical improvement to the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 70 and 71.]
Clause 52, page 47, line 36, after '15' insert '(Access to children by grandparents), (powers of arrest for breach of s. 14 order)'.
Clause 52, page 47, after "15" insert '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 70 and 71. These are consequential Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 72.]
Clause 52, page 47, line 36, after '24' insert '25(1)(b), (c) and (cc), 25(2)'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 72 and, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak at the same time, to Amendment No. 72A. This Amendment is consequential on the Amendments to Clause 25.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, we cannot agree to Amendment No. 72, can we? We have to agree to Amendment No. 72A first and then to Amendment No. 72 as amended, because it is a technical matter that has been explained to me.
LORDS AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 72.A]
Leave out ("25(1)(b), (c) and (cc)").
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment No. 72A
Moved, That this House doth agree with the saidAmendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Amendment to the Motion agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 73 to 76.]
Clause 53, page 49, line 26, after '15' insert '(Access to children by grandparents), (Powers of arrest for breach of s. 14 order)'
Clause 53, page 49, after '15' insert '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
Clause 53, page 58, line 28, leave out 'child's mother or father' and insert 'mother, the father or a grandparent of the child'
Clause 53, page 59, line 22, at end insert—
'(3A) An authorised court shall have power to make an order under subsection (1)(a) in favour of a grandparent of a child notwithstanding that the child is illegitimate.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 73 to 76 en bloc. These are consequential Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 77.]
Clause 59, page 59, line 40, at end insert—
'(c) in section 4(2) of that Act the reference to section 6 of that Act shall be construed as including a reference to section 39 and 40 of this Act.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77, and, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. These Amendments are purely technical. They transfer a provision out of Schedule 2 to the Bill into Clause 59.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 78 and 79.]
Clause 74, page 70, line 38, after 'under' insert 'Part II of'
Clause 74, page 70, after 'or' insert 'Part I of'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. These are technical Amendments relating to the proceedings defined as domestic.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 80.]
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Administration of Justice Act 1964.
'.—(1) Section 2(3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1964 (which provides that, for the purposes of the law relating to justices of the peace, magistrates' courts and other matters therein mentioned, a London commission area shall be deemed to be a county) shall have effect, and shall be deemed to have had effect as from 1st April 1974, as if—

(a) after the words "magistrates' courts" there were inserted the words "magistrates' courts committees";

(b) before the word "county", where it first occurs, there were inserted the words "non-metropolitan"; and

(c) after the words "passing of this Act" there were inserted the words "and references to a non-metropolitan county in any enactment or instrument as amended or modified by or under the Local Government Act 1972".

(2) Section 2(3A) of the said Act of 1964 (which provides that for the purposes of the law relating to magistrates' courts committees a London commission area shall be deemed to be a non-metropolitan county) shall cease to have effect.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 80 and, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 84A, 84B, 99 and 101.
These Amendments remedy a technical defect in existing magistrates' court legislation which arose in consequence of changes in definition made in paragraph 13 of Schedule 27 of the Local Government Act 1972, which amended Section 44(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949. That Act changed the definition of the term, "petty sessions area" in a way which inadvertently excluded petty sessional divisions in Greater London because it referred to non-metropolitan
1666
counties and metropolitan districts but not to London Commission areas. This defect needs to be remedied before consolidation, and the present Bill provides a good opportunity to do it. The method adopted is to amend the Administration of Justice Act 1964 since that contains the main provisions relating to the administration of justice in the Greater London area.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, we seem to have got on surprisingly well for about 15 years without anybody spotting this, but I am sure it is a good idea to put it right now that someone has spotted it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 81 to 82.]
Clause 89, page 77, line 23, after 'county),' insert 'of'
Clause 89, page 77, line 23, after 'district' insert 'or of'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. These are drafting Amendments.
Moved, that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 83.]
Clause 82, page 77, line 31, leave out 'and'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments No. 83. This is a consequential Amendment.
Moved, that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 84.]
Clause 82, page 77, line 32, at end insert 'a London commission area which is not divided into petty sessional divisions and a petty sessional division of a London commission area;'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 84.
Moved, that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
LORDS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 84A and 84B]
Line 2, leave out ("and")
Line 3, at end insert ("and in the City of London").
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Amendments Nos. 84A and 84B.
Moved, that the House doth agree with the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 84, as amended, agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 85 to 91.]
Clause 84, page 78, line 39, leave out '27(4),'
Clause 84, page 78, line 41, after '1' insert '11A,'
Clause 84, page 79, line 2, leave out '27(4),'
Clause 84, page 79, line 4, after 'paragraphs' insert '11A,'
Clause 84, page 80, line 20, leave out 'and'
Clause 84, page 80, line 28, at end insert—
'(c) where the order contains a provision for the legal custody of a child, the court shall have power, on a complaint made by a grandparent of the child, to vary that order under the said section 8 by the addition to the order of a provision requiring access to the child to be given to that grandparent;
(b) where the court, by virtue of paragraph (c) above, varies the order by the addition of a provision requiring access to a child to be given to a grandparent, the court shall have power to vary or revoke that provision on a complaint made—

(i) by that grandparent, or

(ii) by either party to the marriage in question, or

(iii) where the child is not a child of both the parties to the marriage, by any person who though not a party to the marriage is a parent of the child, or

(iv) where under the order a child is for the time being committed to the legal custody of some person other than one of the parents or a party to the marriage, by the person to whose legal
1668
custody the child is committed by the order.'

Schedule 2, page 82, line 38, at end insert—
'11A. In section 15(1)(a) of that Act for sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(ii) section 21(1) and 27(3) of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978".'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 85 to 91.
Moved, that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 92.]
Schedule 2, page 85, line 15, at end insert—
'28A. In section 14(3) of that Act for the words "and 10" there shall be substituted the words "10 and 14A(5) and (6)".
28B. In section 16(5) of that Act after the words "magistrates' court under" there shall be inserted the words "section 14A of this Act regarding access to a minor by a grandparent or under".'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92. This is a consequential Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 93.]
Schedule 2, page 87, line 14, at end insert—
'39A. In section 4(6) of that Act for the words "£10" there shall be substituted the words "£50".'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93. This is a consequential Amendment. The Bill provides that, in Clauses 9 and 28, where a person is liable to pay maintenance under a maintenance order, he shall notify the court of any change of his address. At the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, Amendments were introduced in

1669
this House to raise the penalty for failure to comply with this requirement, from a maximum under existing law of £10 to a new maximum of £50. At the same time a number of corresponding penalties in guardianship and other legislation were similarly increased from £10 to £50 by Schedule 2. However, we inadvertently overlooked one of the penalties which is in Section 4(6) of the Guardianship Act 1973. The Amendment therefore raises the penalty in that case to £50 to correspond with the other increases already provided for in the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That, the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve, would wish to say thank you for this because it brings the whole thing together. I have a feeling that the noble Baroness has had some sort of accident. We very much hope that this will not keep her away from the House for any length of time and that she will have a very quick recovery. Anyway, as my noble friend cannot be here may I thank the Government on her behalf.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am sure we all want to join the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in expressing the hope that the noble Baroness will soon be recovered and back among us.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 94 and 95.]
Schedule 2, page 87, leave out lines 31 to 35.
Schedule 2, page 87, line 36, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Children Act 1975'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. These are consequential Amendments.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 96.]
Schedule 2, page 87, line 41, at end insert—
1670
'44A. In section 46(3) of that Act—

(a) in paragraph (a) for the word "payments" there shall be substituted the words "periodical payments or pay a lump sum";

(b) in paragraph (b) after the words "to make" there shall be inserted the word "periodical".'

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96. This is a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 97,]
Schedule 2, page 88, line 12, at end insert—
'The Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 (c. 50)
48A. In section 2 of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 at the end of subsection (4) there shall be inserted:—
"In reckoning for the purposes of this subsection any period of 24 hours, no account shall be taken of Christmas Day, Good Friday or any Sunday".'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97. This Amendment is con-sequential upon the new clause after Clause 15, to which the House has agreed, and which enables magistrates' courts to attach a power of arrest for breach of an order under Clause 14.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 98.]
Schedule 3, page 89, line 4, at end insert—

'1961 c. 39.

The Criminal Justice Act 1961.

In Schedule 4, the entry relating to section 54 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952.'

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 98. This is a minor technical Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 99.]
Schedule 3, page 89, line 5, column 3, at beginning insert ' in section 2, subsection (3A)'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 99. This is a consequential Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 100.]
Schedule 3, page 90, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert 'In section 2, in subsection (5) the words from "but an interim order" to the end of the subsection.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 100. This is a technical Amendment which ensures that the repeal in Clause 40(3) of part of the Guardisnship Act 1973 appears in the List of Enactments repealed in Schedule 3.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 101.]
In the Title, line 8, after '1952' insert 'to amend section 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1964'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 101. This is a consequential Amendment.
Moved, That the House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, may I simply say this to the
1672
noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich: all those of us who are here, particularly those for subsequent business, are especially grateful to the noble Lord, and so, I am sure, are the staff, for the efficiency with which he has got through 101 Amendments in a period of about a quarter of an hour. If it is not presumptious to say so, I join in congratulating the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for his part in this.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
3.57 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY Lord BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the present treatment of immigrants assumed to be illegal entrants by immigration officers, particularly in respect of powers of arrest and imprisonment, court procedures, and right of appeal against expulsion from this country on application only from abroad. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret the timing of this discussion. It was the only time available. I regret that a surprising number of Members who had indicated that they would support me are not able to be present. I particularly welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is here, and I am quite sure that many in other parts of the House would have wished to oppose.
I am raising this issue not only in the interests of members of immigrant communities, but because it involves fundamental principles of human rights and of accepted judicial practice. I shall submit that, in the administration of immigration control, normal standards of human rights and accepted judicial principles are repudiated. The present procedure can be summarised, a little brusquely, in three paragraphs.
First, if an immigration officer concludes that an immigrant has committed an offence, the person can he arrested without a warrant and imprisoned, with no opportunity to apply for bail, and with no limit of the time in detention. He can be imprisoned not by a decision of a court but by the decision of a civil servant.

1673
Secondly, if the intervention of the courts is sought, they refuse to act unless the accused can prove his innocence. The cherished principle of "innocent until proved guilty" is reversed. When the Secretary of State decides that an immigrant shall be expelled from this country, the immigrant is told that he can appeal against this decision only from abroad. This means not only delay and a heavy cost, but places him in a position of great disadvantage when the trial takes place in his absence.
I shall discuss each of these items, but I think this broad statement is sufficient to indicate how the present procedure denies principles of justice in which we have all taken pride. We should have the greatest sympathy with immigration officers. To judge without prolonged investigation is impossible. They are asked to make decisions beyond an individual's power. Our immigration laws make discrimination inevitable. Consider how a white person is accepted at Heathrow as compared with a coloured person. There are Members or this House of different ethnic origin from most of us who can testify to the difference before they had the term "Lord" on their passports. There are white immigrants resident in this country as well as coloured. How many of them are intimidated on suspicion of being here illegally?
This is not principally a matter of immigrants detained at Heathrow. A person who has been settled in this country for many years, sometimes with the consent of the Home Office, can now be arrested and imprisoned on the order of an immigration officer and held by him to have been guilty of deception when he entered. These cases include cases where the alleged illegal entrant came here as a child; examples are Ataur Rahman and Javaid Akhtar. Secondly, there are cases where the accused came here as long ago as 1961; an example is Kwame Darko. Thirdly, there are cases where a deception had already been the subject, many years ago, of a successful prosecution but without a recommendation for deportation, or where the Director of Public Prosecutions had decided against prosecution; an example is the case of Daljit Singh. Fourthly, there are cases where the Home Office, knowing the facts, had stated that the person's settlement here was accepted. There are also cases where
1674
persons qualified under the Home Secretary's "amnesty" of 29th November 1977 made short trips abroad and therefore were held to be guilty; examples of these include Ataur Rahman, Ashiq Hussain and Javaid Akhtar.
Can we think calmly of what the deportation of persons long resident in this country means to them? Losing their jobs, giving up their homes, lifting their children, often born in this country, from their schools, seeking somehow for new security in countries with which they have lost familiarity, exiled, with perhaps nine months to wait before their distant appeal is heard.
In the last three months 102 persons were detained in prison as illegal immigrants under the authority of an immigration officer, awaiting the Home Secretary's decision on removal. Of these, 54 have been detained for one month or less, 22 for two months or less, 14 for three months or less, six for four months or less, and six for more than four months. Indeed, the longest period was almost 11 months in prison without trial, without the opportunity of bail, without knowing how long they were to be kept there, on the decision, not of a court, but of a civil servant. My Lords, I have not mentioned the most damning fact. The Home Office has admitted that in 1977, 61 persons, treated as illegal entrants, were subsequently "found not to be illegal entrants".
I turn to the second item, court procedure. The Home Office has told Members of Parliament that the accused has the opportunity to apply to the High Court for a prerogative writ or order. This is not only extremely expensive, and very few could afford it, but it is prejudiced by the decision of the Court of Appeal, in the case of ex parte Choudhary, May 1922, that the burden of proof is on the applicant, who is therefore assumed guilty until proved innocent, and that the remedy is by way of appeal after removal abroad and not by habeas corpus. The Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Widgery, put it succinctly in the Divisional Court in the case of Safder Hussain. In these matters, he said, "Questions of fact are ultimately questions of fact for the Secretary of State". I ask, in what other area of law would the courts allow the Executive such unfettered power over the liberty of an individual?
On the third item I say only this: the experience of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, with which I am proud to be associated and whose Secretary, Ian Martin, has done so much to enlighten the public on these issues, is that to take an appeal in the absence of the appellant places his representative at an almost insuperable disadvantage, and is no effective remedy for injustice.
I took an active part during the Committee stage in this House of the 1971 Immigration Bill. I say without fear of contradiction that none of us, on either side of the House, contemplated this procedure of immigration control. It is un-British. It prejudices our championship of human rights. I hope the Government will end it.
4.10 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has done the country a great service in raising this important matter this afternoon and I can only echo his disappointment that so few people are here to discuss a matter of fundamental principle relating to the exercise of powers by a Secretary of State, with no control over them by the courts, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has just described. I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not in favour of illegal immigration; I believe that proper measures have to be taken to prevent it at the port of entry and that such remedies ought to be applied after the offence has been committed as can be properly reconciled with our traditions of civil liberties in this country. But I believe that we have gone beyond that point. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has illustrated, the powers that we find in the 1971 Act have proved to be wholly beyond anything that we have contemplated in English law up until the point that that legislation came into force. I believe that those powers are dangerous and that they need now to be carefully reviewed.
If one takes the case of a person who entered the country legally and remains beyond the time limit which was permitted to him, under Section 3(5)(a) of the 1971 Act he is liable to deportation, by Section 5 the Secretary of State has the power to make an order against him
1676
and he may then, as the noble Lord has described, be arrested without a warrant by an immigration officer and he may be detained indefinitely without any right to be heard in a court of law. In these cases, as the noble Lord has described, application for prerogative orders has been found quite ineffective. Yet the fact remains, and the noble Lord has given us the figures, that very many people who have been detained in this way in prisons on the authority of an immigration officer have been subsequently found not to have been over-stayers or illegal entrants, as the case may be, and they have been granted indefinite leave to remain.
That indicates to me that further safeguards are necessary to be applied to these procedures, because in those cases, if the detainee had not had somebody to intervene on his behalf, like the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, it is very likely that he would have been deported. There must be many instances that are not known to us where this has, in fact, happened. By definition one cannot quote them but, if somebody had been there to intervene, perhaps a miscarriagee of justice would have been prevented.
I should like to give one or two examples. I am not sure whether I am allowed to mention this person's name so I will call him Mr. K. A. He entered the United Kingdom on 6th November 1974 to join his wife. He was arrested as an illegal entrant on 20th March 1977 and he was held in Nottingham prison from that point until I heard about the case on 17th June from the solicitors who represented him. They said that they had been unable to secure his release and they asked me to make representations on his behalf, which I did on the same date.
I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary asking that Mr. K. A. be released pending the solicitors attempts to determine his status in the courts. Then I wrote again, having received papers from the solicitors, on 21st June, going into this case in greater detail and requesting that he he released forthwith and pointing out that he had already spend two months in detention. The Minister wrote back on 4th July saying that instructions had been given for him to be released. The case turned on whether he had been genuinely married to the person he claimed to be his

1677
wife. It was established that he was so married. He was living with her in Nottingham; he had two children by her; and the only doubt hanging over the marriage was that they had at one time had a minor tiff and had lived apart for a few weeks. As a result of that, this man had to spend two and a half months in prison waiting for the Parliamentary Secretary to determine whether he was eligible to remain here as the woman's spouse.
He was eligible to remain here, and I recommended him to apply through his MP to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for redress for the injustice which had undoubtedly been caused to him. Is it not intolerable that any person should spend two and a half months in prison without having committed any offence, when he was living here peacefully and legally with his wife and children? I think this case illustrates the fact that people detained under the Immigration Act powers are unique among the prison population in that their future is entirely uncertain. Everybody else knows when he is next to appear in court or when his is to be released on completion of his sentence. The person detained under the Immigration Act powers has not the faintest idea when the Secretary of State will get around to considering his representations, if indeed he has been lucky enough to find anybody to make them on his behalf. The degree of uncertainty which is facing detainees in this position is undoubtedly a source of great distress and anxiety, and it is not surprising that some of them emerge from their ordeal suffering from severe mental ill health.
A case was drawn to my attention only recently of a person who had spent no less than 10 months in detention whilst his case was being considered here. This gentleman—a Mr. A—had originally come here from Pakistan in November 1975 with an entry clearance for a visit. He subsequently asked to be considered as a political refugee, having been a member of a political Party, the National Awami Party, which came under the displeasure of the Pakistan Government. He was arrested and thrown into prison. He appealed, he was released on bail; then he was re-arrested. He was held in prison awaiting his deportation. Representations were made on his behalf by the
1678
United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service in this case, and he had the support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They said that he was a genuine refugee. But the Home Office disputed this. They were minded to deport him and they kept him in prison for 10 months, pending their consideration of his case. When he was finally released it was not that they admitted the justification of his case to remain here as a refugee; that matter still has not been determined. But at any rate, he at least has been freed and is now living with friends in the North of England. I am sorry to say that, as a result of his detention, his doctor reports that he is suffering from chronic anxiety and depression, and that this was caused by the ordeal which he had undergone for these 10 months in prison.
Again, this is absolutely intolerable that a person comes here as a refugee from a country where he is definitely under threat of persecution and where this fact has been confirmed by the representative in the United Kingdom of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, yet he remains in prison for such a long time as to cause him to suffer grave mental distress leading to illness from which he may take a very long while to recover.
This gentleman is not the only one to have spent such a long time in prison. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, gave us some statistics, but I can illustrate it further by a case with which I had some dealings—that of Mr. Tashi Thondup, a Tibetan who had been here 14 years at the time of his detention with a view to deportation back to India. Of course, he could not be sent back to Tibet from which he was originally a refugee, but the Home Office were proposing to send him to India to join relatives there, whom he had not seen since he was a boy of seven. By this time he was now 21 and virtually the whole of his upbringing had been in this country and yet, my Lords, if you can believe this, this young man was thrown into prison and held there for 11 months, pending consideration of his case.
I wrote a fairly long letter to the Parliamentary Secretary on 6th April 1977, asking her not only to consider the substance of the case, but also to release him pending her determination of the outcome. I did not receive an answer

1679
to that letter until I put down a Parliamentary Question some 10 months later, except, to be quite fair, a short note informing me that he had been transferred temporarily to Friern Barnet Hospital where his state of health was being examined. That was in June 1977 and no word ever reached me that he had been taken back from the hospital into Pentonville Prison. The first I knew of this was when a social worker approached me right at the end of his ordeal to ask whether I knew that Mr. Thondup was back in Pentonville Prison. I said that I had no reason to assume that he was, because the last I had heard from the Home Office was that he was still in Friern Barnet Hospital.
So at the end of 10 months I put down a Question asking when I was going to receive an answer to my letter of 6th April, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was good enough to reply in some detail to this question. But whatever explanation he gave, one could not avoid the fact that here was a young man who had been resident in the country for 14 years, and following his detention under the powers of the Immigration Act had spent a very long time in prison, when it was quite clear that he should not have been there in the first place. He certainly needed some treatment for his mental condition, but he only received a few days' in the middle of this long detention.
Another case of a person who got into difficulties with the Immigration Act was that of Mr. Abdulla Chamou, which was taken up by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants with this person's Member of Parliament, who was not prepared to intervene and whose secretary refused even to allow the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants to be put through to the Member of Parliament to discuss the matter. If they had left it at that, Mr. Chamou would have been deported, but fortunately they were more persistent than that. They came on to me afterwards and I took the case up with the Minister. Towards the end of May I received a letter from the Home Office saying that, after careful consideration, it had been decided that he should be released from detention while further inquiries were made. He was accordingly released and he is not being required to
1680
leave the United Kingdom until his case has been fully considered.
The case turns on whether he is considered to have contracted a valid marriage with the lady with whom he has been living, and with whom he has certainly been through a form of marriage, and he wishes to remain with her permanently in this country. If he had not contacted the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and if they had not been sufficiently persistent in finding someone else to take up the case with the Minister following the refusal of the man's Member of Parliament to look at it, then undoubtedly he would have been deported by now and would have been back in his own country, and would have been separated from the woman he loved.
Finally, may I mention a case which shows the difficulties facing those who try to advise persons detained under the Immigration Act. This is a case to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, made passing mention in his own speech. It is the case of Mr. Kwame Darko, a citizen of Ghana who, on the Home Office's own submission, was resident here for 10 years from 1962 to 1972. He then went back to Ghana for a period which is in dispute. We say that it was 18 months; the Home Office says that it was over two years. His entitlement to remain in the country depends on which of these assertions is true. I do not want to go into the details of this case which is enormously long and complicated and the file is quite a thick one. All I want to say about it is that the Home Office has all the documents in its possession including particularly the man's passport on which he went to Ghana in 1972 and on which he claims that he returned in 1974. I have said, inter alia, that, if we could look at the passport we could verify our assertion that he did in fact return here in 1974, less than two years after he had left in December 1972. But we do not have the right of access to the documents which are in the Home Office's possession and therefore it makes it extremely difficult for us to advise him properly.
I want to finish with what I hope will be some constructive suggestions. First, the Home Office is responsible for processing thousands of routine applications every year but it does not have a special procedure for looking at the cases of persons detained in prison who are alleged

1681
to be illegal entrants or over-stayers or recommended for deportation by the courts. That results in excessive delays, which causes suffering, as I have described, for the detainees, and I may add unnecessary expense for the taxpayer for the prolonged detention in prison. As a minimum we should ask for the establishment of a separate section in the Home Office with responsibility for processing cases of all those persons detained under the powers that we have been discussing this afternoon. I think that this section should have as its main remit the reduction of the time spent in prison by dealing expeditiously with all representations and by having a link with the private office, so that, when representations are made by Members of Parliament or Members of your Lordships' House, they can be processed with the Department instantly.
Thirdly, I believe that existing procedures result in people being held in detention without any clear idea of what is alleged against them. I understand that the Home Office has recently agreed to issue a new form to detainees which shows the legal authority for their detention. That clearly will help, but it remains true that many detainees are not properly informed of the progress of their cases and, if people are going to remain in prison for as long as the statistics show, clearly they ought to be kept up to date and informed at regular intervals of exactly what is happening and where the case has got to.
Those people whom the Home Secretary cannot agree to release temporarily pending a determination should not be detained in prison establishments because they have committed no offence. I may say that this view is shared by the Prison Governors' branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants, who submitted evidence on the point to the Parliamentary Expenditure Committee. Where detention is considered essential, it should be in a place where full access is granted to the family and friends and relatives and any person whom the detainee wishes to see in order to get proper advice.
Finally, I want to mention a point which has been raised in a letter to The Times from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants: the fact that the Home Office is at the moment paying Securicor £21,000 a month to staff their detention centres at Harmondsworth
1682

and Gatwick, and a sum additional to that which cannot be quantified for escorting detainees between police stations and prisons and the courts. This letter, which I will not go into in detail, makes the point that it is not proper for such an important public service to be undertaken by a commercial company. It should be properly controlled within the public service so that it is fully accountable to Parliament.
I am sorry to detain your Lordships for so long at this hour of the afternoon, but I sincerely hope that these matters will be taken into careful consideration by the Home Office and that they will agree that, following the experience that we have had of the working of the 1971 Act, it is now in need of revision on the lines that we are suggesting.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it is not surprising that the two noble Lords who have spoken did not give me notice of the matters that they were going to raise, but I am bound to say that I am sure they would have given them to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and he will be entirely acquainted with the details of all those individual cases about which the noble Lords have spoken. One thing that I do know from my own exeprience at the Home Office is that it is comparatively easy to summarise a case in a few sentences, but that that summary seldom does justice to the complexity which one finds when one looks at the files. I certainly would not wish to comment upon any of the individual cases that the two noble Lords have raised, even if I were in a position to do so at such short notice.
The main thing that has emerged from the debate is that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, particularly, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on one occasion in his speech, asked for a constructive review of some of the procedures. Certainly if people are being kept in prison too long—and it sounds as though they are—then I should be very anxious to join in asking the Home Office to see with great earnestness whether there is anything they can do about it. I have little doubt that Ministers at the Home Office will be told what has been said by the speakers in this debate and

1683
will look very carefully at the matters that have been raised.
But one has to get this matter into perspective. I was waiting in the divisional court in order to come on in a case the other day, when a habeas corpus application was made before the Lord Chief Justice and the two judges sitting with him. I do not, incidentally, know why the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said that it was such an expensive process. It did not take very long and I am certain that it was legally-aided, in which case I really do not understand where the expensiveness comes in. Still, let that pass. The tale was one of mammoth deception. It was a tale of forged passports, of lies, of all sorts of manipulation of the system. Nevertheless, on the basis of these forgeries and deceptions, this man had got into the country and had been here for a short while before he was caught.
The noble Lords are really saying that there is in this particular area of illegal immigration a piece of machinery which allows people to be arrested and detained by the Executive, and which insists that any appeal which they should make should be heard from abroad, and that they should not be allowed to stay pending the appeal. I notice that neither noble Lord objected to a person being sent back to the country from which he had come in order to make his appeal from there if he was caught at the port of entry. Neither noble Lord suggested that there was anything wrong with that, and I am bound to say that I do not think there is anything wrong with that if they are caught before they have actually got into this country.
The people to whom reference has been made are, I would suggest to your Lordships, not all that different in the large majority of cases. They are the ones who had no more right than those who were caught, but they managed to insinuate their way in. It is those for the main part who, when they are caught, are detained and are sent away and told that they may appeal from their own country, in exactly the same way as they would have had to do had they been caught and if the deception, or whatever it was, had been found out at Heathrow or at the port, or wherever it was they came into the country.
1684
As a matter of principle, I am bound to say I cannot see where the distinction lies between the person who is caught at the airport and the person who insinuates his way into this country by some ruse and is subsequently caught. I believe that the same rules should apply to both of them.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Viscount will be aware that when a decision is reached at Heathrow that men shall be immediately sent back, immediately when their case is reported to a Member of the other place or of this place, the Home Office agrees that he should not be sent back and that an investigation should be made. I would say that probably in the majority of cases that procedure is followed.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Yes, my Lords, that is one of the reasons, I have a strong suspicion, why it is that some of the people concerned stay in detention for such a long time. When representations are made by either of the noble Lords or any other Member of this House or of another place, of course it is right that that case should be carefully looked into by the Home Office, and would be horrified if anything else should happen. But I am speaking of the normal case, where at that stage there is no intervention by a Member of either House.
If that is the ordinary case, the stories that we have been hearing are, I think, the hard cases and, to judge by what noble Lords have said, there are indeed matters which give rise to a certain amount of anxiety. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said we need to have some safeguards. I think I agree with him on the face of it, on the basis of what he said; and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be able to give some indication whether there is a degree of urgency given to the case of somebody who has been detained for deportation under this executive form of procedure, but who has, nevertheless, for one reason or another, languished in detention for quite some time.
I see that it would be desirable that these cases should be processed as quickly as possible. By the same token, I must admit that if you have the intervention of somebody like the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees, the complications

1685
are likely to be such—and I recognise this sort of difficulty from files that I have myself seen—that you will not be able, realistically, to get a quick decision. It is no use people supposing that when that sort of person intervenes, on what sounded to me like a particularly difficult political refugee case, the Home Office can overnight form a proper and sound judgment upon it. They must take some time for thought and advice, and I would prefer that they should do that rather than come to a wrong and unfair answer.
Therefore, what we have really is this. It is a fairly simple area of complaint, though a worrying one in so far as it has been exemplified today. We are not really considering, I think, the question of allowing all these people who have insinuated themselves in and been caught, to have their appeals heard while they are still in this country; at least, if that is being suggested I could not support it, because it puts a premium on deceit at the airport and would seem to me to be quite inexcusable and quite unsustainable. We cannot really be asking about that.
We are asking about the difficult cases, where somebody has been in this country for some time and where, for reasons that I do not know in these individual cases, instead of arresting and trying that person for an offence against the Immigration Acts, whether it be for overstaying or whatever it may be, and going through the ordinary processes of law which, normally speaking, would, I should have thought, be the likely way of dealing with a case of doubt of this sort, nevertheless, the executive action has been taken.
So, therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, either today or later, as a result of having heard this debate, can pass on to the Home Office the suggestions that have been made, and if the Home Office can think of any way whereby speed can be involved in dealing with cases of people who are in detention, that, at least, must be a good thing and that I would support. But, beyond that, I do not think I would wish to go very far because it seems to me that most of the people dealt with in this category really have no business to be in this country at all.
4.39 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I, too, feel it is rather a pity that on an
1686
Unstarred Question which raises a number of very important issues, there are not more Members of your Lordships' House present. May I say that I am in some difficulty because my noble friend Lord Brockway raised a number of specific cases. I was not given notice of them. There is no reason why I should have been given notice of them, and I am not complaining about that at all; but it is difficult to deal with specific cases if one does not know that they are to be raised and if one does not know the circumstances. However, I know my noble friend well enough to know that he has probably taken some action already in the matter of those cases. I think much the same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who did mention to me one particular case. He, too, certainly is personally involved in bringing to the attention of the Home Office a number of cases and matters which he feels need attention.
May I just say, by way of an introduction, that I know that both my noble friends have raised this matter today because of their concern lest the power available to detain and removed somebody from this country as an illegal entrant is being used harshly or arbitrarily and with insufficient regard to basic human rights. I accept that this is their sole ground for raising these matters in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I would be the first to acknowledge that the power available is a very substantial one. Where-ever one can exercise power, one has to exercise it with a great deal of care and a great deal of concern, and I am hoping that, by the time I sit down, I shall have been able, perhaps not to convince my two noble friends, but at least to assure them that we are not unmindful of what all this means to individuals involved.
I should like to make clear what is an illegal entrant. The Immigration Act 1971 defines an illegal entrant as
"a person unlawfully entering or seeking to enter in breach of a deportation order or of the immigration laws",
and it includes a person who has so entered. When the Immigration Bill was before Parliament illegal entry was thought of mainly in terms of clandestine entry, and it was on that basis that provision was made for the immigration authorities to secure the ready removal of illegal entrants by giving appropriate directions administratively.

1687
There is a good deal of criticism—and it is made repeatedly—about the actions taken by immigration officers. But I think we ought to be clear about one thing: they are acting in accordance with what is laid down in the Immigration Act 1971. If we do not like it, we ought to be doing something about it. I say this very kindly to my noble friend Lord Brockway and to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. If this Act is really open to question—and I am not saying that it is not—it would be a good thing if people who feel deeply concerned about it got together and sought to amend it.
I should have thought that in the long run this would be a good way of dealing with any Act of Parliament. Nobody is suggesting that every Act of Parliament is perfect. I think there is something deficient probably in every Act, and from time to time the deficiency gets put right. We have to acknowledge that those working the Act are working to the authority given to them, and if it has fallen short in some way it would perhaps be a good thing for individuals and organisations—and there are many individuals and many organisations who feel very strongly about this—to get together to see whether, from their point of view, something could not be done to amend it.
Since the Act came into operation the courts have declared that entry by deception as to identity or entitlement under the immigration laws is just as much illegal as entry over the beaches. This means that the power of administrative removal applies to such people also. Let me make it quite clear that the power of detention and removal does not apply to people who properly secure leave to enter and overstay their time limit, nor to those who in securing leave to enter mis-state their circumstance or intentions, but who, had the full facts been known, were not necessarily ineligible for admission under the immigration law and in respect of whom the immigration officer could have exercised his discretion to admit them. The courts have established that entry by deception is illegal if the deception, misrepresentation or fraud was material to the decision to grant leave, and that in these circumstances the leave is nullified by the deception practised.
1688
What then is the Government's attitude to those who are found to have entered illegally, whether clandestinely or by deception? The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that they take a very serious view of illegal entry and are determined to take firm action to deal with it. However, because of the distate for retrospective legislation, the Government decided not to use the power of administrative removal retrospectively, and accordingly the announcements of 11th April 1974, which related to an amnesty for those who had entered clandestinely, and 29th November 1977, which dealt with those who had come in by deception—they were then both put on the same level; the Home Secretary then gave opportunity for Commonwealth and Pakistan citizens who last entered illegally before 1st January 1973, when the 1971 Act came fully into operation, to have their stay regularised on application to the Home Office and the verification of the facts. With these exceptions we have made it clear that it will be the normal practice to send away people found to have entered illegally.
Applications in respect of both the statements made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Home Office on 11th April 1974 and 29th November 1977 must be made before the end of the year. Where someone believed to be an illegal entrant comes to notice by whatever means, the immigration service inquires into all the circumstances of his entry to the country, his activities here and any factors which might warrant his being treated exceptionally. Only when these inquiries are completed is a decision taken whether to remove him, and any representations made by him or on his behalf are taken fully into account. If it is concluded that the entry was illegal, and in the absence of substantial extenuating factors, removal then proceeds.
The Act gives power, where an immigration officer is satisfied that there are grounds to conclude that a person is an illegal entrant, for him to he detained on the authority of the immigration officer while his case is considered and while arrangements for his removal are completed. Provision is also made w here a person is liable to detention for him to be temporarily admitted without prejudice to his subsequent redetention.

1689
The question of temporary admission of someone liable to detention is always carefully considered by the immigration service, and any representations made in this respect are also carefully considered. Full account is taken of any compassionate circumstances, but the risk that the person concerned will disappear if released has also to be taken into account. It is the aim to keep detention to the minimum, but it is unrealistic to expect the universal use of temporary admission, as a person who knows that he is likely to be removed ultimately as an illegal entrant has a very strong incentive to abscond. In fact temporary admission has currently been granted in something like 20 per cent. of people liable to detention as illegal entrants. Even so, in some such cases the persons concerned cannot now be traced.
It is the aim, in all cases where someone is detained as an illegal entrant, to reach a decision as soon as possible, both in his own interests and in the public interest. If I may say so, if for no other reason, it is very costly to keep him in detention. But that is not the main reason. We are concerned, however much the facts may appear to be against it, that the person should be released at the earliest opportunity. And we must take into account that it is an unprofitable thing from a financial point of view to keep people detained for an unlimited time.
Detention, however, is sometimes longer than we would wish, usually because of the need to consider and investigate representations made, sometimes successfully, by Members of Parliament, solicitors and others, and on occasions there may be delays in obtaining documents, or a person's particulars have to be checked in the country of origin. I know, from the inquiries I have made, that these sometimes do take many months. But I think one could argue that, in the last analysis, it is in the interests of the immigrant that that deep kind of inquiry should be made, particularly, of course, if his story is true.
Another matter that has been mentioned is the question of the right to appeal. The Act does provide a right of appeal against removal of an illegal entrant on the limited ground that the person is not an illegal entrant: but, as has been said, the
1690
appeal has to be made from abroad. I do not think that I want to cross the "t's" and dot the "i's" of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on this matter. He dealt with it succinctly and I do not think there is anything I can add to what the noble Viscount said. This is a similar right to that given to someone refused entry at a port who does not possess any entry clearance.
The normal right of access to our courts, where someone believes he is wrongly detained, also exists, and is not infrequently exercised. There is also the opportunity of representation made by Members of Parliament to be considered by Ministers, and as I have already indicated—and I know this from the inquiries that I myself have made—very substantial use is made of this. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, made the point in relation to when he was Minister of State at the Home Office.
We have no grounds to believe that people legally settled in this country are wrongfully removed. I am aware of no successful appeal on the ground that a person removed as an illegal entrant was not, in fact, an illegal entrant. This is my information. Provision for appeal on the fact of illegal entry does exist. Whether someone who is an illegal entrant should be allowed to stay exceptionally for humanitarian or other reasons, is a matter for the exercise of ministerial discretion. It has been suggested that the power to remove illegal entrants administratively should not be used and that instead the police should prosecute, or that removal should be effected by means of a deportation order.
While it is true that at the time the Bill was considered Parliament was mainly concerned with the administrative removal of clandestine entrants, it is difficult to distinguish in principle entry under a false identity or on forged papers from a clandestine entry. Nor is it possible to distinguish it from the returning deportee who gets leave to enter by concealing his status, and Parliament explicitly provided for such a person to be subject to administrative removal with no right of appeal before removal takes place save on the narrow ground that the deportation order refers to somebody else altogether. The object is the same in all cases; that is,

1691
premeditated evasion of the entry control from the outset.
Representations have also been made that the amnesty should be extended to people who entered illegally before 1973 who left voluntarily and subsequently re-entered by deception. It is claimed that to remove such people on the basis of the court's judgment as having entered illegally after 1st January 1973 is to apply the judgment to them retrospectively. The Government do not think so. Such people would be removed under the law as it existed at the time of their re-entry and not under retrospective powers. This can be argued but this is the Government view.
These are all matters to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is giving consideration in the light of the representations made to him, and he will be dealing with them in due course. I know that is a form of words that is often heard in this Chamber, but I know the content of the representations made to my right honourable friend by the Joint Council for the Welfare of the Immigrant, by noble Lords who have spoken, and many others. I know that my right honourable friend has gone a long way to arriving at decisions on the various matters which he has been considering, and this is not something he will do in the near future. It really is something that I know personally he is doing currently.
Finally, I should like to repeat that it is the Government's intention to deal firmly with people found to enter illegally other than those eligible to benefit under the announcements relating to amnesty.
Regard will continue to be had, however, to compassionate and other exception factors, and where close ties have been established with this country these will be taken into account. Where public faith has been pledged to people who admitted the circumstances of their illegal entry to the authorities and were given an assurance that, despite that, they would be regarded as settlers here, this will be honoured.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised five points. The first related to a specific case on which I do not feel competent to make a comment. He raised a number
1692
of rather interesting points: that there was no special procedure for considering the position of those immigrants held in prison, that they are just fed into the machine. I do not think the noble Lord will mind my saying that we had a word about this earlier on. I have made inquiries. I know that it does not go as far as he wants it to go. He wants a special office which should have access to the private office of the Secretary of State. I can only say that my information is that special priority is in fact given to those in custody for two purposes: first, because they are in custody and one does not want to keep them in custody longer than is necessary; and secondly, as I said, because of the expense that is involved so far as the State is concerned.
The noble Lord also raised the question of a large number of detainees in prisons not kept informed of what is happening. He feels that there ought to be some means whereby they can be notified from time to time as to the progress of their application. I am grateful to him for saying that he felt that the Home Office had done something useful in issuing a form quite recently which undoubtedly must be of benefit to people finding themselves in that position. I cannot give him an answer on this. I can only say that I will communicate this. It will be in Hansard, but, over and above that, I will see that this is brought to the notice of my right honourable friend in the hope perhaps—I think I can go further than that and commit somebody, because if I say so somebody will have to do it—that it will be looked into. If noble Lords raise matters that have some substance, they are perhaps entitled to an assurance that the matters will be looked into. They may not get the reply they want.
Then there was the special place of detention needed, not in prison. This does present something of a problem. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would accept that we could not do this perhaps outside a place such a London, because one could not set up special places of detention all over the country. There would be one here and two there and none somewhere else. But temporary admission is granted. I was looking into this matter, and what I want to say is that no suitable alternative secure accommodation exists at the present moment outside the prisons. We are examining the feasibility of

1693
expanding the detention centre at Harmondsworth to enable it to cope with larger numbers of detainees in conditions of tighter security, but this, if feasible, would be a fairly long-term project. I think that the point that the noble Lord has made is one which has occurred to people who are dealing with this. This is why the question is certainly being looked into of trying to do something with Harmondsworth to make it perhaps a better place than it is at the moment and expand it so that it could take more people than it is taking at the moment and out of the environment of prison.
I will be quite honest about this. I do not want to be drawn on the question of Securicor and what they are doing, except to say that the Home Office is well aware of the feelings that have been expressed, not only in a letter to The Times, but which have been expressed in other ways and through other means. I can give an assurance to the noble Lord that this matter is being looked at, as to whether it is the most desirable means of dealing with that situation. I can assure him that there are many other people who feel precisely as he does about it. The Home Office had taken this on board before this debate took place, and I was very pleased to find that it was well aware of the feelings that were being expressed in a number of places.
I do not think that I can say anything more that is useful, except to finish where I began by saying that if people really feel that the Act needs to be looked at, it would be a very good exercise if a group of people did that. In the last analysis one wants to see that whatever Acts are on the Statute Book are not only workable Acts but Acts which are not liable to bring criticism.

SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
  PARLIAMENTARY ESTATES
  PARLIAMENTARY ESTATES
  FINANCE BILL: TAX GAINS FOR MARRIED COUPLES
  FINANCE BILL: TAX GAINS FOR MARRIED COUPLES