Sitting of 22 March 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Preamble
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Shetland Islands Council: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 121.]
  LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Lerwick Harbour: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 120.]
  GAIRLOCH PIERS ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Gairloch Piers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 119.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Premium Bonds (Gift Vouchers)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange to make the purchase of premium bond gift vouchers possible at post offices.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): National savings gift tokens are sold in denominations of £1, £2 and £5 and can be exchanged for premium savings bonds. There would not appear to be any need for a special premium savings bond gift voucher.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that since I put the question down events have caught up with premium bond savings and there are now no bonds? How will that be dealt with? People cannot get their money or their prizes, and the Government are making a profit. On the question on the Order Paper, may I say to the Minister that it is extremely difficult—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may say nothing to the Minister. He may only ask a question. The hon. Member has asked two questions, but he may ask a third briefly.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that it is extremely difficult for grandparents to buy premium bonds for their grandchildren? The Government are losing money as a result.
    Mr. Sheldon: National savings gift tokens are widely used for the purchase of premium savings bonds, and that situation is satisfactory. If it were to change, I should consider it further. There are problems with repayments of savings certificates, save-as-you-earn and premium bonds as a result of the dispute. Until last week urgent repayments were made on savings certificates. There have since been further problems, and these savings certificates are not available at present.
    Mr. Peter Rees: Will the Financial Secretary acknowledge publicly that the Government have an obligation to those who wish to draw their interest or capital on the due dates? Will he also announce

    1669
    publicly that the Government will pay compensation or damages—however he chooses to describe it—to those who have been prejudiced in this way, whether through industrial action or other administrative problems?
    Mr. Sheldon: There are problems with the documents acting as securities and therefore attracting interest that need to be closely considered. I accept the principle of recompense.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Whatever action the Government take, will my right hon. Friend accept that it is foolish to threaten civil servants with dismissal or suspension if they refuse to do other people's jobs and break strikes?
    Mr. Sheldon: There are a number of difficult circumstances here. We have the right to insist that work is done for payment made. The maintenance of the public service must be protected.

    Gross National Product
    Mr. Radiceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the future prospects for growth in United Kingdom gross national product compared with the average for OECD countries.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): I ask my hon. Friend to await publication of the Government's economic forecast with the Budget on April 3.
    Mr. Radice: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with the Government-TUC statement that the faster we can bring down the rate of inflation, the more likely we are to achieve a European rate of economic growth?
    Mr. Healey: Yes, I think the single most important aspect of the statement to which my hon. Friend referred was the agreement between the Government and the TUC that while we may aim at European growth rates, we shall not achieve them unless we achieve the inflation rates which are common among our European competitors.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since there is now general acceptance that there is an inescapable relationship between the growth of GNP and the availability of national
    1670
    energy supplies, will the Chancellor say upon which premises his forecasts are based?
    Mr. Healey: I have not announced a forecast. If the hon. Member is asking about the likely availability of energy this year, I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy undertook, with other representatives at the International Energy Association meeting, that we would aim at a 5 per cent. cut in the use of oil in this country. However, in our case that will be made up by increased coalburn and by other methods which will be announced to the House in due course.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor mentioned his Budget. Will he give an assurance that the industrial dispute now in progress will not in any way interfere with his Budget, with his prophecies or with his estimates, right or wrong?
    Mr. Healey: I cannot give such an assurance, as I think my hon. Friend very well knows.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Chancellor will have noticed yesterday's report from OECD that inflation in the year ahead is likely to run at 12 per cent. or thereabouts and that the growth of domestic product, excluding oil, is likely to be about 1 per cent. Is he aware that manufacturing output in this country is still lower than it was 10 years ago? Is not that a disastrous commentary on the right hon. Gentleman's five-year tenure of office at the Treasury?
    Mr. Healey: I read the OECD forecast. As was pointed out by the OECD when it launched the report in Paris, it was compiled a couple of months ago when the outlook for wage inflation was a great deal worse than it has become since the recent Government agreement with the TUC.

    European Community (Finance Ministers)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects next to meet his EEC counterparts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Healey: I next expect to meet Community Finance Ministers at the meeting of the Finance Council in Brussels on 14 May.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend remind the other Ministers that when Britain refused to join the European monetary system the pound went up in value in relation not only to the dollar but to the franc and the mark? Will he point out that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister decided to attack the EEC budget contributions it went up again? Is it not clear that every time we make these anti-Market moves we improve the chances not only of the pound in relation to these other currencies, but of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor staying in his job?
    Mr. Healey: I do not know with what equanimity I can contemplate the fate that my hon. Friend has mapped out for me for the long-term. However, what he says is true. The pound has been strong in relation to other currencies for the past two months. I do not think that that has been because we decided not to join the EMS. It has been because we have been following fiscal and monetary policies which form a shining contrast to those of the Conservative Party. I note what my hon. Friend says about the Community itself.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Why does the Chancellor not refer the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who relates anti-European measures to the strength of the pound, to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) who is also anti-European and believes that the value of the pound should be reduced by stages?
    Mr. Healey: I have every confidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will ensure that those who otherwise share his views will share his view on the value of a strong and stable pound.
    Mr. Gould: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if it were not for our £1,000 million contribution to the EEC budget our EEC colleagues would have to find that sum for themselves, and that if we were not consuming EEC food surpluses at twice the world price those surpluses would be even more expensive to dispose of? Since the Common Market could not survive without our participation, will my right hon. Friend ignore the feeble faint hearts on the Opposition Front Bench and recognise the strength of our negotiating position?
    Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) for not raising the question of the exchange rate. That must be a record in the House in recent years. I thank him for asking me to perservere in doing good, which I certainly propose to do. I assure him that I persistently ignore the faint hearts on the Opposition Front Bench and shall continue to do so for many years to come.
    Mr. Lawson: Why are the Government refusing to pay contributions on the basis of the EEC's 1979 budget, as enlarged by the European Assembly, since it was only the Chief Secretary's refusal to veto that enlargement that allowed it through in the first place? Did the Chief Secretary by any chance make a blunder?
    Mr. Healey: It is absolutely inconceivable that my right hon. Friend should have made a blunder, but as the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) knows, from the nature of his question, we, along with several other countries, are refusing to make a contribution which would otherwise be made because we do not accept the view that the Assembly has determined the nature of the current budget. We shall be sorting out that question in the near future.
    The hon. Member seems to be suffering from some defect in his arm which causes him to raise it and shiver it. No doubt you will take note of his behaviour, Mr. Speaker, and act accordingly.
    Mr. Speaker: If matters go on like this much longer I shall suffer from the same weakness.

    Defence Expenditure
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Government's decision to increase military spending will be affected by cash limits.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 23 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) in the Official Report, Vol. 963, c. 334–5.
    Mr. Jenkins: If cash limits can be breached so easily for defence purposes, why are they sacrosanct elsewhere?
    Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend is wrong in his first premise, so the second part of the question does not stand.
    Mr. Adley: If the Government are to put taxpayers' money to any useful purpose, is it not worth while putting it where it could provide a useful return? Will the Government consider allocating further funds for the Defence Sales Organisation so that we may try to sell more aircraft and tanks to the Chinese, for example, which would help our balance of payments?
    Mr. Barnett: Not surprisingly, I am blessed if I can see what the hon. Gentleman's question has to do with the question on the Order Paper. Defence sales are separate from cash limits.

    Budget (Representations)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the contents of the forthcoming Budget; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent consultations he has had with organisations representing smaller business in formulating his Budget judgment.
    Mr. Healey: I have received representations from a large number of individuals and organisations and am considering these in formulating my Budget. The House will not expect me to make any further comment at this stage.
    Mr. Canavan: Instead of imposing the savage cuts in public expenditure which are being demanded by the Tories and by the Treasury bureaucrats who have consistently overestimated our public sector borrowing requirement, will my right hon. Friend try to increase public expenditure in order to improve the essential services, to create more jobs and to improve essential items such as child benefits and retirement pensions?
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend will know that the Government are planning to increase public expenditure this year. The House approved our plans last Monday. I do not think that it is fair to accuse the forecasters in the Treasury or elsewhere of consistently overestimating the PSBR. They underestimated it by £4,000 million in 1974.
    Mr. Winterton: Will the Chancellor tell the House what specific organisations representing small business he has seen recently in the course of formulating his Budget proposals? Does he agree that smaller business can be the section of industry that will help to solve the unemployment problem? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree also that smaller business very easily suffers cash flow difficulties and that he should therefore not lightly propose to the House an increase in national insurance contributions, which could be very damaging to the potential of smaller business?
    Mr. Healey: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments. He will not expect me to comment on my proposals in the forthcoming Budget. I assure him, however, that I attach great importance to the health and efficiency of small business. That is why the Government have made a large number of concessions to that sector in the last year—concessions which were not made by the previous Government.
    Dr. Bray: To remedy the omission of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), and while, of course, observing the convention that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor never mentions the exchange rate, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that, as he prepares his Budget proposals, he is somewhat relieved to see that the pound has eased a little?
    Mr. Healey: I do not think that anyone can accuse me or my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) of never mentioning the exchange rate. As I have said on many occasions in the House, I believe that a stable exchange rate is of great advantage to this country. I am pleased to see that the CBI has shifted its view on this matter and that it now regards stability in the exchange rate as a better thing for British business than attempting to solve problems by depreciation.
    Mr. Peter Rees: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the House whether he has received representations from groups of taxpayers who are represented by trade unions for forgiveness of their existing tax liabilities in his forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. Healey: No. Sir.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend introduce an expansionist Budget—lowering the interest rate and introducing meaningful import controls? If he does that he could be capped in the role of Father Christmas.
    Mr. Healey: The House will note that we have recently reduced the minimum lending rate. Market rates are now about 3 per cent. lower than they were a month ago. I hope that the process will continue. I shall consult my barber on the question of Father Christmas.
    Mr. Higgins: It is now apparent that the Inland Revenue broke with precedent in negotiating with trade unions a general tax amnesty for casual workers in Fleet Street. Will the Chancellor take account of representations that section 1 of the Taxes Act 1970 should be altered to limit the discretion of the Inland Revenue to give group amnesties?
    Mr. Healey: I shall take account of all representations that are made to me.

    National Debt
    Mr. Rostasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage increase in the national debt, and the percentage increase in servicing it, since February 1974.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: To the nearest available dates, the percentage increase in the outstanding national debt between 31 March 1974 and 31 March 1978, at constant March 1974 prices, was about 5 per cent. The percentage increase between the interest payable in 1973–74 and in 1977–78, at constant 1973–74, prices was about 14 per cent.
    Mr. Rost: Has not the right hon. Gentleman cooked the figures again? What will people say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if they ever find out that the Government have more than doubled the national debt? How does the Chancellor propose to repay the amount that he has borrowed and squandered on behalf of the British people?
    Mr. Sheldon: I shall ignore the last part of the question because it is an obvious piece of nonsense. In relation to the gross national product, the national debt has declined. In 1973–74 the amount of national debt, as a proportion of the
    1676
    gross national product, was 55¼ per cent. Last year it was 54½ per cent. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take note of that.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the horrific increase in our national debt to the Common Market? Will he provide some answers as to how we can be rid of the national debt which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) seems to ignore? Will he level matters by reference to the common agricultural policy and our possible withdrawal if proper terms are not reached?
    Mr. Sheldon: The correct way to deal with the difficulties of debt arising from the considerable repayments is to pursue the vigorous policy of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Lawson: The Financial Secretary is trying to confuse the House. Is it not the case that, in straightforward money terms, the Government have added more to the national debt in five years of office than have all the previous Administrations over the past 300 years? When he makes comparisons with 1974 prices, is he satisfied that, at constant 1974 prices, the burden of interest on the national debt—a burden for future generations to bear—has risen by about 50 per cent.?
    Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman chooses real terms when it suits him and money terms when they support his argument. In practice, interest payments are not as he states. In real terms—that is the only way to look at it—interest payments were 3·1 per cent. in 1973–74 and rose to 3·5 per cent. in 1977–78.
    Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that deliberately misleading answer. I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Clemitsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total amount paid by the 100 largest companies in corporation tax expressed as a percentage of profits declared in each of the past five years for which figures are available.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Information in the form requested is not readily available, but corporation tax receipts this year are expected to be about £4 billion.
    Mr. Clemitson: Is it not true that, whether corporation tax is seen as a percentage of GDP or as a percentage of the total tax obtained, British companies pay considerably less than their counterparts in our major competitor countries? If we are to look for the real reasons for our poor economic performance should we not look elsewhere than at the so-called disincentive effects of taxation?
    Mr. Sheldon: I have always felt that the arguments about incentives in taxation are much more complex than are frequently allowed for in debate in the House. My hon. Friend will be aware that stock relief and capital allowances reduce the intake of corporation tax, for very good reasons. First, because of investment that is undertaken, and, secondly, because if that were not undertaken we would find that, in real terms, negative profits could be taxed.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Has the Financial Secretary noticed that the Governor of the Bank of England and the OECD have said clearly in the past few weeks that profits in this country are at a dangerously low level—lower than they are in any of our competitor countries, for example, France, Germany and the United States? Will he confirm that, apart from corporation tax, this year British industry will pay almost £4,000 million in national insurance surcharge? Will he take that as a clear warning that it would be the height of folly for the national insurance surcharge to be increased in the forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. Sheldon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot exclude corporation tax as one of the payments that companies make. If that is taken into account with the national insurance surcharge he will see that, by comparison with other countries, British companies do not bear the heavy burden that he is trying to impute to them. In many other countries there is a near equivalent of our national insurance surcharge. Those countries pay very much larger amounts in that way.
    Mr. Hooley: Is it not a fact that the number of major multinational companies
    1678
    based in the United Kingdom are not paying any mainstream corporation tax in the current financial year? How will my right hon. Friend remedy that?
    Mr. Sheldon: There are good reasons why certain companies do not pay large amounts of mainstream corporation tax; for example, investment and stock relief. For the reasons that I mentioned earlier, it is right that those beliefs should be given. We should be aware that the problem of reaching a final conclusion on these matters is becoming urgent. We are anxiously awaiting the agreed solution of the accountancy profession, which will provide for the more rational continuance of corporation tax in the manner in which it was originally devised.
    Mr. Hordern: Does the Financial Secretary agree that the high nominal rate of corporation tax is misleading? It produces very little revenue when compared with other taxes. Will the right hon. Gentleman look with equanimity on the considerable growth in leasing activities and other means of reducing the burden of corporation tax?
    Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The rate of corporation tax is not in close relationship to its yield, for the reasons that I have given. Leasing represents considerable problems. There are considerable advantages in leasing, for both the customer of the investment products and the manufacturer. The matter should be closely examined.

    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on his latest estimate of the size of the public sector borrowing requirement in (a) the current and (b) the next financial year.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: A preliminary estimate of the PSBR for this year will be included in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. For the PSBR for 1979–80, I have nothing to add to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's comments to the House in the debate on 25 January.
    Mr. Latham: Is it still the Government's view that next year the public sector borrowing requirement can be held at £8·5 billion, assuming an average earnings increase of 7 per cent.? If not, what do they intend to do about it?
    Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman and the House would do well to await the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement.
    Mr. Pavitt: In exercising his judgment on public sector borrowing and private expenditure, will the Chancellor take into account that this year we have spent privately £12,000 million on cigarettes, wine and gambling and that that is half as much again as the total public expenditure on the National Health Service? Ought not that to be taken into consideration in my right hon. Friend's judgment on his Budget Statement?
    Mr. Barnett: I assure my hon. Friend that his comments and the many thousands of others are taken into account in my right hon. Friend's judgment.

    Working Widows (Taxation)
    Mr. Durantasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will examine the taxation treatment of working widows.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: The tax treatment of all widows is kept under constant review.
    Mr. Durant: Is the Minister aware of the anger of working widows who find that when they get their pay slips at the end of the week and compare them with those of married women working alongside them they find that they have less take-home pay because they have no married woman's allowance and their widows' pensions are taxed? Will the Government look urgently at that matter?
    Mr. Sheldon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am aware of that difficulty, which a number of widows face without fully understanding the reasons for it. The House knows that the reasons are simple. The widow receives a pension which is taxed at her place of work. If she compares her pay slip with that of a married colleague who does not receive such a pension, she will see that she has a greater deduction. As long as the reasons for that are understood, I think that they will come to be accepted.
    Mr. Noble: Is it not time that the Treasury recognised the need for a special householder's allowance? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that many widows and widowers have to meet additional
    1680
    household expenses that are not met by many other single people? Will he consider the question of a special allowance?
    Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend knows that this matter has been looked at repeatedly. I am glad to note that he includes widowers among those who suffer in this way. However, he will also be aware that a similar situation is faced by divorced and separated people and by those in a number of other categories. Once we start extending help into those areas, we shall cover a very large number of people.

    Inflation
    Mr. Neubertasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest annual rate of inflation.
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation.
    Mr. Healey: The retail price index rose by 9·6 per cent. in the 12 months up to February 1979. It is essential for the country's economic prospects that we make progress as soon as possible towards reducing the rate to 5 per cent. This will require moderate pay settlements.
    Mr. Neubert: With the approach of another general election, will the Chancellor take this opportunity of redeeming his reputation by giving an accurate prediction of the trend of inflation? Does he accept the OECD forecast that in the second half of this year inflation will be running at 12¼ per cent.?
    Mr. Healey: I said in answer to an earlier question that the OECD forecast was compiled at a time when the expectation was that earnings would increase this year on the basis of settlements at the sort of level reached after the lorry drivers' strike. All forecasters have revised their figures downwards since then.
    Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the sordid and squalid questions of elections, I must tell him that when the Government fought the general election that swept them into office in February 1974

    1681
    the 12–month inflation rate was 13·2 per cent. and the three-month inflation rate, which the Leader of the Opposition chose to quote in the House the other day, was 17·7 per cent.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend remember—and in the annals of inflation it is almost historic—the runaway rate of inflation that we inherited from the previous Tory Government? Will he expatiate a little on that and extend his imagination to the situation that could arise following the massive handouts that a Tory Government would give to their chums if a mental aberration on the part of the electorate ever allowed another Conservative Government to come to power?
    Mr. Healey: I fear that if I expatiated and used my imagination you might call me to a halt, Mr. Speaker. I content myself by referring to facts. If the Conservative Party ever comes into power, increased indirect taxes on the scale that it has been mentioning, increased house rents through the abolition of housing subsidies and raised commuter fares caused by the abolition of subsidies to the railway service would produce a rate of inflation that would dwarf even that which we inherited from the last Conservative Government five years ago.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: The Chancellor has already mentioned the much-vaunted agreement between the Government and the TUC. Does he agree that an integral and important part of that agreement is that efforts should be made to get inflation down to 5 per cent. within three years? If the Government get on as well with the TUC as they keep telling us, why wait three years?
    Mr. Healey: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about one of the objectives of our agreement. I said that in my answer. I am discussing with the TUC how we can reach the critical path to that commonly desired objective.
    Mr. Stoddart: Bearing in mind the direction of inflation and the desirability of getting it down to 5 per cent., can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in his forthcoming Budget he will not put on any extra expenditure taxes which will affect the prices index?
    Mr. Healey: I fear that if I gave such an assurance at this time, I might be drummed out of the Brownies.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Does the Chancellor recollect that the fashion for using the three-monthly inflation rate was set not by by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition but by himself at the time of the election in October 1974, when he and the Government just crept into power? Does he recollect that that was when he gave his notorious forecast that the inflation rate would be 8·4 per cent.? Does he accept that, on the same basis, the inflation rate is now running at 13·3 per cent? Is that not a disgraceful situation?
    Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong again. There has been more sloppy homework by his researchers. The 8·4 per cent. figure was not a forecast. It was a statement of the three-monthly inflation rate. I confess that I was a little surprised when the Leader of the Opposition, after attacking for five years the use of a three-monthly inflation rate, chose to resurrect it on Tuesday.

    Gilt Edged Security Market
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he remains satisfied with the workings of the gilt edged security market.
    Mr. Healey: The gilt edged market has made possible net sales of Government stock outside the banking system totalling nearly £21 billion in the period from April 1974 to December 1978. This enormous capacity has been vital to the maintenance of the public services during a very difficult period. However, the Government are always looking for ways of improving the functioning of the market The announcement last week of a minimum rather than fixed subscription price for today's issue of 12¼ per cent. Exchequer 1999 should help to avoid the difficulties that arose on 22 February when there was a substantial unforeseen change in market sentiment between the announcement of new issues and the due date for subscriptions.
    Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is something deeply offensive about the vast and easy profits made on the gilt edged market in

    1683
    recent weeks? Does he also agree that the market was able to force a dangerous and unwarranted rise in interest rates, and can he say whether the new tender issue has proven a means whereby speculators can be killed off and interest rates can be kept down?
    Mr. Healey: As I told the House, we have introduced a modified tender system for the current issue which will avoid the difficulties that arose on 22 February. I am glad to say that there have been very heavy applications for that stock today, but it has not been oversubscribed, and therefore the problems that arose on 22 February and the means of meeting them have not turned out to be relevant.
    Mr. Brooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that recent disorders in the market owe more to the umpire and the linesmen than to the players on the field?
    Mr. Healey: There is a blinding light on the pitch tonight all right. A lot of the disorder in the market recently, and particularly the fall in the financial markets and gilt edged prices yesterday, was due to a rumour, which I trust to be totally without foundation, that there might in the near futuure be a general election which would put the Conservative Party into power.
    Mr. Ashley: How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer square the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) about relatively easy profits with the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) who asked for a household allowance, and the rejection of that allowance by the Treasury? How does he reconcile the two?
    Mr. Healey: I say to my hon. Friend what I have said to all hon. Members. I take careful note of the views they have put to me about action in the current Budget. I would be in serious danger if I were to indicate any action which might follow from the very careful consideration which I give.
    Mr. Peter Rees: While appreciating the candour of the Chancellor's initial answer to his hon. Friend, may I take him back to an answer given by his right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary?
    1684
    Will the Chancellor state explicitly that there will be monetary compensation for those holding Government paper who are unable to withdraw their capital or their interest on the due dates?
    Mr. Healey: We shall accept responsibility for the interest in this case.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why a family brick ice cream is subject to value added tax.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: All ice cream, together with confectionery, soft drinks, crisps and similar snack foods, is subject to value added tax which, like other taxes, is imposed to raise the necessary revenue.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is it not ridiculous that housewives can buy sweet courses such as ice cream, custard and yoghurt that are tax-free but that she has to pay an extra 8 per cent. on her family ice cream brick? Is not this unnecessary discrimination against the ice cream manufacturers, and will the Chancellor use the opportunity in his forthcoming Budget to remedy this anomaly?
    Mr. Sheldon: I am afraid that this is an inevitable consequence of VAT which has to make these distinctions. The hon. Gentleman may not recall, though other hon. Members certainly will, that when VAT was introduced it was supposed to be a broad-based tax free from anomalies. This is one of the anomalies inherent in the tax, and it is my task to implement it as best I can.
    Mrs. Wise: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Opposition that it was the Conservatives who introduced value added tax in the first place? Will he confirm that the really important taxes on food are the import levies which are exacted on foods imported from outside the EEC, many of which are staple foods, the prices of which have increased considerably because of these import levies?
    Mr. Sheldon: There is no question about import levies, but I will add to the point made by my hon. Friend that at present 50 per cent. of the articles in the value added tax system are zero-rated. To go any further in this direction would be to make it a much more narrowly-based tax even than the one introduced by the Conservatives in 1972.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Does the Financial Secretary acknowledge that when VAT was first introduced it was visualised that it would be refundable or rebateable to firms in the construction industry, the pharmaceutical industry and in relation to the export trade? Is he aware that as a result of the current industrial dispute many firms in those industries are now suffering growing embarrassment due to the Government's failure to pay the refunds due to them? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that more effective action will be taken to see that those firms do not run into serious cash flow difficulties, with mounting unemployment?
    Mr. Sheldon: There are obvious problems for a number of firms as a result of the computer being out of action due to the industrial dispute. I hope that it will not be long before these refunds are made. Meanwhile, I hope that the other alternatives available to firms to find sources of finance to make good any deficiencies will be employed by them.

    North Sea Oil and Gas
    Mr. Whitneyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimate of the benefit to the balance of payments of North Sea oil and gas production for the years 1978–79 and 1979–80.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: The October 1978 economic progress report included estimates of the direct and identifiable contribution of the North Sea programme to the current account of the balance of payments. For 1978 and 1979, these were £3 billion and £4½ billion respectively, both at 1977 prices. At current prices, it is now estimated that the contribution for 1978 was about £3½ billion.
    Mr. Whitney: When the right hon. Gentleman compares those figures with the dismal prospects for the overall balance of payments outturn, will he agree, even at this late hour, that this is a manifestation of the tragic cost and waste of a national opportunity caused by his Socialist policies?
    Mr. Barnett: The only dismal prospect for the balance of payments would be if by any mischance the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends were ever to come into power in this country.

    SOUTHERN AFRICA
    Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to visit Southern Africa.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Yes, Sir. I hope to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Lusaka in August.
    Mr. Blaker: However that may be, will the Prime Minister say why the Government are so opposed to the sending of observers to the Rhodesian elections, whether sent by the Government or by the House? Is it because they believe that that would amount to recognition of the elections? Is the Prime Minister not aware that his predecessor, with all his experience of Rhodesia, has publicly said that observers should be sent? Does the Prime Minister imagine that his predecessor believes that that would amount to recognition?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave on this matter a week or two ago.
    Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to explain to the world the farce of the forthcoming rigged election in Rhodesia, in which already 28 per cent. of the seats have been allotted to 4 per cent. of the population? Does he agree that Smith knows as much about running a democracy as the Tory Party knows about achieving social justice?
    The Prime Minister: The important thing in Rhodesia is to secure a settlement acceptable to all the major parties there. Unfortunately, it does not seem that this election, either because of the composition of the new Assembly or because of the circumstances under which it is held—namely, the extension of guerrilla activity—is likely to produce a result that will be sustainable. In those circumstances, it seems to Her Majesty's Government that it would be better to proceed in due course to an election that would be internationally accepted and supervised by the United Nations.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: If the Prime Minister—provided that he is in a position to accept such reports—receives reports from the international observers who are going to the Rhodesian elections

    1687
    that those elections are free and fair, will he take steps—provided that he is in a position to take any steps at all—to inform his Back Benchers and his Government that that ought to be a reasonable criterion for saying that the elections have been properly conducted?
    The Prime Minister: Any question that contains so many"ifs"is bound to be hypothetical, and it is not my responsibility to answer such questions. But clearly, the answer that I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lunch-field and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) holds good for this question also.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 23 March.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall also be making a ministerial broadcast. This evening I hope to attend a reception for winners of The Queen's Award for Export and Technology in 1978. It is not the custom for the Prime Minister to give details of his engagements in advance.
    Mr. Adley: Does the Prime Minister recall that last Tuesday he sneered at my my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when she described the current rate of inflation as 13·3 per cent.? That was a statistic provided by the Treasury, and he described it as having been given in response to a question designed to produce a certain answer. As that statistic was based on the same criteria as the Chancellor of the Exchequer used to produce his statistic of 8·4 per cent. inflation at the last general election, can the Prime Minister tell us whether his party fought the last general election on a false prospectus? Is he proud that after five years his Government have raised inflation from 8·4 per cent. to 13·3 per cent.?
    The Prime Minister: I must say that if the hon. Gentleman has to go back to that he is getting in pretty poor shape for asking questions. As to the basis on which the election was fought, I shall
    1688
    recount it to the House, namely, that the overcoming of inflation was the first priority, together with ensuring that our balance of payments was put in order. Both those aims have been achieved.
    Mr. Stallard: Will my right hon. Friend take time off from his engagements, either today or tomorrow, to intervene in the rapidly deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland resulting from the Bennett report and allied issues, further highlighted today by the action of another distinguished member of the medical profession, Dr. Denis Elliott? Is my right hon. Friend aware that charges and countercharges between the Northern Ireland Office and representatives of the minority community have antagonised many members of the minority community in Northern Ireland and many impartial observers in this country, and that this is bringing into question the Government's whole approach to the problems of the Six Counties in the North-East of Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the Government have shown by their immediate acceptance of the Bennett report that they stand firm by the principle that there should be no possibility that any prisoner taken into custody should suffer injury as a result of that being done. Every case that is brought to our attention where that happens will certainly be dealt with most rigorously, for there can be no worse condemnation of the Government than that we should allow such matters to pass unchallenged and uncorrected. I give my hon. Friend that firm assurance.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the political manoeuvres in which he is engaged today degrade the high office which he temporarily holds and are bad for Britain? Will he now put Britain first and give the people of this country the chance to elect a Government?
    The Prime Minister: I do not complain if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is not electioneering or is putting Britain first to believe that his own party would do better, but it comes a little strange when he makes a remark suggesting that, of course, that has nothing to do with politics. It seems to me that I have reached the stage when, were I even to

    1689
    say that spring is on the way, it would be regarded as electioneering of the worst order ever witnessed in this country.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Will my right hon. Friend find some time today to study the transcript of the broadcast yesterday by Dr. Rhoodie in order to consider whether he should hold an inquiry into whether any British politicians on the Opposition Benches—[HON. MEMBERS:"Or the Government Benches."]—received any payment for speaking in support of South Africa's apartheid policy?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to study this matter, but I would not myself propose to go into it. I am sure that if any factors come to light my right hon. Friend will suggest that we take the necessary action.
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 March.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall also be making a ministerial broadcast. This evening I hope to attend a reception for winners of The Queen's Award for Export and Technology in 1978.
    Mr. Winterton: Will the Prime Minister say why the Government have accepted a 20 per cent. increase for lorry drivers in the public sector, and may I ask him to be honest with the House and explain, since he is so bitterly opposed to 20 per cent. pay increases in the private sector, how two inflationary wrongs can make a non-inflationary right?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman suggests in the last part of his question must be correct, but it does not arise out of my official engagements today.
    Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend take time off today to receive the overwhelming thanks of the majority of the British people for the decision which he has announced today to set up a council for animal welfare? Secondly, when he comes to announce the membership of the council, will he pay no heed to balance but make sure that the majority of the
    1690
    council are there for the purpose of animal welfare and not animal use?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Government received many representations on this issue, and I have told my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) that because of the growing concern about the treatment of animals the Government have decided to set up a council for animal welfare to maintain an oversight in this matter and to advise the Government. The council will have the power to review existing legislation and recommend legislative or other action on any animal welfare matter and to propose improvements in the existing advisory machinery.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is it true, as is alleged in the Western Mail today—[HON. MEMBERS:"NO."]—that in their bid for survival the Government have offered Plaid Cymru a compensation scheme for slate quarrymen suffering from dust diseases? If that is true, is it not the most despicable bit of bartering possible?
    The Prime Minister: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, while I have every respect for the Western Mail, it is not my responsibility to comment on reports in that newspaper. As regards the whole question of the compensation for slate quarrymen, I wish that the hon. Gentleman had not put his point in that way. He will remember that the Royal Commission which examined this matter was very sympathetic about it but could not find a solution, and when I reported some months ago on the outcome of the Royal Commission I announced that the Government would try to find some way of compensating these slate quarrymen. I believe that when he reflects on his question, the hon. Gentleman will regret the insinuation which he made.
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 22 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
    Mr. Price: If my right hon. Friend finds himself today contemplating what to do in Parliament over the next seven

    1691
    months during which the Government will remain in office, will he turn his mind to the Official Information Bill which is shortly to come to the House on Report and remind himself that in the Labour manifesto there was a pledge to reform the Official Secrets Act and to provide a public right of access? Will my right hon. Friend remind himself also that the Bill was not opposed by the Government on Second Reading, and will he give the House some sort of indication that all the reports that he is against it are completely wrong?
    The Prime Minister: In all these matters, of course, there is collective responsibility and I accept my share of it. As regards the future of the freedom of information Bill, I hope that there will be some discussions with the sponsors of the Bill and others who are interested before it comes back to the House. It contains a number of very valuable points, but it also contains others which would not be acceptable, and perhaps we can make some progress on it in the light of the discussions which may take place.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the Prime Minister in his broadcast tonight explain to the people why he made no ministerial broadcast during the campaigns for Assemblies in Wales and Scotland? Will he explain why the Government made no effort to explain the measure to the people who are utterly bewildered by it? Will he also explain why the Labour Party in the constituencies in Wales took virtually no part in the campaign for a Welsh Assembly?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties about broadcasting during the campaign. As for my own part in the campaign, I say—I hope with due modesty—that I addressed the largest assembly in Wales that heard anybody speak on the subject during the course of the campaign. Unfortunately, it did not have the required effect. I hate to think what might have happened if I had spoken to an even larger audience.

DEVOLUTION
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the further action that the Government propose to take following the results of the referendums on devolution which were held in Scotland and Wales on 1 March.
The House is aware that it is now almost 10 years since the Royal Commission on the constitution was appointed at a time when there was much public dissatisfaction with the workings of government in Scotland and Wales.
For a decade there has been intense debate about possible changes in the system of government, not only in this House, where all parties have put forward their own proposals for improvement, but also in Scotland and Wales. Parliament itself has been engaged for almost two years in considering detailed legislation, which included the proposal for advisory referendums to enable the people of Scotland and Wales to vote on whether they wished the Acts to come into force.
The results of those votes fell short of the conditions laid down by Parliament, so today the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales are laying draft orders to repeal the Acts as they are required to do by section 85(2) of the Scotland Act and section 80(2) of the Wales Act. The effect of these orders would be to repeal both Acts in their entirety. That is a fundamental decision and Parliament must have a full and early opportunity to debate and decide the issue. This is the Government's intention.
If the House decides to repeal these Acts, that will certainly not be the end of the matter. The debate will continue, especially in Scotland, where a majority of the votes cast was for the Act to come into force. Such a volume of opinion cannot sensibly be disregarded.
The Government have now fulfilled their obligation to lay the repeal orders. We intend to proceed to the next stage, namely, to ask the House to debate and decide on the orders, but we also propose that before the House makes such an important decision there should be a short intermediate stage.

1693
As the House knows, the Government themselves are firmly committed to a policy of devolution. We shall therefore use this short interval to make formal approaches to all the other parties in the House urgently to discuss on a bilateral basis, taking into account the result of the Scottish referendum, whether a measure of agreement might not be found to provide for the better government of Scotland. We will be ready to consider carefully modifications which might now be proposed to the present Act, and ready to consider no less carefully any other proposals that might emerge. The Government's intention is that such discussions should be brought to a conclusion one way or the other by the end of April at the latest.
As for Wales, the same uncertainties are not present. There was a heavy majority vote against the Wales Act and the Government assume that Parliament will wish to repeal the Act. Nevertheless, agreement might be possible on further administrative changes which would improve the quality of government in the Principality. We shall therefore approach other parties to consider whether we can secure agreement on further devolutionary changes that would lead to a settlement in Wales within the same time limit of the end of April.
The Government's conclusion is that the situation in Scotland makes it imperative that before any irrevocable step is taken by this House there should be one further attempt by the parties to get the matter right in a way that would not disregard the majority voting in the Scottish referendum and would strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Thatcher: I put three points to the Prime Minister on his statement. First, is he aware that we believe that the best way would be for the House to proceed to debate the orders on the Scotland and Wales Acts and to decide their fate as a first step? With particular reference to Scotland, we believe that a proposal that is approved by 33 per cent. of Scottish electors, rejected by 31 per cent. and for which about 36 per cent. did not register their vote is no basis for constitutional change.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has proposed bilateral talks with all the
1694
parties. He will recall that he has turned down similar proposals many times. Does he recollect the most recent occasion, in Glasgow, in February of this year, when, referring to the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for an all-party conference and the extensive range of options that it should consider, he said:
" What a sham, what a shower."
It would seem, therefore, that the Prime Minister does not really believe in talks except when he finds himself in acute difficulty. Does he understand that we are entitled to question whether his prime objective today is genuinely to explore ways of making the Government of the United Kingdom and its parts more effective and closer to the people? It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this is merely a delaying device, with a different end in view.
Thirdly, bearing in mind that even if this Parliament runs its full time there are only about three months of parliamentary sitting time left, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be a cleaner and better way for the question to be considered by a new Parliament with a fresh mandate and a long lease of life ahead?
The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Lady that there is a case for debating and deciding the orders as soon as possible. When the talks that I have proposed have been concluded, in the normal course of events a debate will be arranged through the usual channels. The issue has now been running for about 10 years. Whatever our views may have been before the referendums—here I come to the right hon. Lady's second question—I hope that everybody has learned some lessons as a result of them. In Scotland the result was close, but there was a majority in favour. Unless the House is not really concerned about the constitutional future in these matters, that is surely something to which we should pay attention.
I note what the right hon. Lady said in her last question, about motives. It is true that only three months' sitting time is left. I note what she says about a new Parliament and the position of the Government. However, the real concern here is not the future of the Government but the future of the United Kingdom. I can

1695
think of nothing worse than that this House should proceed to a decision on this matter which in certain circumstances would leave a complete vacuum. It seems to me that many hon. Gentlemen are so concerned with scoring party points that they do not look at the wider issues.
Mr. Donald Stewart: May I remind the Prime Minister of the clear commitment in the Labour Party election manifesto that Labour would create elected Assemblies for Scotland and Wales—about which there were no ifs, buts, referendums, 40 per cent. clauses, or anything else? Could not the talks to which he referred easily have taken place in the three weeks since the Scottish people gave their decisive verdict on the Scottish Assembly? Is it a reality that he is not prepared to face the outcome of a vote in the House but is prepared to treat the Scottish people with contempt rather than face an early election?
The Prime Minister: I believe that it would be treating the Scottish people with contempt if an order were laid and voted on to repeal the Act without any attempt being made to see what could be done to achieve a measure of good government in Scotland. I hope that the Scottish National Party will remember that.
Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister not at least correct in saying that devolution is an issue that will not go away? In our view it will not do so. Is he aware of our view that such inter-party discussions as he proposes will in any case be necessary to make progress on this issue, irrespective of whether there is an election or change of Government, and that we might as well start the process now?
Is the Prime Minister aware that during the referendum many of those who campaigned for a"No"vote did so on the basis that the Scotland Act was unacceptable and that better alternative proposals should be considered? Is this not now the chance for them to be produced?
The Prime Minister: The most notable example of what the right hon. Gentleman said was provided by Lord Home, who said that he had debated whether to vote for the Act in the referendum but came to the conclusion that even though the Act was not right it should be taken back and modified. I believe that that is the view of a great many Conservatives
1696
—certainly of those who are not merely concerned with whether they can save their skins in the House.
Mr. Dalyell: May I support the Prime Minister in suggesting that the issue is the future of the United Kingdom? Does he accept that, rightly or wrongly, many people believed, on the issue of majorities, that an absent vote was a"No"vote? That must be taken into consideration.
The Prime Minister: I know that. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I know that there is that strong argument. With respect, I should prefer not to enter into it. It seems to me that all of us should take note that, whatever were the circumstances, the majority of those who voted did so in favour of setting up an Assembly. It would be totally wrong—and might create intense dissatisfaction—if the House proceeded in an afternoon's debate to wipe out the result of two years' legislation without making an attempt to see whether we could do something to get good government in Scotland.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Why does the Prime Minister think that any Member of Parliament or anyone else should accept his advice—or is it a device—on devolution? Has not he represented a Cardiff constituency for 34 years? Does not his chief collaborator, the Lord President, also represent a Welsh constituency? Did not they both get it terribly wrong on their home ground? Is it not time that the Prime Minister stopped giving advice and started taking some, by having a free vote on this subject in the House next week and thereafter going to the country for an early election?
The Prime Minister: I never cease to take advice. I am being proffered it from all quarters. Indeed, I now suggest that I should listen to the hon. Gentleman and any others who have advice to offer on how to carry this matter forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help me on that matter.
Mr. Sillars: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing feeling of sourness and bitterness among the"Yes"voters in Scotland, who see that"first past the post"is acceptable for election to the House, for decisions in the House, and to take us into the Common Market?

1697
That was a constitutional change involving a tra er of sovereignty of far greater magnitude than devolution. Is the Prime Minister aware that in the coming election there is no party in Scotland that will get 33 per cent. of the electorate's votes?
May I ask the Prime Minister to confirm two facts? Given the arithmetic, the size of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the known support of the other factions in the House for voting for the repeal order, has he a majority on paper of 35 per cent. to secure the Scotland Act?
Secondly, is not the Prime Minister's strong position on paper undermined because he and the Cabinet are in an extremely difficult position, as some Labour Members of Parliament would rather see a Thatcher Government in Downing Street than the Scots sitting in an Assembly in Edinburgh?
The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his question is true. All our decisions are taken on the basis of a majority vote. Winston Churchill once said"One is enough." The Cabinet and the Government must take note that Parliament, after long debates, inserted the 40 per cent. provision into the Act. That is why it would not be right for us to plunge ahead without further discussions on this matter.
As to the future of the country, my hon. Friend should not worry himself with nightmares about a Conservative Government. That will not happen.
Mr. George Gardiner: Whether or not the Prime Minister is treating the Scottish people with contempt, does he recognise that many people on both sides of the House believe that he is treating the House with contempt? The House of Commons established the rules by which these referendums should be conducted. It has the right to expect him to play by those rules.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is correct. That is why we laid the orders today. We shall proceed to a debate and Division on this matter, in the normal course of events, when the talks, which I have said must finish by the end of April, have been concluded.
Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Prime Minister agree that one fact that every Member of Parliament must bear in mind, besides those that he mentioned, is that more than two-thirds of the people of Scotland did not support the proposal that was before them? Is he aware that what people throughout the country, north and south of the border, want is more local decision-taking? Two-thirds of the people in Scotland did not support the proposal, as they believed that this must be done on an all-British basis and not on a partial basis.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend states the position correctly. Whether or not the Act was popular and a majority of people voted for it, even if the House of Commons took a swift decision to wipe it off the statute book there would be continuing pressure for more local decision-taking in Scotland, as my hon. Friend said. This is an issue to which the House should address itself seriously, and it is on that basis that we shall be intending to enter into talks.
Mr. Graham Page: Does the Prime Minister think that the Government are really carrying out their obligation under the Scotland Act when they merely lay these orders without laying also a motion to approve them? Is this not using the procedure of this House to cheat the House out of an early debate?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is"Yes"and to the second part"No ".
Mr. William Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that I wish him well, but I"hae ma doots "? For a number of years we have waited publicly for a clear declaration from the official Opposition as to their policy on devolution. It would be helpful to Scotland and, indeed, to the United Kingdom if the official Opposition could come clean with the people and with this House as to where they stand. Will the Prime Minister seek to have these discussions in public?
Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will go beyond the Leader of the Opposition and seek the views of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and of another former Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who clearly, in election after

1699
election, gave to the people of Scotland the promise of an elected Assembly?
The Prime Minister: Yes, the Conservative Party has in the past said that, although more recently, in December, it published a pamphlet in which four viable options were offered. That was before the referendum, and they did not seem to us at that time to be appropriate. Nevertheless, if the Conservative Party wishes to advance those options during the course of discussions, they ought to be considered, as there was such a narrow majority on this matter. We cannot wish away the fact that a majority of people have voted in favour of the Assembly and there is therefore a responsibility on all of us.
I think that it would be better to begin with bilateral talks. They can be broadened out in any other way, provided that we get them finished within a reasonable period. That seems to me to be essential. I have already indicated what I mean by that.
Mr. Whitelaw: As the Prime Minister referred to my noble Friend the Lord Home, and as he was also referred to by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), may I ask the Prime Minister whether he noticed the statement made by Lord Home yesterday, in which he said that
" In terms of practical politics nothing can happen before a general election "?
The Prime Minister: That, no doubt, is Lord Home's view, but that depends on the willingness of the parties to have discussions. I believe that there is such a willingness, and certainly the effort ought to be made.
Mr. Abse: Does the Prime Minister agree that even in Wales, where only a very small number of people supported the Assembly, it is highly desirable that that small minority should not be totally disregarded? Will he further agree that it is important, in the interests of the unity of the Principality, as well as the unity of the United Kingdom, that wherever minorities have expressed their view, be they in Scotland or in Wales, by means of talks we should try to see whether we can have something far short of Assemblies but something that will bring about decentralisation in a manner that will find a general consensus?
The Prime Minister: I hope that the House will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. He is a representative of the Principality who fought very hard against putting the Wales Act on the statute book. I think it is clear to all of us that for Wales, with its separate language and its different culture, we should not take hasty decisions unless, as my hon. Friend says, we are able to find ways of strengthening the power of local decision-making and of strengthening the sense of identity of the minority in Wales.
Mr. Sproat: In the light of what the Prime Minister has repeatedly said about the so-called majority in Scotland, what does he now say to those voters in Scotland who believed the persistent statements by members of his own Government, and the statement in the one official Labour Party political broadcast, that an abstention meant a"No"vote? Will not those voters who acted accordingly feel bitterly cheated if he now disregards their abstentions, which, in the majority of cases, were clearly votes against the Assembly?
The Prime Minister: I know the view that is expressed about this. I did not enter into that, and I do not wish to do so now. We can go only on the basis of the votes that were cast. Anyone is entitled to put his own interpretation on what would have happened if votes that were not cast had been cast. I am not holding an inquest on the past; I am trying to see whether there is any way—considering that of the number of votes cast there was a majority in favour of the Assembly—of finding a path forward that would satisfy the majority.
Mr. Dewar: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in Scotland who have supported devolution for a long time—indeed, the vast majority of supporters of the Labour Party in Scotland—will support his idea of talks at this stage, as the alternative is almost certainly the repeal of the Act and putting back the cause of devolution for many years?
Does my right hon. Friend further accept that if small groups in this House—groups who have temporarily been given a place of importance by the even balance of the House—block those talks, they

1701
will be seen by many people in Scotland as acting against the best interests of devolution, and as probably going for something very different indeed from the reform of the government of the United Kingdom that everyone in Scotland wants?
The Prime Minister: I have put before the House the Government's proposal. Every hon. Member must now reach his own conclusion on what he wishes to do about that, and I have no desire to influence anybody beyond what I have said.
Mr. Reid: By refusing today to give a clear guarantee that the vote on the Scotland Act will be on a three-line Whip, does not the Prime Minister confirm what the House already knows—that there is a Scots majority for the Assembly, an English majority against the Assembly, and enough Members in his own party who would rather see the Leader of the Opposition in Downing Street than honour the clear manifesto commitment to the Scots people?
If it is clear to the Prime Minister by tonight that there are no takers for his bilateral talks, will he have the vote next week, anyway?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman seems to be repeating points that were made earlier. Whether it is a three-line Whip or a four-line Whip is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and not for me. He is the one who decides that. The hon. Gentleman should not be pessimistic. I believe that from these talks we can help to save something for the people of Scotland, and I hope that he will help us to do so.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more hon. Members from each side.
Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister agree that whether or not the inter-party discussions take place there will be a very expensive empty building in Edinburgh? Will the Government therefore consider sending the 71 Scottish Members of the Scottish Grand Committee, with the Scottish Estimates, to debate all matters relating to Scotland, including legislation, in that chamber?
1702
Will he, in addition, pioneer the devolution process by encouraging that Assembly to set up powerful Select Committees to investigate specific Scottish matters, in line with the recommendations of the recent report of the Procedure Committee?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's proposal is one that might well come from one or other of the parties with whom we intend to have discussions. The Government would approach that matter with an open mind, to see whether it met with assent.
Mr. Fairbairn: In view of the charlatan-like and twisted statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, and the sycophantic statement made by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), would it not be better, instead of declining, as the Prime Minister did earlier, to send observers to Rhodesia, to ask some members of the Patriotic Front to come here and see whether we have free and fair elections?
Mr. Anderson: If, in the bilateral talks, my right hon. Friend will not be in the position of reacting to proposals from other parties, surely he must have some idea of the various options available. Can he now tell the House what will be on the agenda at those meetings, what the alternatives are that the Government have in mind, and whether those alternatives include reform of this House for Select Committees on Welsh and Scottish affairs?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is, of course, correct. Naturally we have given consideration to what might be put forward. When we have these inter-party talks we will certainly be ready to discuss a number of issues that will concern both Wales and Scotland, and we have prepared such a small list.
Mr. Gow: Is the Prime Minister aware that the successive misjudgments that have been made by the Government in regard to their devolution policy, including their misjudgment of the response of the people of Wales and Scotland, mean that he has no authority left to call such talks? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what his time scale will be if the only person with whom he

1703
finds himself in conversation is the temporary Leader of the Liberal Party?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman seems to be putting an odd complexion on the result in Scotland, where a majority voted in favour of the Act. No amount of argument can wish that away. If more than 1¼ million people voted in favour of the Act, it would seem to show—even Eastbourne might take this into account—that in Scotland there is a very real desire for more local devolution of one sort or another, even among many of those who voted against the Act as it stood. It is to that fact that we must now direct our attention.
Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his short intermediate stage can be justified, especially if it means that impending death will concentrate the minds of nationalists in the House? Is he aware that on 1 March the people of Scotland and Wales shattered nationalism and also firmly rejected selective and isolating devolution within the United Kingdom? Will he make absolutely sure that his period of reflection, however necessary, is not mistaken for prevarication?
The Prime Minister: The fact that we are ready to enter into talks with a time limit—and a very short time limit—in order to see what can be done about this matter is in itself sufficient indication of our good faith.
Mr. Alan Clark: Instead of indulging in these various hypocrisies and shadow boxings with the minority parties, why does not the Prime Minister simply lay before Parliament the Septennial Act? In view of the proccupation of the minority parties with losing their seats, that would be probably the most effective way of ensuring the right hon. Gentleman's personal ambition—namely, to remain in office for another two years.
The Prime Minister: Like so many others, the hon. Gentleman seems so concerned about these matters that he is unable to look at the wider issues that concern the future of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that when the Prime Minister made his statement he said that the matter affected the
1704
United Kingdom. I appreciate your difficulty, but in view of the fact that all those hon. Members whom you have called have been Scots or Welsh, or represent Scottish or Welsh constituencies, and also the fact that the Prime Minister said that this matter affects the United Kingdom, should not at least some hon. Members who also have an interest in the United Kingdom have been called? This matter concerns regional questions, including London, so surely we are entitled to join in this discussion.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration at not being called, but his facts are not strictly correct. I did call a London Member.
Mr. Lewis: But he was Scottish.
Mr. Speaker: I do not ask an hon. Member's nationality; I am guided by constituency.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend has a point. A number of hon. Members represent English constituencies, and the Prime Minister has always said that this is a matter of importance to them as well as to anyone else. My protest is a mild one, but it is, nevertheless, a protest.
Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since when has Eastbourne been in Scotland?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We were not debating the matter today. We were asking questions. I allowed a long time for questions, but there will now be a serious statement by the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Lewis: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you, in the hearing of the Prime Minister, something that I believe will be appreciated by the House? When statements are made—I know that it has gone on for many years, quite rightly—the Leaders of the Oppositions receive copies of the statements beforehand. Are there any objections to every right hon. and hon. Member having copies of these statements beforehand, in the same way as they receive budgetary and financial statements? I ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider that seriously.
My point is that Back Benchers cannot remember a long statement. As a chosen

1705
few Opposition Members refer to such statements, what possible objection can there be, when the Prime Minister or any Minister has a statement to make and the statement is available from the Vote Office, to hon. Members going to the Vote Office to get a copy of that statement so that they may be apprised of the details? Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could have a word with the Officials of the House to see whether that can be done.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the point of view he has expressed will be considered.

BRITISH AMBASSADOR, THE HAGUE
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
Hon. Members will have been deeply shocked to hear this morning of the death of our Ambassador to the Netherlands, Sir Richard Sykes, and a member of his domestic staff, Mr. Karel Straub, a Dutch citizen. Sir Richard Sykes was shot while leaving his residence shortly after nine o'clock this morning and four bullets were fired at the car at short range. According to an eye witness, the shots were fired by two men who have not yet been traced and no organisation has yet claimed responsibility for the incident. We are in close contact with the Dutch Government and with other European Governments.
I know the entire House will be appalled by this premeditated act of violence and will join with me in expressing our sincere condolences to Lady Sykes and her family and to the family of Mr. Straub.
Sir Richard was an outstanding representative and his death is a great loss to this country, of which he was a distinguished servant, to the Diplomatic Service, of which he was a greatly liked and respected member, and, above all, to his wife and family, to whom we will all wish to extend our deepest sympathy.
Mr. Pym: The whole House is profoundly shocked by this brutal and pre-meditated
1706
murder. The Opposition send their heartfelt sympathy to Sir Richard Sykes' widow and family, and to the family of the Dutch member of staff.
Sir Richard was one more highly distinguished representative of our country, and a completely innocent citizen, whose life has been taken. It is a horrifying event—so much so that it is difficult to grasp and comprehend. Not only are we deeply concerned for his family, but we are also anxious about the safety of our ambassadors and representatives. Only recently the United States ambassador in Afghanistan was murdered.
May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will undertake a review of the security arrangements, because it would seem that we are in a new situation now in which the existing level of protection may no longer be appropriate?
May I add a message of sympathy also for our Diplomatic Service, whose members play such a vital role for our country all round the world? While sending our condolences to, and thinking about, this grievous tragedy for Sir Richard Svkes family, we think also of the service of which he was such a respected member.
Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about Sir Richard Sykes and his family, as well as his remarks about the Diplomatic Service. There is very little doubt that in many different parts of the world it takes risks on our behalf, and they are not always recognised. The security arrangements are under constant review, and must change with the changing situation in many different countries. Arrangements are made either with the host Government or, in exceptional cases, by Her Majesty's Government to protect our ambassadors in posts overseas. I shall certainly look at them, but I can assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that they are constantly looked at and that the utmost vigilance is observed.
When all is said and done, and as anyone who has lived under any form of protection knows, if people are to conduct themselves in public life openly and in a civilised manner, there will always be some risk. What we must do is to root out the terrorism that makes such occurrences possible.
Mr. David Steel: On behalf of my colleagues, may I join in the expressions of

1707
sympathy to the families of Sir Richard and his Dutch member of staff? Sir Richard was known to many of us in this House, in both his present and previous postings. I join with the official Opposition spokesman in supporting the Government in any further steps that they may think it necessary to take to improve the security of our representatives overseas.
Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Roper: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House knew Sir Richard Sykes personally, both in his capacity as a member of the Western European Union Council and, more recently, at The Hague? We know what he did to promote co-operation between parliamentarians in European countries and, therefore, feel very deeply about his tragic and deplorable death. We should like to associate ourselves with the condolences that my right hon. Friend has sent to Lady Sykes.
Dr. Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the striking things about Sir Richard Sykes was the great many friends he had in all walks of life, in this House and elsewhere, who will greatly miss him.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I suggest to the House that we might not wish to continue with a lot of questions on this matter, but I shall call the hon. Member in whose constituency the diplomat resided.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: The Foreign Secretary may be aware that the Ambassador was not merely a constituent but, after more than 30 years in the Foreign Service, was beginning to look forward to his retirement. Will the right hon. Gentleman personally ensure that treatment of the Ambassador's family by his Department, and more particularly by the Treasury, reflects the sympathy that has been expressed on both sides of the House this afternoon?
Dr. Owen: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: I apologise to those hon. Members who I know had personal links and wanted to put questions on this matter. I think that it is in the best interests of the House for us to move on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 MARCH and TUESDAY 27 MARCH—Debate on a motion on the statement on the Defence Estimates, Cmnd. 7474.
At the end of the debate on Monday: motion on EEC documents R/2712/78, R/2311/78 and R/2163/78 on the Community's energy policy.
Remaining stages of the Forestry Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Redundant Mine-workers Concessionary Coal Order and on the Mineworkers' Pensions Scheme Order.
At the end of the debate on Tuesday: remaining stages of the Public Health Laboratory Service Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 28 MARCH—Second Reading of the Legal Aid Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Credit Unions Bill.
At Seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
THURSDAY 29 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill.
Debate on the White Paper on broadcasting, Cmnd. 7294.
Motion on the British Broadcasting Corporation Supplemental Licence Agreement and Royal Charter.
FRIDAY 30 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 2 APRIL—Debate on CAP price proposals for 1979–80, document 4648/79 and addendas 1, 2 and 3, and on EEC documents R/2369/78 and R/2162/78.
Mrs. Thatcher: Bearing in mind that our proposals for Scotland have already been published for some time, and already turned down by the Government, and that other parties might have similar

1709
views which they could express to the Government briefly, will the Lord President bear in mind that for Wednesday or Thursday's business he could substitute a debate on the orders to which the Prime Minister so recently referred?
Mr. Foot: I certainly bear everything that the right hon. Lady says in mind, but, on reflection, I believe that she would also agree that the best way to proceed is that suggested by the Prime Minister this afternoon.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the very special relationship between political parties and the media with regard to by-elections and elections? My right hon. Friend may be aware that the Liberal candidate in the present by-election in Liverpool, Edge Hill has refused to appear on Granada Television, which precludes the other candidates. On that basis, will my right hon. Friend see whether time could be found for a debate? Possibly an approach may be made to the IBA in this regard.
Mr. Foot: If the statements made by my hon. Friend are true, as I suspect them to be, a very serious situation exists in regard to that by-election. It seems a very illiberal attitude for anyone to adopt, but if the Leader of the Liberal Party can assure us that there is no such difficulty, or at any rate that he has managed to get the Liberal candidate to change his mind, I shall be gratified to hear it right away.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Steel.
Mr. David Steel: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that this is really in order under business questions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the right hon. Gentleman to ask a question.
Mr. Steel: My difficulty is that I am trying desperately to think how I can ask a question. Is the Leader of the House aware that what he has just been told is quite untrue, and that the Liberal candidate in the by-election will be participating in television programmes? However, he certainly took exception to the format of one programme, and I understand that negotiations are still going on. However, the other programmes are going ahead
1710
and all the candidates will be participating.
Mr. Foot: Part of what my hon. Friend said is true. I hope the position will be cleared up. I hope that no restriction at all will be imposed in that by-election. I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's assent to this proposition, because I hope that we are all in favour of open government in Edge Hill.
Mr. Grieve: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to early-day motion No. 324, standing in my name and that of 87 of my right hon. and hon. Friends?
[That this House regrets that the Inland Revenue should appear to be departing from its traditional impartiality.]
Will he give the House an early opportunity to debate this motion? There is widespread concern throughout the length and breadth of the country about the recent departures by the Inland Revenue from what was believed to be its policy of impartiality between taxpayers.
Mr. Foot: I cannot accept reflections on the way in which the Inland Revenue does it business on the basis of the hon. and learned Gentleman's allegations or those in the motion. I do not see the necessity or desirability of such a debate, but I shall have a look at the matter, although at present I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject a week ago.
Mr. Spearing: Does the Lord President recall that the business of EEC energy, which should have taken place last Tuesday, had been expected to last for about three and a half hours? Since it has now been transferred to Monday next after 10 o'clock, will he give consideration to extending that debate to its original proposed length?
Mr. Foot: I am sorry, but I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion. We had to transfer the business for reasons that I think were for the convenience of the House as a whole. In view of the transfer, it will unfortunately mean that the length of time available for the debate will not be as long as we had previously hoped and arranged. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but

1711
some other business will also be considered on that day and we must also take that into account.
Sir Bernard Braine: Can the Leader of the House say whether the promised statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about his visit to the Pacific, which took place more than three weeks ago, will be made next week? Is he aware that the longer this statement is delayed the more the impression will be given that the Government have something to hide about the Banaban question? Incidentally, when shall we have a Bill in the House?
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend's report is being considered and the Government's views will be made known in due course. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says on the other aspect of the matter. The Bill will be introduced at a fairly early stage, when the House will have the chance to debate it.
Miss Boothroyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the desire of many hon. Members to focus attention on the aims of the international year of the child and the special welfare and health programmes that are needed, particularly to meet the needs of children in the developing world and the demographic trends related to these programmes? Will he consider my request, made many weeks ago, to find time for a debate on this wide-ranging issue?
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend raises a perfectly eligible subject for debate. I would say to her and other hon. Members of the House that this is a question that can be raised in private Members' time. That is not to suggest anything derogatory to the importance of the subject. That is why private Members' time is provided by this House on a more ample basis, believe, than is the case in any other legislature in the world.
Sir David Renton: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what he intends to do next week about the constructive proposals in the report of the Procedure Committee, published on Tuesday, for enabling the House to reach decisions on the main isssues that arise on its report?
Mr. Foot: I have read the report. I think that the further report that the Committee
1712
has presented to us is most helpful in suggesting how we might proceed. I do not accept that every proposal made is the way that we would wish to proceed, but the Committee's approach has certainly assisted us in the discussions that are taking place between ourselves and others in the House on ways to discuss the matter when we come back to it.
Mr. Watt: When shall we have an opportunity to debate the Expenditure Committee's report on the fishing industry? Is the Leader of the House aware that the present state of uncertainty cannot continue, as many boatbuilders in my constituency are threatened with redundancy?
Mr. Foot: I acknowledge the importance of the subject. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole question of the future of the fishing industry has been constantly referred to and discussed in the House. I am sure that we shall need to have further discussions in due course. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be here to assist us in those discussions.
Dr. Bray: Will my right hon. Friend say when the Government will announce their proposals to deal with the breach of oil sanctions in Rhodesia? Will he say whether the Government propose to make their proposals known before the election in Rhodesia?
Mr. Foot: I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I have nothing further to add this week to what I said last week in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who raised the question. I had hoped to be in a position to make a further statement this week. I hope, in any case, to be able to do so next week.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate that the arrangements for next week's business may be rather provisional, but life must go on. Does not the Lord President think that Thursday's business looks overcrowded? Is it wise to attempt to have a debate on the Independent Broadcasting Bill and on the White Paper on broadcasting on the same day? Would it not be better to take the debate on the White Paper on broadcasting first, or, better still, to have these debates on different days?
Mr. Foot: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we are dealing

1713
with a leisurely prospect ahead of us. None the less, I believe there is an obvious association in all these topics. It may be found, on reflection, that the order that we have proposed for discussion also has its advantages.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have already been standing.
Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the serious allegations made in the special"Tonight"programme about the activities of the South African Government in financing politicians, newspapers and front organisations in various countries, can we expect a Government statement next week, or is an investigation taking place?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a Government statement, but I will look into the subject in the light of my hon. Friend's representations.
Mr. Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the opinion of most people in this country his Government's programme is threadbare and its honour and credibility are destroyed? Does he accept that the Scottish National Party, in the motion that it has recently tabled, appears to have a better idea of the priorities of the situation?
Mr. Foot: We are all waiting to see whether the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have the courage of the Scottish nationalist convictions. It will be interesting to see. The hon. Gentleman should look at the programme that is ahead of us for a considerable period before he makes such suggestions.
We have the important discussions that I have announced on broadcasting, on many interesting subjects, and, on Monday week, on the common agricultural policy. Shortly afterwards, a major housing Bill will be presented to Parliament and, as the House knows, the Budget will be presented on 3 April. I am sure that the Opposition will be eager to make a contribution. There is plenty of good business to be done in the weeks and months ahead.
Mr. Christopher Price: Will my right hon. Friend be more specific than the Prime Minister this afternoon about the
1714
Government's intentions in relation to the Official Information Bill, which comes up for its Report stage on 6 April? The Prime Minister mentioned having discussions. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that those discussions, if they are to take place, can be initiated quickly? It is a complicated matter when one is dealing with a Back Bench Bill with sponsors from many parties. The sooner that we get on, the better.
Mr. Foot: I shall certainly take into account all that my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yet another week has gone by and he has failed to redeem his promise to the House to give a proper opportunity to discuss EEC legislation? He cannot prevaricate by thanking the Select Committee on Procedure for yet another report and using that as a get-out. It has gone on for far too long. Will he please tell the House that he will give it a chance next week to know what he intends to do to redeem his promise?
Mr. Foot: There is no question of anything that can even distantly be described as prevarication. I made no promise last week to make a statement on this subject this week. I have referred to this matter—it is important—and the House will wish to discuss it at some future date. I have not made a commitment about the time at which it should take place. There are different views among different hon. Members. The Committee on Procedure, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) referred, has proposed to the Government a different order of priorities for discussion. I do not say that there is anything final about that, but we must take it into account.
Mr. Cryer: We have seen earlier this afternoon an example of the concern of the House for loss of human life. Does my right hon. Friend accept that between 800 and 1,000 lives are lost through industrial injuries every year in Britain's factories? More days are lost through industrial injuries than through strike action. We have not had a debate in the House on any annual report of the factory inspectors or the Health and Safety Commission. Some time ago my right hon. Friend indicated that this

1715
would be possible. Can he now give a firmer indication that this matter should be debated? The Health and Safety Commission is accountable to this House. My guess is that if there were another Flix-borough, or some other major disaster, we would have a debate pretty soon. Why cannot we keep abreast of matters by having a debate?
Mr. Foot: I acknowledge the claim of my hon. Friend, and others with a special interest in this subject, for a debate in the House. He will acknowledge that this Government gave high priority to the question. That is why we put through the Act of Parliament that set up the Health and Safety Executive. Since then, we have carried through a whole series of measures seeking to ensure that the Act is effective. I am not denying that there is a claim to have a debate in the House to see how we are proceeding.
Mr. Bowden: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion No. 177, in my name, on the death grant?
[That this House of the view that steps should be taken as soon as possible to restore the death grant to its original 1949 value, in real terms, which would require an increase of £124·81, Official Report, 15 January, column 630, and to abolish the age restriction and end the discrimination against very elderly people who are at present unable to get any form of death grant as urged by the Parliamentary All Party Group for Pensioners and the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations, the British Pensioners and Trade Unions Action Committee, Age Concern (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), Help the Aged, the Scottish Old Age Pensions Association and others.]
It is an all-party motion, with 189 signatures. Can the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate? If not, will he undertake to have a quiet word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is finalising his Budget, and remind him how important is an increase in the death grant?
Mr. Foot: There is a widespread feeling in the House and throughout the country on this matter. At the last Labour Party conference—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was present—a motion on the subject was passed. I am sure
1716
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be weighing all these questions.
Mr. Eyre: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to early-day motion No. 336, which refers to the report of the Town and Country Planning Association?
[That this House expresses concern at the report of the Town and Country Planning Association to the effect that the Government's declared policies to revitalise the run-down areas of cities are failing on the principal grounds that the Government plans: (a) have too little to do with local people, (b) have produced a large bureaucracy, (c) are wasting public money, and (d) do not involve private firms enough; and in view of the greatly increased unemployment and deteriorating conditions in the major towns and cities, especially in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Leeds and parts of London, calls upon the Government to review urgently and amend their policies in the light of this report.]
This sets out the reasons why the Government's policies, aimed at revitalising the run-down areas of cities, are failing. Does the Leader of the House recognise the seriousness of these problems? Will he arrange for them to be debated at an early date?
Mr. Foot: I have read the hon. Gentleman's motion and examined the terms of it. If he and his hon. Friends look afresh at the terms of the motion, they may reach a different conclusion. They should re-read the report, because their précis is a travesty of what is in the report. It makes a more positive contribution than the Opposition wish to recognise. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Frieinds will re-read the report and reconsider whether they wish to keep the motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In view of the number of requests for debate that the Leader of the House has had from the minority parties such as the Liberal and Scottish National Parties, can he assure us that he and the Government are not simply prolonging this Parliament in order to fit in those debates in the next few weeks?
Mr. Foot: This Parliament is going forward to deal with important questions.

1717
The business that I have announced today is the final, complete and conclusive answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Younger: Is the Leader of the House aware of the extremely serious situation in Scotland, where a wide range of public services are at a halt because of strike action against the Government's handling of their pay policy by ambulance men, hospital workers, teachers and civil servants? Why is there no time to debate this matter next week? If there is no time, will the Leader of the House set up the Scottish Grand Committee so that we can have a full debate on this important matter and public services in Scotland can return to normal?
Mr. Foot: I do not deny the seriousness of the situation. However, I doubt whether all hon. Members agree that the Scottish Grand Committee is the place where these matters should be discussed. Negotiations are still taking place. We should await their outcome before considering whether to discuss the matter in the House.
Mr. Fitt rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order, The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was not in the House when I said that I would call those hon. Members who had already been standing, but as a measure of good will, and not as a precedent, I call him.
Mr. Fitt: In view of the controversy that has surrounded the publication, analysis and interpretation of the Bennett report, and since another prominent member of the medical profession in Northern Ireland resigned last night because of the controversy, will the Leader of the House arrange as soon as possible for a full debate on the Bennett report on the Floor of the House, so that all the difficulties can be debated and dispensed with?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland takes one view among the many that are taken about the report? Will he therefore arrange for an early debate to enable all opinions to be expressed on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate next week, but I can assure my hon. Friend and others that I understand their strength of feeling and how much they wish to have the matter debated further in the House. We had some exchanges a few days ago. I shall examine the request, but I cannot make a commitment.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the Fishing Boats (Faroe Islands) Designation Order 1979 (S. I., 1979, No. 256) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
ROAD TRAFFIC (SEAT BELTS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I must inform the House that almost 50 right hon. and hon. Members seek to participate in the debate. The occupant of the Chair is very much in the hands of the House. I can only appeal to the House. If short speeches are made, I shall be able to call many more hon. Members, although I doubt whether I shall be able to call 40.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have an almost impossible task. I do not wish to be patronising, but I must say that you do a wonderful job. This Bill does not involve a party political matter. It might be difficult for the Chair to judge which hon. Members are for and which are against the Bill. The usual practice is for the Chair to call hon. Members from alternate sides. If that practice is followed today, the Chair may call only hon. Members who are in favour of the Bill, or only those who are against it. I have no interest in this matter as I did my battling earlier, but if the Chair was told in advance which hon. Members were for the Bill and which were against it would be easier to strike a balance.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. This is a difficult matter, but I do not wish to encourage a queue of hon. Members at the Chair. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's suggestion will be borne in mind for the future. Perhaps when hon. Members write to me expressing their anxiety to be called they will indicate whether they are in favour of or opposed to a non-party issue.
4.36 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The issue that we are discussing today is familiar to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House. It is now almost exactly three years since the House gave a Second Reading to a similar
1720
Bill which failed to make adequate progress before the end of the Session.
But the history of seat-belt wearing—and the discussion it arouses—goes back much further. The first parliamentary questions about seat belts were asked 20 years ago and discussion about compulsory wearing started not long after. The first requirement to fit seat belts to front seats came in 1966 and the present regulations—in their complete form—date from 1971.
I mention this only because most hon. Members have been through the arguments time and time again and many have devoted much anxious thought to the matter. I hope that the arguments in support that we hear today—including mine in favour of giving the Bill an overwhelming majority—will carry weight with those who still remain in doubt. But the most persuasive argument, and also the simplest, is the argument of experience—sometimes bitter experience. The inescapable fact is that the wearing of seats belts saves lives and the compulsory wearing of seat belts would save very many more.
There is no other single step that Parliament could so easily take that would save the lives of so many people. Whatever votes are cast today, I believe that future generations will be deeply puzzled that we failed to take such steps at an earlier date. I say that without disrespect to those who have taken—and may still take—a contrary view of this Bill. Of course, there are arguments the other way, as there are on every great issue. The fact remains that in the perspective of time our hesitations—the hesitations of Parliament—will be difficult to understand.
I return to the simple point because it is overwhelming. On the best available evidence of accidents occurring in this country—evidence which has not been seriously contested—compulsion could save up to 1,000 lives and 10,000 serious injuries a year. If we were talking not of seat belts but of avoidable mining disasters or avoidable consequences of fire or flood, the House would not hesitate to give the highest priority to the Bill.
Every day this Bill is delayed, two or three persons die who need not die and two or three families are bereaved. Every

1721
day this Bil is delayed, 20 to 30 people are seriously injured, some of them permanently disabled or horribly disfigured.
This must be the starting point for those who vote against compulsion, or who do not vote at all. They must set their arguments against it.
The passage of time has simplified the issues that we are discussing. The effectiveness of seat belts in reducing accidents is not in dispute. The success achieved by other countries with compulsion has not been seriously challenged either. The seat belt is also well established as the simplest, most effective and most acceptable means of avoiding the sort of casualties with which it is meant to deal.
As for the argument that persuasion alone—through advertising and publicity—will do the trick, this has now been demonstrated not to be the case. The voluntary approach has been valuable in raising the wearing rate from 14 per cent. in 1971 to an average of about 32 per cent. today. But, in practice, over the last few years an annual expenditure on advertising now over £1 million a year has resulted in no lasting improvement in wearing rates. We have been running in order to stand still.
I do not propose today—particularly as so many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak—to follow the convention of taking the House through the Bill in detail. It is short and self-explanatory. I doubt whether any remarks of mine could contribute substantially to the understanding of it.
Similarly, I do not propose to go steadily through all the issues which arise on the Bill, dealing carefully with each. It would take a great deal of time and there are many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides who will deal with them adequately in the course of the debate. This will enable my hon. Friend, in replying, to focus on those issues which clearly matter most to the House and require a ministerial comment.
I shall not even burden the House with the impressive list of professional bodies—from the British Medical Association through the Institute of Advanced Motorists to the Police Federation—that support the Bill. Some—such as the Automobile Association, which represents more than 5 million motorists—have been in
1722
touch with hon. Members. Others have expressed their views less publicly.
I want to comment on only four issues—whether the wearing of a seat belt can increase the risk to life in certain circumstances; the problem of exemptions; the question of enforcement; and the"criminal"offence argument where it flows over into the freedom-of-the-individual argument.
The risk-to-life argument can be dealt with very quickly. Of course, it is impossible to say that there are no circumstances whatsoever in which wearing a seat belt might increase the risk to life. I am familiar with the example of the driver whose car catches fire or rolls off the quayside into deep water, although even in these cases he is more likely to be knocked unconscious without a seat belt and thus be unable to escape. But the risk of accidents involving fire or water is of the order of one in 1,000. On all the best evidence—the evidence of research and medical evidence—the chances of faring worse rather than better with a seat belt in these and other such cases is remote. I make the point this way because it is relevant to the justification for compulsion. It is already accepted by those who approve the voluntary wearing of belts.
Mr. Neil Macfarlane: As the Secretary of State is commenting on this point, will he address his mind to the problem of the passenger who, under the proposed legislation, would be belted in on the front passenger side? Let us suppose that that passenger was a parent who had a small infant or a child on his or her lap. Does this constitute an offence, or will the Secretary of State make it an offence for any passenger in the front seat to have a small infant or child on his or her lap?
Mr. Rodgers: I do not propose on this occasion to go further than the limits of the Bill. But, speaking for myself, I think that it would be a very foolish parent who had a small child on his lap in the passenger seat. That would be ridiculous. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House would take the view that this would be extremely unwise.
I come to the question of exemptions. There are many views on this matter as to how different individuals might be dealt with, but the argument on detail is

1723
not for Second Reading, legitimate though it is. It must arise on later stages of the Bill.
In the first place, as seat-belt wearing saves lives, it follows that exemptions should be reduced to a minimum if the effectiveness of compulsion is not to be undermined. Secondly, however, I acknowledge that there is a case for certain exemptions, which I take to be the view of all supporters of the Bill.
I put it that way because we can decide in due course about how exemptions should be drawn. But the case for exemptions and alternative views about who should be exempted cannot be an argument against the Bill on Second Reading. I acknowledge differing opinions, and I shall express my own. But no one who believes that compulsory seat belts make sense can vote against the principle because he is not satisfied about how exemptions should be drawn. Let us not seek to deceive ourselves or others.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Does the Secretary of State realise that at least one Member of this House will base his decision on his vote on this point of exemption? The right hon. Gentleman cannot cover this point merely by saying that it should be left to the Committee. It is absolutely vital to the principle of the Bill on which we shall be voting.
Mr. Rodgers: I differ from the hon. Member, and I wish that I could persuade him to support the Bill by saying otherwise. We must discuss the question of exemption in Committee and on Report. The details of exemption will be spelt out in the regulations made under the Bill. At a later stage the House will have the fullest opportunity to express its own views. It would be impossible for me today to produce a formula which would fairly represent the differences of opinion inside the House, let alone outside. In addition, it would be quite wrong for me to try to tell the House exactly where those exemptions should lie. Therefore, the details of exemption will have to be decided later. The most that I can do today, and the most that anyone can do, is to indicate perfectly fairly which view he or she takes.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will the Secretary of State try to help the House a little more? I am an enthusiastic
1724
supporter of the Bill, but I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has a point. Perhaps the Minister could help by saying that his propensity for exemptions would be more favourable in medical cases, where there was a strong attestation by a medical practitioner, than in cases based on the size of a person, because the seat belt can be adjusted to accommodate people of small stature.
Mr. Rodgers: Perhaps I should not have given way to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) because I have more to say on exemptions. The only general observation that I was seeking to make was that I do not believe that we can go through the list this afternoon and decide conclusively what exemptions there will be. I do not claim that views expressed on these matters today will be the final views of the House. The House must determine them for itself in due course. May I say a word about exemptions, because I hope that it will go some way towards meeting a number of the points which hon. Gentlemen would otherwise wish to raise at this stage?
It is true that in the debate in 1976 a number of hon. Members expressed concern that too many details were to be left to regulations. Perhaps that was the point of the hon. Member for Cambridge. Hon. Members were particularly critical of the proposed use of the negative resolution procedure. They were also concerned that, whatever resolution procedure was adopted, Parliament would not be able to change the regulations but would have either to approve or to reject them.
I understand that anxiety, and I have considered it carefully, but my basic reason for not putting more detail in the Bill is that I believe that we must leave ourselves with some flexibility for the future. We may want to extend some exemptions, and equally we may want to restrict or remove others. Other countries which already have compulsion have found it desirable to make changes in the light of experience, and we may well feel the same way. The House enjoys an element of flexibility when it can achieve it, and for that reason this is, I think, the right way to proceed.
I wish to provide as much parliamentary times as possible for consideration in due course and I should certainly expect

1725
us to debate the proposals further on the basis of a draft of the regulations before the regulations themselves were laid. That is a method of procedure that the House sometimes adopts, generally with advantage, and which enables everybody to express a view before final decisions are made by Ministers.
When the regulations are laid they will, in the case of the first regulations and any subsequent regulations which extend the scope of wearing, be subject to the affirmative procedure. So, whatever views are taken today, there will be adequate scope for the House to form its own view, whatever my own may be, about where exemptions should lie.
Mr. George Younger: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he will produce some draft regulations on exemptions for us to consider during the Committee stage? That would be helpful.
Mr. Rodgers: I am prepared to consider that. I shall have to remind myself of the precise procedures of the House and discover whether it would be legitimate for me to do so after Second Reading and before the House has given final approval to the Bill. If we could have a full discussion in Committee or on Report, I should welcome that, not in order to impede the progress of the Bill but to try to get the greatest possible measure of consensus.
May I say a word or two about the way I see the situation now, without any desire—because I cannot do it—to commit the House to the final form of the exemptions in the regulations?
As regards the scope of wearing, my intention is that the requirement should apply only to types of vehicles and seating positions where fitting of seat belts is required by law under the current construction and use regulations. That will be no great surprise to the House, but I think it should be clear that I am not seeking to extend compulsory wearing out of the range of the vehicles covered at present.
Beyond that, there is an overwhelming need to provide exemption for those for whom it is medically inadvisable to wear a belt. People who wish to bring themselves within the scope of this exemption
1726
will, under my proposals, have to obtain a certificate from their doctor. My advice from the medical profession is that it would be inappropriate to attempt to list in regulations those injuries and conditions which would qualify a person for exemption. The decision, therefore, will be a matter for the doctor's discretion, although the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention has agreed to circulate advice in due course to the profession and is preparing this now. It seems to me that this approach is in keeping with professional independence and discretion.
I also propose to provide exemption for those of the disabled and others who would find it physically difficult or impossible to wear or fasten seat belts.
I propose two further exemptions. First, I propose the exemption of drivers when reversing or performing a manoeuvre which involves reversing. That is an exemption which the House has broadly endorsed in the past. Secondly. I think that we must recognise the problems of tradesmen who make deliveries on a house-to-house basis—for instance, milkmen, bakers and postmen.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On behalf of the limbless, and as one concerned with the national associations in this regard, may I take it that limbless persons, particularly those, such as myself, without one arm, who may have great difficulty in fastening a seat belt which is out of their reach, will be exempt without having to obtain a medical certificate? Will the associations which represent the disabled be able to say on their behalf that they should be exempt? Could something of that kind be included?
Mr. Rodgers: Yes, indeed. That is what I would propose to the House in due course. The reference to the medical practitioner was essentially for medical conditions which are not easily defined. What the hon. and learned Gentleman says is very much what I have in mind as something which would be spelt out in regulations and on the basis of consultations and a formula which would be acceptable to the House.
I want to say a further word about exemptions and on what I have just said about tradesmen—
Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
Mr. Rodgers: If I may finish what I am saying about tradesmen, I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not give way every two or three minutes, because that would deprive a number of hon. Members of the opportunity to speak.
I do not want to exempt all short stopping journeys. Nearly two-fifths of fatal and serious accidents among drivers and front-seat passengers occur in built-up areas, and these must include people on this kind of stopping journey. What I have in mind is something on the lines if exempting people who are driving or riding in a vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the delivery of goods or mail and who are undertaking a delivery round from the vehicle. Here again, I think this category will be broadly acceptable to the House, whatever views hon. Members take.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On the general question of exemption, my right hon. Friend said that a medical certificate would recommend exemption. Will the certificate be carried on the person, or will it be with the insurance document, the road test document or other documents? The certificate might have been left in another car or at home. What will be the position if a policeman stops the person and is told that he has an exemption certificate but has left it in Scotland?
Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that the experience which my hon. Friend describes is unusual. It is not unusual for hon. Members to be stopped, I hope for no improper reason, and to find that they are not carrying their licence. I never carry mine with me. But it is well understood that the licence can be taken to the police station within five days after such an incident. It seems to me that we should follow broadly the same rule here. A man gets his certificate from his doctor and, if he is wise, he puts it in his pocket and keeps it there. All of us fall short in that respect, but there will be no problem arising from that. The certificate can be produced at a later stage.
Mr. Percy Grieve rose—
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: One last intervention—
Mr. Rodgers: Provided it is the last intervention, I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve).
Mr. Grieve: I am very much obliged to the Minister for that courteous priority. Has he given consideration to the problem of the very elderly? In my experience, many old people intensely dislike being fastened in by seat belts and find it very difficult to manage them. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether special exemption should be given for the elderly?
Mr. Rodgers: With all respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think dislike, even among the old, should be a criterion for exemption from the provisions of the Bill. I must say with great respect to the many old people who drive vehicles that I do not think the manoeuvre of fastening a seat belt is more difficult than the manoeuvre of driving a car, and if they are uncertain about that I think they might have to consider whether they are totally confident of their capacity to drive.
Mr. Grieve: I mean as passengers.
Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry; I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Yes, we can look at that. It does not immediately occur to me as an overwhelming problem. I have driven elderly people in my car, and I always put the belt on for them. I should hope that this could be done and that we would not make old people more vulnerable to death or injury, bearing in mind the purpose of the Bill, than younger people.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
Mr. Rodgers Mr. Rodgers I give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is positively the last time that I shall give way.
Mr. Griffiths: The Secretary of State must feel like one of those people who keep getting in and out of vehicles and are required to fasten their safety belt every time they get back in. I am grateful to him for giving way.
I should like to put two points that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept are intended to be helpful. First, before he leaves the subject of exemptions will he say a word about the emergency services—the police and fire services? Will

1729
they be caught by the need to wear seat belts?
My second point concerns medical certificates. As so much of our road safety law, whether on speed limits or anything else, requires consistency in all parts of the country, will he do his utmost to see that the advice to general practitioners is such that there is a consistency of approach and that we do not find that in some areas it is easier to obtain a doctor's certificate than it is in others?
Mr. Rodgers: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that at present there is no obligation to have fittings for seat belts in certain types of vehicles. I totally accept that in special circumstances it would perhaps add to the risk—not the risk to life, because that is far greater if one is not wearing a seat belt. I would not wish to move in a direction that aggravated that problem.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I hope that advice will be given to the medical profession which will enable a measure of consistency to be found. But the choice is very difficult. We could say that the GP's view is the best in terms of the fitness of his patient to be a passenger or driver without a seat belt, and let him decide. Alternatively, we could lay down broad regulations, which could be very hard on some who might otherwise deserve to be exempt and might exclude others who otherwise should wear a seat belt. There are disadvantages. There will not be uniformity, but I think that the course that we have chosen is the better one.
Dr. Reginald Bennett rose—
Mr. Rodgers: I must continue. If I do not, my speech will be a great deal longer, and I have already made clear that I have given way for the last time.
The most important category of people that I do not propose to exempt is children. In 1976 it was proposed to exempt all those under 5 ft. in height, which would have had the effect of exempting a large number of them, but there was a widespread view in the House that such an exemption should not be given. Over 1,500 of the car passengers killed or seriously injured last year were
1730
under 15 years of age. To take no steps to protect children would be inexcusable.
In fact, although belts may not be an ideal fit for smaller children, there are a number of devices, known to any parent, which might be used to make belts more comfortable for old children and small adults. My conclusion is that our best approach is to say that children should either wear belts in the front seat or—better still in my personal view—sit in the back.
There is a great deal more—I can see it from the reaction of right hon. and hon. Members—that I might say about exemptions, but given the procedure envisaged in the Bill there will be every opportunity to look for the largest measure of agreement consistent with the purposes of the Bill.
On enforcement, the third of my principal points, I do not think there is a great deal new to say. Every extension of the law raises the question of the means and cost of enforcing it. But questions of enforcement properly follow the making of the law itself. Parliament cannot hold back the necessary legislation simply on this account.
Problems of enforcement are in direct relationship to knowledge of the law and the respect in which it is held. A substantial number of people already wear a seat belt voluntarily and as a matter of course. Many others would be quite content to wear a seat belt if wearing was the law of the land. The law would push them in the direction that they feel they ought to go.
I do not expect that we shall get 100 per cent. wearing rate, any more than we get 100 per cent observance of other road traffic laws, but many other countries—with a sturdy tradition of independence and no great love of being ordered about—achieve wearing rates of over 80 per cent. without fuss or oppressive action by the police. I am sure that we can do as well.
As to overloading the police with extra work, it is right to remember that they will be saved a considerable amount of time attending, both on the road and in hospitals, to the consequences of accidents.
I turn finally to the liberty-of-the-subject argument. In a sense there is no final, absolute answer to this. Every

1731
law restricts the freedom of the individual to act precisely as he chooses. The question is where we draw the line in terms of benefits achieved in relation to freedom forgone. Each of us may draw it differently, and each age strikes the balance in a different way.
I remember reading, many years ago, A. V. Dicey's great classic"Law and Public Opinion in England in the Nineteenth Century ". It made a great impression on me, although not perhaps the impression that Dicey had in mind. I remember learning from it how the late Victorians looked back with approval on the Factories Acts and supported workmen's compensation and employer's liability, which had been anathema to previous generations. There is no enduring rule; there is no timeless certainty. We weigh the evidence, we consider the advantages, and we decide.
As I have said in the House before, I do not favour—in any walk of life—statutory regulations for their own sake. Instinctively, I prefer less legislation rather than more. But on this occasion the choice for me is simple. An extension of the law, and the restriction of freedom that it entails, is wholly justified when many hundreds of lives will be saved and many thousands more will escape injury. There is freedom here, too, a very precious freedom: the freedom to live rather than die, and the freedom to live as a whole person and without disfigurement.
I recognise a refinement of the argument against the Bill. Some people will ask, as some hon. Members will today,"Should we seek to save people from themselves rather than from the consequences of the wrongdoing or foolishness of others? Does this Bill not introduce a new principle into our legislation? "
I could argue that others may be endangered if a driver does not wear a seat belt, because there are times when he can better control a car after a crash if he is wearing one. I could argue also the case for those who are involved—without choice on their part—in the consequences of a serious accident: the police and the ambulance men, those who treat the dying and injured in hospital and—I have mentioned them before—the bereaved. But, leaving such arguments aside, I believe that we, Parliament, have a duty in this case to protect people from
1732
the terrible consequences of their own neglect.
There are precedents for such legislation. The most obvious case is in the health and safety legislation, which places on every employee a duty to take reasonable care for his own safety—and provides for heavy fines, or even imprisonment, if he does not. Regulations also require that passengers in commercial aircraft wear seat belts at take-off and landing and on such other occasions as the captain of the aircraft may indicate—and there are heavy fines for contravention. Even more to the point, article 33(2) of the Air Navigation Order 1976 requires all pilots, including the pilots of private aircraft, to wear a seat belt when in control of an aircraft.
But even if precedent were lacking, it would be mistaken to condemn the principle embodied in the Bill. Parliament cannot be bound by precedent. It is for Parliament to decide the statute law on the merits of the case. Circumstances change; we attach different values to new situations. If Parliament believes that the merits are overwhelming, it is fully entitled to legislate. It is proper for it to decide on the relative importance to be attached in this case to freedom and to human life.
On public occasions, as in private, most of us feel deeply that it is right to do whatever we can to save the life of a man, woman or child endangered by his or her own negligence or foolishness. We cannot ultimately deny the right of anyone to take his or her own life, nor can we ultimately prevent it. But, short of that, there is much that we can and ought to do. The Bill presents us with a unique opportunity.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Norman Fowler: As with the Government, there will be a free vote on the Opposition side of the House, and during the debate I shall express a personal view on this issue.
Let me first make a few preliminary points. I accept that seat belts save lives and prevent injury. I believe that it makes sense to wear a seat belt, and, whatever may be our views on compulsion, the public should not believe that that advice is being challenged.

1733
I believe also that road safety is an important area which the House should take seriously, and that nothing is more important than that we should seek to encourage better driving standards. I believe very strongly in that, because better driving standards prevent accidents rather than merely reduce injuries. It is for that reason that during the time I have been Opposition spokesman on transport I have taken the tests of both the Institute of Advanced Motorists and the League of Safe Drivers and, slightly to the surprise of my friends, passed those tests.
The question that we are debating is a balanced issue, and many of my hon. Friends take the view that compulsion is necessary. That is also the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who was Minister of Transport between 1970 and 1974. I respect that view. Nevertheless, I maintain the position that I expressed in 1976 that, although I support the wearing of seat belts, I am opposed to making it compulsory by law.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member said that on the Opposition side there will be no Whip or binding party line on the Bill. I am not clear whether the same applies to the Government, as it did three years ago.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand—no doubt the Secretary of State will intervene if I am wrong—that there is no official Whip on the Government side.
Mr. William Rodgers Mr. William Rodgers indicated assent.
Mr. Fowler: First and foremost, we should be clear what question is before the House. We are not being asked whether we support the wearing of seat belts. We are being asked to make the non-wearing of seat belts a criminal offence. We are being asked to create a new criminal offence, with all the implications that has upon the police, the courts and the citizen. Although the Secretary of State believes that his case is self-evident, it would appear to me quite wrong that the House should accept the creation of any new criminal offence without giving that proposal the most stringent examination. No one would seriously expect that any other course
1734
would be followed by the House, however strongly or sincerely the case for compulsion was held.
The argument has now double force, because last week the Magistrates' Association considered its attitude towards the proposed new law and the council of the association decided that, although it supported the wearing of seat belts, it was opposed to compulsion. The significance of that decision is that it is the magistrates who will have to apply this law. Let me seek to be a little fairer than was the Secretary of State on this issue. Although that is the view of the Magistrates' Association, many magistrates support compulsion, but in the same way, although some police bodies support compulsion, I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that many policemen oppose it. It is a very evenly divided argument.
I suggest that the House should consider very carefully before creating this new offence. I base that suggestion on two major arguments, the principle of making the law and the question of enforcement. In my view the two issues should be taken together, but, before coming to that, we should consider the background of our approach in Britain to motoring offences.
A great deal has been made of the fact that Britain is the odd man out in Western Europe on this question, although we should remember that in the United States compulsion has been rejected. I accept that, compared with many European countries, the police have neither the range of requirements nor the power possessed by many forces in Europe. It is possible for this country to decide to go down the path of more and more restrictions, and there are also other measures to do with motoring where the use of the law is advocated.
In some European countries the case for more law has been accepted by Governments, but traditionally this country has taken a different view. We have not taken the view that all that is required is for Parliament to pass a law and then for the police to enforce it. Ever since the important Home Office committee of 1932, we have taken the view that there is another factor to be taken into account—the effect that the creation of new motoring offences has upon relations between the police and the public.

1735
As the 1962 Royal Commission on the police stated:
" The evidence before us showed that an important—according to some witnesses the most important—factor affecting relations between the police and the public today is the problem of enforcing traffic laws."
That was the view almost 20 years ago and it has even more force today.
Whatever view hon. Members may take of seat belts, they should recognise first that the most common situation in which the ordinary citizen comes face to face with the police is as a motorist and, secondly, nothing is more important today than that there should be the best relations possible between police and public. So we have deliberately adopted a cautious attitude towards making new criminal offences.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Even if we accept the last point put forward by the hon. Gentleman, is he not in error in suggesting that we are embarking upon a whole new corpus of law? Are we not going down the path that we followed, with good results, for the compulsory wearing of crash helmets by motor cyclists?
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman states the precedent for this law which the Secretary of State did not, and that is the crash helmet legislation. I shall come to that argument. In considering whether we go down the path of a new motoring offence, we should consider the background against which we have customarily acted.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Why does my hon. Friend think that there will be an enforcement problem in this country when in Australia, which is just as freedom-loving—perhaps more so; some might say the people there are just as bloody-minded as they are in this country—there has been hardly any enforcement problem?
Mr. Fowler: If my hon. Friend will allow me to continue, I may be able to tell him, because that is the argument that I seek to put forward.
What the Secretary of State ignores about our approach and our attitude in this country is that far from this policy being a conspicuous failure, it has been an outstanding success. Having just completed a four-year study on this subject,
1736
comparing relations between police and public in all the countries of the Common Market, I would say that there are better relations between police and public in Britain than in any other Common Market country. It is not that the police are better equipped or necessarily more efficient; it is that there is a rapport and better understanding between police and public in Britain than there is in many other European countries. In this we lead, and nothing is more important than that this position should be preserved.
There is also another factor—the accident rate. Any death caused by any road accident is deplorable. Nevertheless, it is instructive to compare the number of road accident deaths in Great Britain with that of our European neighbours. We find that Britain does not have the highest rate; it has the lowest rate. The figures are set out in the world road statistics. The latest figures of the number of deaths from road accidents per 100,000 of the population are as follows: France has a rate of 25; in West Germany, the rate is 24; in Belgium, it is 25; in Luxembourg, it is 34; in Holland and Ireland, it is 18; in Denmark and Italy, it is 16; and in Great Britain, it is 12 per 100,000, which is the best in the Common Market countries. Australia has been much quoted in the debate. There the rate is 26 per 100,000, which is double ours.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only nation that rivals us in the excellence of its record is the United States, where seat belts are not compulsory and it is not intended to make them so?
Mr. Fowler: I shall confine myself to Europe and Australia, as those are the most likely comparisons to be used in the debate.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: If that is an argument for not attempting to improve our safety statistics, I cannot understand the logic of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler).
Mr. Fowler: I am sorry if the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) cannot understand the logic, but I do not find it altogether surprising. All deaths from road accidents are deplorable, but the approach that we have followed in Britain has produced the best road accident death statistics in Western Europe.

1737
I am open to correction, but it has also given us the best relations between police and public. Those matters should be seriously considered before passing new laws. Our policy has proved worth while. We should consider whether the Government's proposal moves away from that policy and places its faith in laws rather than in persuading and urging people to take care of their own safety.
It is proposed that the non-wearing of seat belts will be subject to a maximum fine of £50. The £10 maximum fine, decided by a free vote of the 1976 Committee, is rejected by the Secretary of State. In addition, there will be fewer exemptions. The Secretary of State has had almost three years to prepare his case and the exemptions, and the Government have had almost five years, but it appears that they still need time to consult on what the exemptions should be. The 1976 committee considered these points thoroughly, and the position is therefore not satisfactory. The exemptions will be introduced by order instead of being set out in the Bill for the House to decide. The House will be able to accept or reject, but not amend them.
The fixed penalty procedure—the ticket procedure and not the on-the-spot fine—was introduced in the 1976 Committee stage, and that has also been rejected by the Government. Two-thirds of the work of magistrates' courts is already concerned with traffic offences, and the Government believe that that should be the way to apply the law. Perhaps we should consider the European example here.
The explanatory memorandum says, first, that the Bill is not expected to impose any expenditure out of Government funds or any requirements on public service manpower. That suggests that the Bill will be enforced by the same number of policemen, and that extra duties will be imposed. No one could reasonably argue that the costs of law enforcement are zero, and that can only be based on the assumption that this law will be enforced incidentally to another offence. A policeman will stop a person for speeding and only then check whether he is wearing a seat belt, but policemen in Britain do not operate in that way. The Association of Chief Police Officers has made it absolutely clear to the Secretary of State and the Department of Transport that it
1738
does not want that to be the practice. So, clearly, there will be a financial cost in enforcing the law.
Mr. Grieve: Surely it is implicit in the suggestion of no extra cost that in enforcing this law the police will be taken away from other and—some of us may think—much more important duties.
Mr. Fowler: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) is correct. The law cannot simply be enforced in connection with other offences. The police force does not operate in that way and cannot be expected to.
The major detail of the Bill is unsatisfactory. It gives the impression that over the past three years little work has been done on it, and also that the Bill will not pass all its stages. A Bill is not introduced at the end of March that will go through all its stages by the end of this Parliament. The Government must want a vote on the principle of the proposal.
In principle, the essential risk is to the non-wearer, whether driver or passenger. There may be exceptional cases where a third party not in the car is harmed. If the principle is to be argued on the basis of the exceptional case, we must also consider a person not wearing a seat belt who may be saved from injury by, for example, being thrown clear. By making the wearing of seat belts compulsory, that individual would be worse off. We should therefore not argue the case on exceptions.
It is also argued that there are precedents for imposing on the individual a requirement to comply with certain legal rules.
The clear precedent in motoring is the legislation on crash helmets, but simply because there is a precedent the case is not made out for additional powers. Some of my hon. Friends voted against the crash helmet proposal, but it is suggested that that law is now universally accepted by motor cyclists. That is wide of the mark, as the Under-Secretary will confirm. The difference is that that law is conspicuously and easily enforced. It is the nearest thing that we have to a self-enforcing law in motoring. That cannot be claimed for legislation on seat belts. Even those policemen who support that law realise that enforcement

1739
will be a problem, for example, at night and in heavy traffic. There is wide scope for disagreement and argument. A policeman may believe that he has seen a motorist without a seat belt, and by the time that he has stopped him the motorist will have the belt on. The policeman may have been wrong, or the motorist may claim that he is wrong. Either way there is a dispute.
It is also argued that the law does not need to be enforced. The Department of Transport has said that it requires only a low level of enforcement, and that passing the law will be sufficient to encourage the public to observe it. That argument is nonsense. Laws must be enforced to be effective. That is why we have an organised police service. Governments found that making laws and threatening punishment was not enough. The law had to be enforced. It is the oldest rule in the book and must not easily be rejected by even the most sincere advocates of this course.
Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member does a great deal of travelling up and down the motorway, as I do. He knows that the chances of being seen by the police when exceeding the speed limit are minimal, yet the majority of motorists observe the speed limits. [HON. MEMBERS:"Do they? "] Are hon. Gentlemen saying that people obey the law only if they believe in the certainty of their being caught if they do not?
Mr. Fowler: What I am saying—I do not want to deal with speed limits on motorways, much as I am tempted to do so—is that for the last 150 years we have held that it is not enough for Governments simply to pass laws; the laws must also be enforced. For any Government to rely on those laws being observed simply because they are on the statute book is not a policy that should be easily contemplated. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) wants further evidence of this, I direct his attention to what happened in France. There it was found that when the police did not seek to enforce the law the wearing rate dropped, only to rise when a major effort was made at enforcement. Then 40,000 offences were reported in four months.
1740
The issue is best dealt with by a report from a standing committee of the House of Representatives in Australia. I cite the example of Australia because it is often quoted by the advocates of compulsion. That standing committee criticised the enforcement of the seat belt law in South Australia and said that the low enforcement rate was inexcusable. In its report it noted with concern
" the correlation between the low overall wearing rates and the low percentage of prosecutions for seat belt offences, of all traffic convictions in South Australia and feels that until a more stringent enforcement programme is undertaken, the fullest benefit from the law will not be gained."
It went on to say that
" unless there is a real threat of prosecution vehicle occupants will tend to disregard the law ".
The committee felt that
" the only way hard core non-wearers would respond to the legislation would be if non-wearing of belts could be made immediately obvious to the police as is the case with motor cyclists helmets. In this respect the committee feels that a device such as an outside light or some other form of indicator to show that a belt is unconnected is desirable."
It is therefore credible to say that seat belt laws do not have to be enforced; they do. The police say that they do and that it will be difficult to enforce them. This is exactly the kind of law that can lead to the maximum disagreement between the police and the public.
I personally support the maximum of persuasion, including some of the outstanding advertising campaigns that have been undertaken. If the Secretary of State's views on public opinion are right that a small majority of the country now supports compulsion, there must be even more support for a voluntary programme, not a lower level of support, as he suggested. In addition, I would support construction and use regulations such as the fitting of warning devices to tell the driver or passenger that a seat belt was not fastened. That seems to be an entirely sensible back-up to a campaign of persuasion. The motorist is then given every possible advice and assistance to take the action that we believe is sensible.
We do not support the creation of a new criminal offence which will be difficult for the police to enforce, which will not help relations between police and public at a time when no single issue is more important, and which will further

1741
add to the burden on the police and the courts. I shall certainly continue to advise people to wear seat belts, but I hope that the House will accept the sincerity of those on both sides who will be voting against the Second Reading tonight.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. George Robertson: Three years, three months and three days ago almost to the hour, I was driving through the Drumochter Pass in Inverness-shire when a Royal Navy Land-Rover was blown into the path of my Ford Cortina and we collided head-on. I spent three weeks in hospital and three months off work. I lost my right knee-cap and damaged my other knee and my jaw. I survived, and I am able to stand here and take part in the debate as a fit human being and as a Member of Parliament because on that January evening three years ago I wore a seat belt.
I therefore have a very deep and, at times, subjective and personal but none the less valid testimony to make on the efficiency and effectiveness of seat belts in protecting life and limb. If I ever needed reassurance about the need to wear seat belts, I have only to recall, as I shall to my grave, just how close to death I was, or just how close I was to being, almost worse than that, a burden both to my family and to the community for the rest of what would have passed for life.
How empty would have been the noises about individual liberty and about the freedom to be irresponsible for those dependent upon me if, on that day, I had chosen not to wear a belt. That is when the theory breaks down. The numbers affected by the thousands of road casualties are not confined to the people who are injured. Each accident spreads its effect through the financial, the emotional and the practical repercussions on the dependants—the families, the relations, and those who depend upon the accident victims at their work.
What price their liberty, their freedom and their futures? Although we are capable now of calculating the cost to the community of those who axe injured, we cannot measure, in death and injury on the roads, the deep human grief that is associated with every casualty. It must
1742
be substantial. We cannot possibly ignore it just because we cannot neatly and conveniently cost it. For every fatality and every terrible injury there is a circle of family—wives and children, as well as parents—that is affected. They are all subject to the emotional blow, to the pain, and in many cases to the lifelong tribulation that comes from sharing the consequences of disablement of the breadwinner or a dependant.
In reality, is not the folly of a few a burden on us all? Those few, given the lead, would find no more fundamental objection to wearing seat belts than to using headlights in the dark or wearing a seat belt in an aeroplane.
Last week I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Paul Mostoway, who is Deputy Speaker in the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly. He told me that a few years ago his Parliament had decided to make the wearing of seat belts mandatory. He described to me the agonising among his colleagues that preceded the legislation—the division, the doubts, the procrastination that affected his Parliament in much the same way as they are now affecting ours. But now that the law is passed, he told me, the only letters that he receives in his postbag on the subject are from people who write to thank him for making the wearing of seat belts compulsory, since that action alone left them alive to write to him. The letters tell him that because the writers wore seat belts they are alive today. To those who vote against this Bill tonight I say"Remember the letters—10 or more for every day that we wait—which cannot be written because the unbelted would-be writer is a corpse, a human vegetable or a cripple."
This issue is not just one of finance, although the preventable casualties are an enormous and avoidable cost to the nation and to the families affected. It is not just a question of saving the resources of the National Health Service, the police and the emergency services—although by preventing these casualties we would save substantially on public services that are sorely stretched at the best of times. It is an issue of humanity. It is our obligation to control the worst consequences of our increasingly motorised society. The 1,000 motorists who murder themselves each year and the 60,000 who maim themselves for the lack of a seat belt need our protection and the protection of the law.

1743
A preventable air crash or train crash causing a fraction of those casualties would lie for ever on the conscience of those who failed to prevent it. It is that duty to humanity—of which my personal experience testifies—that demands that I support the Bill. It is our collective duty to humanity to make sure that the Bill succeeds.
5.41 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Bill differs from the Bill of three years ago in one respect, which is important and welcome to my hon. Friends and myself who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. It is right that I should take no more than a minute or two to put the matter on record.
The previous Bill was a Great Britain Bill. Application to Northern Ireland would no doubt have followed, had the Bill passed, by a separate instrument. Then, when that Bill did not pass, an Order in Council was laid before the House in the last Session which would have applied the principle in Northern Ireland, irrespective of whether it was acceptable to the House in its application to Great Britain. My colleagues and I are grateful to the Government for having made the right decision—not to pass that order and so proceed upside down, as they would have done by passing the Order in Council, but instead to enact the measure, if it is to be enacted, for the United Kingdom as a whole; for though technically the Bill would still take effect in Ulster under clause 3 by virtue of an Order in Council, it would be an automatic enactment in the same form with only such alterations as are required by the different statute law in Northern Ireland. In effect, therefore, this is a United Kingdom Bill, and it is as a United Kingdom Bill that it will take effect—if it ever does—in Northern Ireland.
I should like to put on record a corollary, which is also a Government decision of considerable importance. The House may be aware that statutory instruments in Northern Ireland are not subject to the same control as those made under Great Britain statutes. Under the 1974 temporary constitution, those which would otherwise attract affirmative procedure attract negative procedure only and those which
1744
would attract negative procedure attract no procedure at all. Clearly, it would be inequitable if the order applying the Bill to Northern Ireland made it possible for the statutory instrument—the business end of the legislation, which gives effect to it—which in Great Britain would be subject to affirmative procedure, to be exempt from that procedure when giving effect to the Bill in another part of the United Kingdom, namely, Northern Ireland.
When this matter was raised with the Government, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland indicated that"subordinate legislation"under the procedure beinug followed in the Act would have the same substantive effect as subordinate legislation made under the corresponding Bill. In other words, when, in due course—if it passes—the legislation is applied in Northern Ireland, the statutory instrument which gives it its effect will be subject to affirmative procedure in Northern Ireland as it will be in Great Britain.
I apologise to the House for taking the time to put these matters on record, but such aspects of legislation, where Northern Ireland claims the right to be legislated for in the House in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom, are of considerable importance to us.
I turn to the main point at issue in the Bill, and shall do so briefly because I took part in the debate of three years ago. That it is an issue of principle and conscience is evident. That is the reason why, on both sides of the House, there is to be a free vote. The free vote on the Government side is not like the free vote on the Common Market—not because there is an agreement to disagree, but because the Bill is recognised to raise an issue of principle on which all hon. Members as individuals should conscientiously come to their own conclusions.
As I listened to the Minister, nevertheless I was not sure whether he had fully grasped what the issue of principle is. He described it as a matter of personal liberty. He said it was a question where we drew the line, and that as all law restricts personal liberty, the restriction of personal liberty by this as by any other legislation is only a matter of degree. But there is a difference of kind between a law which makes it criminal to endanger the lives of others and a law

1745
which makes it criminal for an adult to endanger himself: it is not a matter of gradation, it is a difference of kind, and one of enormous importance.
Nor is it a matter decided by precedent. At one point, the Minister seemed to think that precedent entered into the question. Eventually, no doubt if the principle were obscured and abandoned, the difference between principle and precedent might disappear; but while, as the Minister says, Parliament cannot be bound by precedent—and I should be the first to agree with him—Parliament is duty bound to observe principle, and it is the more called upon to observe the difference of principle between making criminal an act which endangers others and an act which endangers oneself only, because there is, so far, only one contrary precedent—the compulsory wearing of crash helmets.
Mr. Ogden: I am always cautious about intervening in the right hon. Gentleman's speeches when he makes the contrast between a right to injure ourselves and the restrictions that we have to accept about injuring others. Does he, as a practical motorist, agree that there are circumstances in which a driver wearing a seat belt is in better control of a car than a driver not wearing one?
Mr. Powell: I heard what the Secretary of State said about that, and it is to his credit that he was extremely careful not to suggest that it was on that ground that the Bill is introduced or that he defends it. There may be that incidental side effect; but we should be ludicrously insincere if we pretended that such a remotely contingent effect of the non-wearing of seat belts was the reason for introducing the legislation.
Mr. David Stoddart: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that there is a difference between endangering one's own life and endangering the life of another person. The right hon. Gentleman has sought to show that there is only one precedent for the Bill, but surely there is a precedent in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which makes it a criminal offence merely to possess drugs, let alone to use them or to supply them to someone else.
Mr. Powell: We had quite a long discussion on that point, which was very much in my mind, when we eventually got the debate on the regulations that rendered compulsory the wearing of crash helmets by motor cycle riders. I believe that in that debate the case was made out that the prohibition of self-use of drugs is consequential upon the object of the law to prevent the trafficking in drugs and the spread of their use. That is why I treated the crash helmets legislation as the only truly apt precedent where Parliament has yet crossed the dividing line.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) used the expression"right"to injure oneself; but I do not think it is from the point of view of personal liberties, still less personal rights, that this matter ought wisely to be viewed. It is the question of what society decides to make criminal and to punish in an individual's own behaviour that is the effective light in which to treat the problem.
When we look at it in that light, we see what an enormous range of extension of the same principle lies open. There is self-evidently an infinitude of ways in which—deliberately in some cases, ignorantly in others—individuals act in a way that will injure them, impair their health, shorten their lives and widow and orphan their wives and children. Let no one imagine that traffic law and seat belts are the only area in which the case can be urged for rendering criminal activities which endanger the person who engages in them or the absence of precautions which endanger the person who fails to take them.
In the whole range of sport, in health, in general life, there are myriad cases. Let it once be accepted that on the arguments advanced for this Bill such acts ought to be made criminal, and we shall find that over the years there will come a total change in the relationship between the law and the citizen and between the enforcers of the law and the subject.
Mr. Jessel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Powell: Yes; I thought that we were bound to have a little exchange.
Mr. Jessel: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that sports such as mountaineering and other dangerous and exacting sports are a training and a test of character and courage and that, in that sense, they are good for the people doing them? Would he argue that the non-wearing of seat belts was analogous to that?
Mr. Powell: I am most interested by the intervention of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and I hope he will reflect upon it, because it means that from now onwards, in all matters where an individual may injure himself alone by his activities, the legislature is to be called upon to assess the balance of merit in that activity, whether it be cigarette smoking, mountaineering, going out in a boat or the next thing. His intervention illustrates the boundless width of the ocean upon which we launch if we render purely self-endangering acts criminal.
I was about to observe how remarkable it is that in an age when we are almost feverishly concerned about what we call human rights, we in the House are becoming indifferent to principles of law that are much more easily definable and, I dare to say, much more precious.
We are often being invited to ignore those principles if we can be presented with items of casualties and totals of lives at stake and be told that the price of not passing a law is the loss of so many lives. I have two things to say about that. First, these are principles which, in the last resort, are more precious than life and which we have been prepared to maintain at the risk of our lives.
Secondly, in the feverish atmosphere which understandably—though that does not alter its nature—surrounds the whole question of traffic accidents and death and injury on the roads, we are constantly being deceived by the promises of those who invite us to ignore the difference of principle and to cross the gulf.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Powell: I shall, but I warn myself that I must not give way again.
Dr. Miller: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to estimate how many people in this country would be impressed by his legalistic argument against the
1748
wearing of seat belts and how many are against them merely because they find them irksome to wear?
Mr. Powell: I should not have thought that when an essential principle to which Parliament ought to have regard is at stake, the hon. Gentleman would ask himself whether it would be understood by all, 50 per cent. or 20 per cent. of his constituents. It is our business as legislators to attend even to principles the importance of which may be apprehended by only a small proportion of the public. That does not alter their importance.
I repeat we are constantly being deceived as to the utility of the steps that we are persuaded to take in breach of major principles that ought to govern law-making. The most obvious example recently has been the difference between the promised and the actual consequences of the compulsory wearing of crash helmets.
We were told before the measure was introduced that it would save 400 deaths and serious casualties a year. A couple of years later, the Department of Transport revised its estimate down to 200. However, that estimate is still far too great, as the statistics for the first two years have already demonstrated. I am not arguing the case, I am showing how little we can depend upon the saving of 1,000 lives dangled in front of us as an inducement to pass the Bill. The implication of the statistics for the first two years was well stated by Dr. Mackay, reader in traffic safety at the University of Birmingham, who wrote to me at the beginning of 1975:
" I certainly agree that the accident data show essentially no benefits in terms of the numbers of fatalities or casualties in the year preceding compared with the year following the introduction of that law."
That view has been borne out by some later statistics provided in a written answer on 2 May 1978. They showed in Scotland the following numbers of riders of motor cycles killed before and after the passing of the Act. In 1973, 35 riders were killed, in 1974 the figure was 37, in 1975 it was 46, in 1976 it was 33, and in 1977 the number of riders killed was 72. I do not know where in that sort of outturn the evidence is, or could be, for the massive and immediate saving in life and limb which we were promised and with the loss of which we were

1749
threatened if we did not consent to making compulsory the wearing of crash helmets.
I have one other example where another principle, just as deeply important, was infringed in the context of road safety. It is obviously right that it should be a criminal offence to drive a motor vehicle in a condition in which one's ability to control it is impaired, whether by alcohol or drugs or otherwise. That should manifestly be a serious criminal offence. Not satisfied with that, however, in 1967 this House enacted a new type of crime, a type of crime which by its nature could only be brought home to the offender by a breach of the fundamental principle of natural justice that a man should not be required to give evidence against himself. We created an offence the very nature of which is that the alleged offender must give evidence against himself and which can only be known by his giving evidence against himself. Though that meant breaching a principal of natural justice, we were told that it would make substantial inroads into the influence of alcohol upon deaths on the roads.
We know now what the consequence was. The Blennerhassett report was quite plain about this. We know in this case scientifically—it is very rare in this field that we can prove a point scientifically—that that law has had no effect whatsoever on the role of alcohol in the causation of road accidents. We happen to know that because all those killed driving motor vehicles were post-mortemed before as well as after the Act, and we can compare the proportion of those so killed before and after who showed the relevant degrees of alcohol content—a rare instance of being able to get a scientific proof.
The detailed figures are interesting, but Blennerhassett, gave only the totals: 25 per cent. were over the limit before the Act; the figure fell to 15 per cent. in 1968; it was back to 26 per cent. in 1971, and it had risen to 35 per cent. in 1974. Even those figures conceal something even more significant. They conceal what underlay the dip that is normal immediately after any change in road traffic law; that dip was composed entirely of cases where persons had only a little over the limit in their blood. The incidence of
1750
cases where there was a heavy, a scandalously heavy, influence of alcohol remained unaltered even immediately after the passage of the 1967 Act. In other words, we now know, in retrospect, that we laid hands upon that principle of natural justice and legislated in contravention of it for no result whatsoever—for no consequences or effects upon road casualties and the role of alcohol in their causation. Woe betide us if we now say that we have not gone far enough and ought to intensity our efforts by proceeding in the same direction.
There is always time to draw back from the brink. We have already put our foot over the edge in the crash helmet regulations of 1973, and every time the principle becomes easier to breach. We ought not to do it again. We ought to refuse in 1979 to cross the gulf by passing this Bill.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. David Young: It is obvious in a debate such as this that there will be divisions between Members of Parliament, between motorists and indeed between the motoring organisations. We are not arguing about whether the wearing of seat belts is advisable. The kernel of the argument is whether this should be achieved by persuasion or by compulsion and the use of the law. It is reasonable to argue that there is some infringement of the rights of the individual if laws are passed which in any way restrict his freedom, but in a society with such congested roads as ours it is important to recognise that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the rights of society as a whole.
I think that the fact that our society stands for the preservation of life and limb makes it right that if it is necessary to pass a measure which protects the individual against himself it is advisable to do so. We should recognise that when we are in a vehicle we are in a machine which over the last few years has, because of the advance of technology, developed from being a relatively solw-moving machine into a high-velocity vehicle.
If we compare driving—as has been suggested—with people taking part in dangerous sports, we have to be a little more careful. I assume that a climber, as he is participating in a dangerous occupation, goes up the mountain fully

1751
equipped with all the aids at his command to preserve his life. It is equally right that when people travel in a car the equipment in that vehicle should be designed to preserve life in the case of an accident. It is right that the law should be such as to ensure that that equipment will and can be used.
Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Member suggesting that it should be made a crime to climb a mountain without the prescribed equipment, because that is what he appears to be arguing?
Mr. Young: No, I am not, though it would be advisable for that to be so. On the other hand, it is not normal to have children of four or five years old climbing a mountain.
Often we deal with this issue on the assumption that we are talking of a driver who knows precisely, or who should know precisely, the risks involved. One argument which encourages me to support this legislation is that many car passengers, including children, are not in a position to assess those risks. For that reason I believe that this case is unique, and I support the legislation on that basis.
There is the argument, already well put, of the effects of road accidents on the National Health Service, and I think that it is right that we should do something to ensure that the calls on the already scarce resources of that Service are as few as possible. However, that is a minor point. We are not talking simply about saving drivers from themselves. We are considering also the lives of their passengers and, in some cases, of pedestrians. In an accident, death does not discriminate between the driver and the passenger.
Most people meet the police only as a result of a motoring offence. But what matters in many cases is whether the individual recognises the need for the law that has been passed, and a lot depends on the follow-up. We have tended to argue that there is a continuing conflict between persuasion and the law. It is my hope that if, or when, the Bill is passed, persuasion will continue.
I think it necessary that the Department should come back to the House in two, three or five years, after sufficient time has elapsed, so that then, if we can see that the law has not over that period produced
1752
a significant fall in the number of casualties resulting from road accidents, we may take the opportunity to consider its repeal.
At this stage, however, I do not believe that an inability to put a specific figure on the possible saving of death and injury should necessarily be taken as a reason for arguing that we ought not to make this attempt to preserve life and limb. One of our purposes here as parliamentarians is to have regard to human suffering, and in the present case we must do so in the light of the circumstances on our congested roads, which tend to account for a good deal of suffering. With that in mind, let us seek to pass laws reasonably designed to preserve life and limb.
6.11 p.m.
Mr. David Waddington: I am sure that I shall be excused if, before turning to the Bill, I remind hon. Members that I am fortunate enough now to be the Member of Parliament for Clitheroe, succeeding David Walder. David Walder was much loved in this place. He was a man of rare wit and charm, with a formidable intellect, and he was much admired and loved in his constituency, I know that I shall have to work hard to earn the reputation which he rightly enjoyed and to be as good a Member of Parliament as he was. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."]
The Bill is in the same form as earlier Bills, and it is in a form which I dislike. As has already been said, the Minister had ample time to consult all the bodies and people whom he could possibly have wished to consult and to make up his mind about exemptions. Since he has had all that time, I think it a great pity that the exemptions have not been written into the Bill.
It is all very well to talk about the possible circulation of draft regulations, but we all know that at the end of the day we shall have only a very short debate when those regulations are brought before the House. They will contain the exemptions suggested by the Government and we shall have to take the lot or reject the lot, having no opportunity effectively to argue that some of the exemptions are right and some are wrong. That, therefore, is my first objection to the Bill.

1753
In common with others, I am not here to argue that people should not be encouraged to wear seat belts, and I am quite sure that when seat belts become easier and more convenient to wear people will be more readily encouraged to wear them. My argument is that we should pause long before invoking the criminal law to protect the individual from himself.
In a sense, of course, no action by an individual fails to have some consequences for others. Some people argue—I note this from reading the reports of the debates when previous Bills were brought before the House—that one may be justified in interfering in the present case because of the excessive burden placed on the National Health Service as a result of the severe injuries suffered by those who fail to wear seat belts. I regard that as a dangerous argument, since it could be used as justification for an almost limitless extension of the criminal law into people's private lives.
That argument could certainly be used as justification for the banning of smoking. It could certainly be used as a justification for the banning of drinking alcohol. We are told—we are always given statistics nowadays—that if the Bill becomes law 1,000 lives a year will be saved, but we are told also by some of the same statisticians that 20,000 lives would be saved if smoking were banned.
The same argument could be used as justification for all manner of things—for example, imposing criminal penalties on a man foolish enough to put a ladder against the side of his house to paint it but who fails to take proper precautions to foot that ladder. It is, therefore, an argument which should be decisively rejected.
Mr. George Robertson: The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act now lays an obligation on workmen who have to use ladders against walls to take reasonable precautions, and as a result many local authorities now quite properly have to use scaffolding instead of the occasional ladder left carelessly against a wall for a man to climb.
Mr. Waddington: That is the worst argument of all, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has had the temerity to advance it. The history of our health and
1754
safety legislation shows that it was all introduced to impose burdens on employers so that they should behave properly towards their employees. One cannot place a statutory burden on an employer to see that his workman takes proper precautions for his own safety—wearing protective clothing, for example—unless one imposes a corresponding burden on the employee. So that is no analogy at all.
It has been argued that a person who is not belted has less chance of controlling his vehicle after a crash.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Quite true.
Mr. Waddington: With respect, that is to talk in terms of remote possible consequences which no statistician would dream of trying to quantify, and it is an argument put forward as a rather lame justification by the advocates of the Bill in an effort to get away from the true position which they have to adopt, which is that they are saying that the law has to intervene to safeguard the individual against himself. That is the truth of the matter.
Generally speaking, we have in this country proceeded on the basis that the criminal law should be used not to protect the individual from himself but only to stop him acting in a way calculated to harm others. Of course, it can be said—it has been said often enough—that that principle has already been breached. It certainly has not been breached in the health and safety legislation, as I have already pointed out, but it can be argued that it has been breached, for instance, in respect of crash helmets. But there are two points to be made here.
First, if the House agrees on that principle, and if it goes on to agree that it is a principle worth preserving, the fact that it has been breached is a very good reason for not breaching it again.
The second and more important argument, surely, is that the wearing of a crash helmet cannot be a disadvantage to the wearer. It can only make life safer for him. But that is not true of seat belts. There may be no statistics available, and there may be only what was called in the last debate anecdotal evidence to show that people's lives have been saved by not wearing seat belts, but it is surprising how many people have such

1755
anecdotes to tell. My own sister Mary was thrown clear of a sports car which ran into the front of a bus and escaped with only scratches and bruises. Almost certainly, there have been cases where people have been trapped and where it would have been better not to have worn a seat belt. I am not suggesting that there are many cases. I am saying that there must have been the odd case.
In these circumstances, therefore, it is not surprising that, in spite of all the arguments, some people remain unpersuaded and say that they still believe it to be better not to wear a seat belt. In my submission, that is the nub of the matter.
The Bill may be put forward as only a very minor restriction of individual freedom. But there is a genuine feeling in some people's minds that that minor restriction could lead to death—that belting up could kill. Can it be seriously contended that a driver must be compelled by law to wear something that can kill—admittedly in only a minority of cases—and that he believes can kill him?
Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. and learned Friend has mentioned exceptional instances where people are thrown clear or something of that sort. Is he aware that the British Medical Journal test on 100 corpses showed that 2 per cent. of deaths were caused by seat belts? That is quite different from being thrown clear or being trapped.
Mr. Waddington: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for reminding me of that figure and bringing it to the notice of the House. The argument that I was advancing was allied to but slightly different from my hon. and learned Friend's intervention. We are entering into a new field if we enact law that makes conduct criminal that is conduct that a person believes will save his own life. We are getting ourselves into an incredible state if we enact a measure that has that effect.
Lastly, I say a few words on enforcement. How different are seat belts from crash helmets! Obviously a policeman can easily see whether a person is wearing a crash helmet. How is the Bill, if it is to be enacted, to be enforced at night? I can foresee interminable arguments whether a man was belted or unbelted
1756
when the police overtook him. Did he take the opportunity to fasten his belt when he saw the police, or was he belted all the time? People will argue for days in our magistrates' courts and take up more and more of our magistrates' time in doing so. Will that help relations between motorists and the police?
Mr. Grieve: No, it will not.
Mr. Waddington: Of course it will not. My hon. and learned Friend is right. Surely we should be trying to reduce and not increase the burden on the police and our courts that is caused by traffic cases.
I shall vote against the Bill. Its supporters are well-intentioned but unwise. The Bill seeks to enter an area that the criminal law should not enter. We should continue to press ahead with persuasion rather than compulsion.
6.23 p.m.
Mr. Bryan Magee: I preface my remarks by welcoming back to the House the hon. and learned Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington). The hon. and learned Gentleman was a Member of the House once before. That puts him in the piquant and rare situation of having lost his maidenhood twice. He came to the House following a by-election in 1968 and represented Nelson and Colne. He was in the House until October 1974. The occasion of his return is a sad one. That is because it is consequent on the death of Mr. David Walder, whom I thought a most gifted and entertaining man. His death was a loss to the House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman who succeeds him does as well in this place as his predecessor, he will indeed do well. We re-welcome him to the House.
As someone who has been concerned with this issue througout the lifetime of the present Parliament and actively involved in the argument, it seems to me that far and away the most cogent argument against the Bill is that involving personal freedom. That seems to be the argument that most influences the Bill's opponents, and it influences many hon. Members for whose views I have considerable respect. Therefore, I address myself to that argument, especially because I value extremely highly persona) and civil liberty myself. In general I think that it is the most important of

1757
all political values. It should be sacrificed only when the case for doing so is overwhelming.
As I think everyone who is concerned with personal freedom has to admit, it is never an absolute. We can never have absolute freedom in any social situation. It always has to be balanced against other considerations. Almost every time we pass a Bill, we are creating a new crime and abridging people's freedom. On that consideration I believe that this Bill should be given a Second Reading, for in this case it is right that there should be an admitted breach, a small breach, of people's freedoms.
In spite of what has been said, we abridge people's other freedoms to damage themselves or kill themselves. The possession of hard drugs is an outstanding example. I do not think that anyone in the House would advocate the freedom to buy and use heroin. Safety and health measures at work also come into that category. It is striking that the arguments used by those who are against the Bill are on point after point similar to the arguments that were used in the nineteenth century against the introduction of safety devices in our factories. Yet there is no reasonable person who today would wish to abolish the safety and health regulations relating to the use of machinery.
Far and away the most dangerous machine of all in modern society is the automobile. In Britain alone about 20 people a day, or at least a figure approaching that, are killed by cars. There is no other machine in our society that kills people in such numbers. It is an astounding fact that during the political troubles in Northern Ireland more people have been killed on the roads in the Province than by political violence. We take the carnage on the roads in our stride, yet we rightly become impassioned about deaths from political violence. We need to bring some of the latter concern to the carnage that takes place on our roads. Given the opportunity that the Bill provides us to do so, I think we should take it.
It is not the case, as has been contended by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), that the only people whose lives are endangered by the non-wearing of seat belts are drivers.
1758
There are two important respects in which that is not the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), in an impressive and powerful speech, brought home the fact that relations, children, colleagues at work and above all wives may have their lives blighted by the results of accidents that take place because somebody was not wearing a seat belt. Yet these are not people who have any say in the wearing or non-wearing of the belt on fatal occasions. People's lives may be destroyed by the consequences of accidents involving those who are close to them, and the suffering involved is not only personal; it is often financial, and affects the upbringing of children.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the argument that he has advanced is applicable to every respect in which a man lives his life to less than the best advantage? It affects those connected with him and all his contemporaries in the world. Therefore, the argument against freedom is entirely universal and prescription can always he applied.
Mr. Magee: No, I do not agree with that. There is something slightly mad about arguing, as do the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) and the right hon. Member for Down, South, that because we abridge one freedom we must abridge all freedoms. That is ridiculous. The whole point of a balanced argument such as the present one is that we make our decision whether to abridge the freedom in question on the concrete facts that we have to consider. Facts are involved, and they determine the decision we make. We are told that about 1,000 deaths and between 60,000 and 100,000 serious injuries will be saved.
We are not talking about cuts and bruises. We are talking about people losing limbs, arms, legs and eyes, being blinded for life, losing their faces when thrown through windscreens. People who oppose this Bill seem to me to lack imagination. They do not confront the magnitude and horror of what is at stake. The Bill proposes to safeguard people from carnage on an enormous scale at the cost of a trivial infringement of the freedom of the individual—the requirement that he should, in the words of the famous advertisement,"clunk click"whenever he gets into a car. To preserve

1759
that freedom, are we to take action that wil result in the deaths of thousands and serious injuries to tens of thousands of people? I am happy that such a frivolous attitude is not brought to all other legislation inevitably involving the abridgement of freedoms and the creation of crimes.
The right hon. Member for Down, South was inadequate in the way that he met the argument in another respect. It is common in automobile accidents for there to be more than one impact. We all know about motorway pile-ups in which impact after impact occurs. It is common for a car to hit another car, or obstacle, then veer off the road, up the pavement, and hit a lamp post, a wall or tree.
This is a crucial point. A driver wearing a seat belt is far more likely to retain control of the vehicle after the first impact than one who is not doing so. A driver who retains control of the vehicle after the first impact will, in specific instances, avert deaths and maimings that would have occurred on the second impact had he not been wearing a seat belt. That is also—as the point of principle is so dear to the right hon. Gentleman—another example of the crucial fact that death and injury are at stake not only to the wearer of the seat belt. The man who refuses to wear a seat belt, or who chooses not to wear it, materially increases the chances that he will kill or injure someone else. That is a decisive fact, because it knocks the bottom out of the argument that we are taking away people's freedom to damage themselves—and that we have no right to do so. We are not taking away people's freedom to damage only themselves. This makes the argument in favour of the Bill overwhelming.
This is the most important measure that it is possible for Parliament now to pass. That may sound a high claim. However, can any Member of Parliament think of any other Bill we could pass that would save up to 1,000 lives and avert up to 10,000 serious maimings and injuries per year? I can think of no such legislation. I hope that Members of Parliament will accept the cost of the tiny infringement of personal freedom and pass it.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Public Lending Right Act 1979

2. Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979

3. Wages Councils Act 1979

4. Agricultural Statistics Act 1979

5. Capital Gains Tax Act 1979

6. House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1979

7. Criminal Evidence Act 1979

8. Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979

9. Social Security Act 1979

10. Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1979

11. Consolidated Fund Act 1979

ROAD TRAFFIC (SEAT BELTS) BILL
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
6.34 p.m.
Mr. Toby Jessel: May I add a word of welcome to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington), who is highly valued here? His return to the House of Commons is a cause of much rejoicing among his many friends. I hope that he will contribute in the future but in a way with which I am able to agree. That is not the case this evening.
Last Monday there was, quite rightly, a statement made in the House about a mining accident in Lancashire, in which five miners died. Today, quite rightly, there was a statement about two people who were murdered in Holland, one of them being highly distinguished. Every week 120 people are killed on our roads, which means 6,000 deaths on our roads every year. The figure of 6,000 is of the same order as the total of all the people killed in Northern Ireland in the crisis over the past 10 years. However, there never is a statement about the 6,000 people killed every year on our roads.

1761
As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) implied, the effects upon the families of people killed in road accidents may be just as shattering as those upon the families of dead miners. We all sympathise with them. When it becomes law, the Bill will prevent about 1,000 deaths out of the 6,000 every year. I say"when"purposely, as I believe that it is only a matter of time before this Bill, or something very like it, becomes law. It will prevent about 10,000 or 11,000 serious injuries and free a large number of hospital beds for orthopaedic patients who need beds but who must wait. It will free a large amount of the time and skill of doctors, nurses and psysiotherapists.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) cast doubt on the predictions by referring to the drink-drive law and saying that the predictions were not in accord with it. I was surprised that a former professor of Greek philosophy should fall into the logical trap of arguing from analogy.
I should like to quote from a letter dated 10 November 1978 from Lord Ashby to The Times, before that newspaper went out of circulation. Part of it reads:
" A report on road accidents in Great Britain, published by the Department of the Environment in 1976, records the casualties to front seat drivers in automobiles in Britain for the year 1974. There were 19,211 casualties among persons wearing seat belts, of which 3,952 (206 per cent.) were fatal or serious; and there were 96,327 casualties among persons not wearing seat belts, of which 26,485 (27·5 per cent.) were fatal or serious.
It is reasonable to assume that if the 96,327 victims had been wearing seat belts only 20·6 per cent. of them would have suffered death or serious injury. This would have meant a reduction in fatal or serious casualties of 6,642 persons, i.e., about 128 fewer deaths or serious injuries per week."
The hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) referred to the need for persuasion. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe referred to the value of encouragement in trying to persuade people to wear seat belts. However, encouragement simply does not work. It has been tried many times by means of an expensive advertising campaign. I believe that £5½ million has so far been spent on it. The advertisements lift the level of the wearing of seat belts to perhaps 32 per cent. of drivers.
1762
When the advertising stops the figure drops, within months, to where it was. It does not begin to lift the level of the wearing of seat belts up to 80 per cent. or 90 per cent., which has been experienced in Australia, most Continental countries, and countries in other parts of the world where this is compulsory.
It is hopeless to demand and useless to expect that persuasion and encouragement will be effective in achieving the desired results. Therefore it is a waste of time to go on and on talking about voluntary persuasion.
I come to the question of compulsion. The opponents of the Bill, among whom I count many of my hon. Friends, say that it is an infringement of liberty and freedom.
Liberty and freedom are very big words. They have many shades of meaning. Liberty and freedom are not some sort of single indivisible concept. I regard the great freedoms as being those such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and perhaps, above all, national freedom—freedom from being governed by some foreign country.
Mr. Powell: Brussels.
Mr. Jessel: That is another matter, and I do not propose to be drawn into that argument. There are in this House many right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Down, South, who risked their lives in fighting for these freedoms in the last war. I was not old enough to do so myself but I have relatives who did, and I claim to care as much as anyone does about the basic and fundamental freedoms.
There are other hon. Members who might talk of concepts such as freedom from poverty and freedom from fear, by which they mean absence of poverty and absence of fear. They use the word"freedom"in a completely different sense. The words"freedom"and"liberty"cover more than one concept.
We can also use the word"freedom"in relation to small freedoms that we do not have and may not want, such as freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road, or freedom to go through a red traffic light, or, as the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) said, freedom to buy or use heroin, or freedom to drive a

1763
car without brakes or without lights, or freedom to buy dangerous drugs of any sort without a prescription, or freedom to disregard the safety rules in factories.
If we use the word"freedom"over matters such as those, we are really talking about a different dimension from that of the basic and fundamental freedoms. I believe that we, as a legislature, should have the wisdom and judgment to distinguish between those minor freedoms, which are worth sacrificing in exchange for a major advance or improvement in health and safety, and those major freedoms on which none of us would want to compromise.
If we are looking at this question critically and analytically, it is foolish to be hypnotised by the use of the word"freedom"without examining its wide range of meanings. We should adopt a commonsense and not a doctrinaire approach to this matter. I really believe that it is worth a minor infringement and sacrifice of freedom to save a large number of lives and to prevent an enormous number of major injuries. I would feel that we were living in an extremely odd world if any of my hon. Friends were to suggest that we would be losing a last bastion of freedom if we lost our freedom to crash our head through the windscreen of the car or to crush our chest on a steering wheel.
Those of my hon. Friends—and some Labour Members—who oppose the Bill, and who talk about liberty and freedom, are not so much motivated by love of freedom and love of liberty in some philosophical sense as by sheer exasperation at thus being made to do just one more thing in the highly over-governed country and society in which we live. This is shown by the fact that hon. Members never object to the compulsory wearing of seat belts in aircraft. I have never heard one of them object to that, although the purpose, safety, is just the same. They never say that that is an outrageous interference with their liberty.
Mr. Grieve: There is a profound distinction, is there not, between the compulsory wearing of seat belts in aircraft and those in motor cars on the ground? If, in the confined space of an aircraft, people do not, on take-off and landing, wear their seat belts, they constitute a danger to others. The
1764
argument on the Treasury Bench here is that the non-wearing of seat belts in motor cars constitutes a danger to the persons not wearing them.
Mr. Jessel: I doubt whether the wearing of seat belts in aircraft saves any lives. Usually, if there is a crash, all the passengers are killed, anyway. I believe that it is far less necessary to wear seat belts in an aircraft than in a motor car.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and other hon. Members have suggested that it is monstrous to have a new crime, but I feel that the use of the word"crime"in this context is a departure from common sense. No one talks of a parking offence as being a crime. It is a minor offence and it is not endorsable on a driving licence. It may be technically a crime, and it is a punishable offence, but to use the word"crime ", as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe did, is to put a gloss on it which does not really correspond to reality. I would regard the offence of not wearing a seat belt as being more like a parking offence.
About six or seven years ago, the House decided to make it compulsory to wear crash helmets, and other hon. Members have referred to this. There were similar cries then from the freedom fighters to the effect that it was an interference with liberty, but that decision has saved a considerable number of lives each year. I do not regret the decision we took then, and I pray that we shall take the right decision again today.
6.46 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Atkins: I abstained on the Bill concerning the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I did not then give much thought to the arguments, and I suppose that I was influenced by the thought that in a small minority of accidents it might be better not to be wearing a seat belt. An example is when a car catches fire and there is the fear of being trapped for perhaps a split second or two before being released, because of having worn a seat belt. I thought about that argument at the time, but I believe now that it bears little examination.
In the vast majority of cases, lives can be saved and injuries avoided by the wearing of seat belts. All the evidence

1765
shows this, and that evidence has influenced me into adopting a more rational attitude. It is not only a question of the saving of life and the saving of injury to the driver. We have also to consider the other people in the vehicle and the other drivers who may be run into. We have to bear in mind their freedom and their right to live. It appears to me that the attitude of many of the opponents of the Bill is very narrow-minded and inward-looking, to say the least.
I was also influenced by the argument that the traffic police are overstretched, but that is not really a plausible argument. If there are insufficient traffic police, their number must be increased. To say that we cannot legislate because we have not enough police would be a most irrational attitude to take. Even without the Bill, I believe that the traffic police should be increased in number, but I believe that the Bill is a good one and should be enacted.
The argument of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) was most remarkable. He spoke about there being no financial provision in the Bill for the enforcement of the law. If we were to follow that principle with every piece of legislation, we should be in a most remarkable position. There would be arguments against any Bill which required money for its enforcement. That is an argument which ought to be ruled out. If it were to be applied in this case, it would be necessary to apply it in other cases.
I suppose that I was also influenced by the argument about personal freedom. We all show a certain bloody-mindedness from time to time when we are being regulated.
Mr. Ogden: Divine discontent.
Mr. Atkins: We feel this on both sides of the House from time to time. We all kick out occasionally at something, even when we should not. It is a question of personal discontent. But, as has been said, our personal freedoms are not absolute, and they should not be absolute. If they are, they affect the personal freedoms of others. That is an old and well-known argument, and it is one on which I do not wish to dwell.
1766
I have never believed in the right of people to commit suicide, but in some cases that is what people are doing when they do not use seat belts. I have never accepted the argument that people should be allowed to injure themselves. The contrary view must be held by many of the opponents of the Bill, yet they would probably be among the strongest opponents of freeing the taking of drugs.
When people are inadequate they need to be protected against themselves, and that applies to drivers. As has been said several times, a driver's family, friends and other dependants need to be considered. By dependants I mean including people such as highly skilled surgeons or others of great value to the community. These are people on whom other people depend for work. We must consider this Bill from the point of view of the community as a whole as well as from the point of view of personal freedom.
It has also been said that the cost of treatment for injuries and the cost of deaths on the road and a considerable drain on the Health Service. Those services are free, but road injuries and deaths cause a burden on the taxpayer. Opposition Members frequently talk of the need for freedom from excessive taxation. The Bill provides one way of helping to keep taxation down.
There is little need to say much more, because much of it has already been said both by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members, but finally—and I believe that this is a new point—I should like to mention the relationship between the enactment of laws and morality.
It frequently happens, especially in a society which is not too bothered about morality, that the formulation of law sometimes forms a new morality. For instance, I refer to the attitudes and the legislation on drinking and driving in Sweden, where driving under the influence of alcohol is regarded as a much more serious offence than it is here. To some extent, I believe that that is due to the fact that the laws in Sweden are so hard on drunken drivers. It creates a new attitude, if not a new morality, to what one should do. This has had some effect on me, because although I feel very uncomfortable when I set out on a long journey—especially on a motorway—without having put on my seat belt. I

1767
frequently take short journeys without doing so and without feeling uncomfortable. If there were a law against my doing that, I believe that it would make me feel uncomfortable, and perhaps I would stop and think long enough to fasten my seat belt.
I hope that the controversy will not last for long and that it will soon be put on one side, as it has in the vast majority of other countries, because of the obvious need for the Bill in the interests of the whole of mankind. Persuasion has been tried again and again and has cost the Government a lot of money. Since persuasion has failed, I believe that compulsion is inevitable, although regrettable.
6.54 p.m.
Sir John Langford-Holt: The Bill arouses a great deal of emotion in each of us, but I am sure that we all accept, on whatever side of the argument we come down, that the feelings of those who take a contrary view are perfectly honourable, if mistaken. Unlike the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), the last time this matter came before the House I cast a vote, and I see no reason for having changed my mind.
In introducing the Bill, the Minister, in his usual friendly and charming way, said that experience was the best argument. He then trotted out a lot of statistics, one of which the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) multiplied 10 times without bothering too much about it. I think he raised 10,000 to 100,000.
Mr. Magee: If I may just correct the hon. Member—the number of expected lives saved is of the order of 1,000 per year and the number of expected serious injuries is—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—100,000.
Mr. William Rodgers: No, it is 10,000.
Mr. Magee: I see. I apologise.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: I am absolutely delighted at having given the hon. Gentleman a chance to correct himself. I believe that one of the blemishes of the Bill is that the Minister, after all this time, has still not been able to include anything about the exemptions. I realise that there will be exemptions. There may even be exemptions that will be extended or restricted, but I believe that shows what one might almost call a degree of incompetence
1768
when, after all this time, we still have no exemptions—unless there is something far more menacing behind the exemptions.
Mr. Rodgers: It is not a question of"I cannot do it ". I decided that it would be better not to, in the interests of the House. I had a lot of consultations and more will take place. I have no doubt in my own mind what the exemptions should be. It is merely a matter of the best procedure in order to get the final decisions right.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: The method which the right hon. Gentleman is adopting will impose severe restrictions on the House. Will he undertake that when he brings the exemptions forward he will do so one at a time, so that the House will be able to decide on each individual one?
Mr. Rodgers: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but this is a point of which some substance has been made. I made it absolutely clear that in my view there should be a preliminary discussion in the House so that all hon. Members could express their view about what those exemptions should be. When that discussion has taken place, there will inevitably be a further debate under the affirmative resolution procedure.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: The problem is that those exemptions will be discussed in the House probably between 10 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. at the earliest. If the right hon. Gentleman deals with the Bill by the method that he has described, I hope that he will impress upon his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the matters should be heard and discussed at a decent time of the week.
I believe the Minister said that there are between 20 and 30 injuries daily as a result of car accidents. The hon. Member for Leyton kept that figure down to 20. Therefore, on this occasion, he was lower rather than higher. If we continue to judge this matter based on the number of accidents, it is true to say that more accidents occur in the home than on the roads—and certainly more suicides. The hon. Member for Preston, North said that he was not in favour of licensing suicide—
Mr. Ronald Atkins: The hon. Member is not suggesting that we should belt up the House, is he?
Sir J. Langford-Holt: The hon. Mem-for Preston, North mentioned suicide. If the hon. Gentleman was present at the time, I think that he, among others, decided that suicide should not be a criminal offence.
Mr. Atkins: I do not remember doing that.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: No, I did not say that the hon. Gentleman did. I said that he might have been in the House. All I know is the House decided that suicide should no longer be a criminal offence.
If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for methods by which he can prevent accidents, he could reduce the speed limit to 20 mph almost overnight. As to more dangerous injuries, I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington) mentioned the dangers of sport, particularly climbing. One could name many sports that are dangerous. Rugby football, I think, has a much higher rate of accident than any other activity, unless one includes skiing.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: I happen to be enthusiastic about parachuting, which is a reasonably dangerous sport. A number of accidents have occurred among parachutists, and it is now mandatory to wear a second parachute when one does a free-fall drop. Does my hon. Friend believe that it is wrong to have such legislation?
Sir J. Langford-Holt: I must confess that I had not given much thought to the merits of parachuting, but if sports are being thrown about, I might mention hang-gliding, which so far as I know requires no parachute to be worn. But let us come closer to home. I believe that riding motor cycles is 20 times more dangerous than driving a car. Therefore, if the Minister wants to stop accidents, let him introduce legislation to stop the use of motor cycles.
Mrs. Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend really making the case that because at present we are not trying to stop all accidents we ought not to try to stop a few?
Sir J. Langford-Holt: No, indeed not. I am trying to direct my attention so far as I am able, with lots of interruptions—which perhaps I have invited—to the question of motor cars. The question
1770
of advice is quite interesting. The Minister gives the House the benefit of all the wisdom and advice that he gets. On the last occasion, I pointed out that the same source of advice—his Ministry-was the same Department as many years ago advised the House that there was no further merit in putting cat's eyes in roads. It was the same Ministry that advised me—it was a suggestion that made, but I do not claim any parenthood—that the idea of box junctions would be self-defeating and pointless and that they would slow up traffic rather than speed it up. Yet we do it today.
As to enforcement, I have a nasty feeling that this type of legislation will go the same way as the dog-tags legislation, under which everyone is supposed to have a collar and identification on his dog, whereas everyone knows that it is not done.
What will happen? When someone is driving, it is practically impossible to see whether his seat belt is properly fitted There is no way of seeing whether it is fixed at the botton. When the policeman comes, and the man is fiddling with the belt, I am certain the reply will be"I was just taking it off"rather than"I was just putting it on."
The question of cost has also been mentioned. In the explanatory and financial memorandum under the heading
" Effects of the Bill on Public Service Manpower "
—quite honestly, I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would explain this a little more, because I can see no way in which the Bill will fulfil what it says here—it states:
" The Bill is not expected to impose any requirements on public service manpower."
Even if it means only one policeman going to the court on one occasion, I would have thought that that statement was bound to be untrue.
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: It means extra manpower, not the manpower that we already have.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: I know that my hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer and that I am not, but it says that it will not
" impose any requirements on public service manpower."

1771
It says nothing about"extra ". It does not say whether extra policemen will be required, it merely refers to
" any requirements on public service manpower."
Discussion and argument have taken place previously about occasions on which people can be in more danger by wearing their sea belts. Examples have been given of the open car, and questions of fire. We even had the example of the claustrophobic old lady. The last point is perfectly valid, because on these occasions some people get positively claustrophobic. However, if we are against this measure, as I am, some sort of alternative must be thought of.
There is a point that I hope the Secretary of State will explain. Under the law of this country, everyone who drives a motor car is required to have third party insurance. I am quite certain that had the arguments about the enormous difference between wearing a seat belt and not been valid, the insurance companies would have drawn a distinction in premiums between those drivers who wore seat belts and those who did not. I suspect that they do not because they know that such a law is unenforceable. Surely the same argument applies to the police.
Mr. Miscampbell: The courts have made that clear distinction all the way through when dealing with damages.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: I am talking about insurance policies and premiums charged. We are talking about an area of deterrence. People seldom visualise themselves going into a court; they always visualise themselves having paid the premium before starting off on their motoring career.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about creating a new criminal offence and said that he is instinctively against legislation. In agreeing with him, I have thought about this for many years. It comes from deep within me that we are doing something that we shall regret. I do not accept the argument about what the French or Italians do, because I do not believe that it is valid. I believe that we should be very careful before we extend this type of legislation in this way.
7.6 p.m.
Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury
1772
(Sir J. Langford-Holt) and I have shared many battles and have shared many barricades—who was firing in which direction has differed from time to time—but on this occasion I am on a different barricade from him and firing rather different shots.
Last Friday I argued from these Benches that it was no part of my version of Socialism that the State, Government, or Parliament should do for other people what they are perfectly capable of doing for themselves. One week later I come to this same Chamber and these same Benches, ready and willing, however reluctantly, to support a Bill that will compel people to do something that we know they are perfectly capable of doing for themselves. That is a dilemma which applies not only to me but to many other hon. Members.
Last Friday Conservative Members argued that there should be compulsory legislation—what it was about is not particularly important—whereas today those who argued for compulsory legislation are arguing for personal liberty. At least we recognise the contradiction.
I go so far as to give the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) the principle, if he will give me the custom and practice. In this instance I believe that the custom and practice will be more important to people than the high principle. I cannot deny that we are restricting the liberties of the subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. On the custom and practice, I argue that we ought to do so and I remind the right hon. Gentleman of a little saying,
" He was right,
Quite right,
As he drove along,
But he's just as dead
as if he'd been wrong."
Surely we are talking about the practical results of the legislation. It may be that if the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), who has played a decisive role in this argument over many years, catches the eye of the Chair he will persuade me differently between seven o'clock and nine o'clock, but I do not know whether we are here to be persuaded or merely to make statements.
At the beginning of the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) argued that this should

1773
be a balanced debate. He has helped that by absenting himself from the Chamber for most of the time. The only way in which that could be achieved would be to have a vote at the beginning, have a debate, have a vote at the end and see whether any possible differences emerge We cannot do that.
All the evidence that has come to me over the years, and I presume to other hon. Members, leads me to the inevitable conclusion that if seat belts were worn by all drivers we would have fewer deaths, and fewer and less severe injuries. The argument about what will happen in the future is based on that. The only way of bringing about such a position is to make this compulsory and to hope—in spite of the Conservative Front Bench—that the majority of United Kingdom citizens are law-abiding and will accept the law.
The advice offered by the BMA and the Royal College of Surgeons makes that conclusion inevitable. The detailed proof, which I believe every hon. Member of the House has received, from the Automobile Association makes that clear. The AA asks that the House should support compulsory legislation. I am not going to argue whether this would save 50 or 500 or 1,000 lives. The differences between what ought to happen and what will happen are comparatively unimportant. Whilst I criticise the AA for being, in its higher management at least, the tightest closed shop in Europe, and whilst I might doubt some of its advice on the taxation of motorists, or other things, because it has a vested interest, when the AA says that there should be legislation to restrict the rights of its members and of other citizens, we ought to take proper notice.
We have used a lot of parliamentary time during the last 200 years at least. Governments have enacted Acts of Parliament to restrict and protect fools from their own folly—and not only fools, but the thoughtless and the careless. The AA evidence gives many examples, so we are setting no particularly new precedent.
A little while ago the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) made the point that over the last few years the courts have themselves
1774
been differentiating between damages for someone who is injured through absolutely no fault of his own and damages for someone who, even where there is no requirement of law, has been negligent and failed to protect himself purely against the possibility of injury. In the latter circumstance the damages have been less than they would have been if he had protected himself properly.
Those examples take a long time to work through, but it is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury. I, too, had hoped that the insurance companies would be able to take a more positive, helpful attitude as regards the difference in the premiums to be paid by someone who promises to use a seat belt at all times—for which he would get a bonus or a reduction in premium—and others who could not give that undertaking. Of course, the only time that the insurance company would know whether that undertaking had been honoured would be when there was a claim and a report of the circumstances of the accident.
The insurance companies tell me that in the main the cost of paying claims for damages to motor vehicles is so much greater than the cost of damages for personal injuries or death that there is no real relationship between the two. There would be no immediate impact and this would make no great difference on the insurance policies or on the use of seat belts.
Sir John Langford-Holt: The point I was trying to make was that if insurance companies could decide that a person was not wearing his seat belt and he was covered only by third party insurance, that would have a greater effect in built-up areas, which is where people mostly do not wear their seat belts.
Mr. Ogden: This is a matter which is still being considered by insurance companies. The options would have to be in very large print, as regards both the benefits and the penalties, but at this stage they do not seem to be able to promise quite so dramatic an effect as I would have hoped.
We have to recognise to a degree the call on the health services, and this was explained in information that presumably came to every English or Welsh Member through the National Association of

1775
Health Authorities in England and Wales. The NAHA says quite clearly that the calls on health services, nurses, casualty staff, doctors, ambulance services, police and fire services in their rescue actions and the use of taxpayers' money in the health services would be reduced if universal use was made of seat belts and it supports a Second Reading for the Bill.
I said"universal use ", but clearly there have to be exceptions, and everybody has his own group of persons in mind. This afternoon we heard one hon. Member, for very valid reasons, say that people with a particular disability or problem should be exempted as a group. Whether this would apply to a group of apparently quite determined ladies of a certain style or stature who are arguing that their problems ought to exempt them as a group from the compulsory use of seat belts, I do not know. I think that"problems"is perhaps the wrong word, and that what is a problem to them might be the envy of their sisters or of male Members of this House, but I hope that there will be ways of resolving their objections.
The Bill will make extra demands on the police, and the House ought to recognise that fairly and squarely. Whether it increases the use of manpower is another argument. It will make extra demands on the police, but I do not think they will be impossible demands. It is not unknown for a constable or a police sergeant to approach a motorist who he knows has been exceeding the speed limit and when the driver knows that he has been exceeding the speed limit. How the police officer goes about dealing with the case depends upon the circumstances and on many other things. He does not have to go up and verbally belt the motorist. The driver's failures and lack of proper regard can be explained in other ways.
I have no doubt that for a period after the passing of the Bill the failure of a motorist to use a seat belt can be pointed out in a way which will not cause any difficulties for the police or occasion any loss of regard for them. In fact, one radar trap I can think of on a Saturday morning or afternoon in Lower House Lane in Liverpool leads to many more difficulties than would anything under the Bill. So, while we recognise that the police will have more to do, I do not think it
1776
need cause any great problem between police and public.
I have not always been a consistent user of a seat belt, but I am now, and I find it only takes a moment of time. At first it seemed to take a long time to fasten it, but now it seems to take only a moment. It is a habit. It gets more difficult with the age of the car and the type of seat belt. If Ford can develop its"instant"device, that will help. I believe that I have a better feel of the car when I am wearing my seat belt. I feel more at home in the car and get a better response from the car than before, and my conversion was due to three things.
The first is the Jimmy Savile campaign, and we ought to pay a tribute to those who organised it and carried it through. It was not a failure; it was a first-class campaign, but it was not as successful as we had hoped it would be. The new one"The Blunders"is coming along now and is of interest, again, and is compelling attention. It has a real impact, and I use that word advisedly.
The second reason for my conversion was the reminder from my two boys every time we get into the car that we all ought to"clunk-click ". The third is that, having voted for the last Bill dealing with seat belts, I felt compelled to honour my own obligations.
As it is, I think that we all make our minds up on this. I grant hon. Members who oppose the Bill their principles. I have to go for the practice. Some good will come of this and the price will not be too high. Certainly at this time it is a price that I am prepared to pay and I believe that the majority of my constituents will also be prepared to pay.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. As I understand it, the winding-up speeches are due to begin at 9.15. There are roughly 14 hon. Members still anxious to take part in the two hours remaining before those speeches. May I therefore appeal for brevity so as to be able to accommodate as many hon. Member as possible?
7.18 p.m.
Dr. Reginald Bennett: I will certainly be brief. It seems to me that politics is very largely an irrational subject. Here we are in this House engaged

1777
in a debate which has ranged from the sombre to the absurd, if I may say so without disrespect. And this is a debate in which I do not believe there is any difference at all on the facts. I do not think there has been any quarrel between the leading exponents of cither view, the ayes and the noes, in this debate. The curious thing is that there is room for this extreme variance in attitudes deriving from the very same evidence. That, surely, is one of the things that makes politics an imponderable subject, as perhaps the next few days may show. We agree about the evidence.
As a more or less disinterested party, so long as I am allowed to be, I would never attempt—at least not to the extent of any extravagance—to dissuade people from committing suicide. If they wish to do so, that is up to them. As for the carnage on the roads, about those who have asked for it and got it there is nothing to be said. That may be a rather harsh attitude, but I do not believe that any other is reasonable.
However, one of the factors that has moulded my attitude on the matter is that on which the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has just touched—that nobody has a right, by sheer foolishness, to put huge charges on our faltering Health Service by taking up masses of man hours, woman hours, bed hours and ward hours in hospitals when he would not need to be there if he had been reasonably forward-looking and cautious. I am talking not about people's driving abilities but the simple matter of using the seat belts, which have to be there and can be used.
That is why I deplore the lack of use of seat belts. I deplore the part played by the injured—the self-injured if one likes. It is that which makes me feel that the use of the seat belt must be made compulsory.
We have heard the evidence, which nobody would attempt to deny, that the incredible amount of taxpayers' money that is being spent on trying to persuade is unavailing. I think that the use of seat belts has increased from 10 per cent. to 30 per cent., in broad terms, after the expenditure of millions of pounds. I do not think that the spending of any more millions would make any further difference.
1778
I think that most of us would acknowledge, if we thought of it at any time, that there is something curious in the psychology of our fellow citizens, perhaps not excluding ourselves. A very reasonable man, who will talk logically and reasonably in a debate in the House about all the values that we are discussing, becomes positively insufferable when he gets inside a car.
We can go back in history and think of the days of chivalry. When a fellow got into his tin can and was hoisted by a davit and dropped into the saddle of his 1-hp hay-motor, he shot off and was thoroughly bloody-minded to everybody he met. I believe that the same thing happens in the firm's Cortina on the Cromwell Road, or anywhere else. People who would be perfectly reasonable, and agree with everything that is said about the advisability of wearing seat belts, raise the metaphorical number of fingers at everyone outside once they get inside their armour plating. They think"To hell with the seat belts."
I do not believe that that highly irrational attitude is subject to any reasoning or to the spending of millions of pounds by a well-meaning Government Department. If that is so—and I ask the House to believe that it is—I see no alternative to a degree of compulsion. That is why I favour the Bill.
7.24 p.m.
Mr. David Stoddart: I like the analogy of the hon. Member for Fareham (Dr. Bennett) with the knights of old in their suits of armour. But there is a difference. Although they used to fight each other tooth and nail and knock each other off their horses, those knights at least were chivalrous to women. When male drivers see a woman on the road, they lose every bit of chivalry that they have.
Dr. Reginald Bennett: There is an example in Portsmouth that is an exception.
Mr. Stoddart: Male drivers try to drive a woman off the road. That is what the motor car has done to us.
As so many hon. Members have pointed out, the carnage on the roads is horrific. I have just obtained from the Library

1779
the figures for the total number of British casualties during the Second World War. In the five years of that war we had 583,847 casualties. In the past five years there have been 1,750,000 casualties on British roads. That is the measure of the problem. The Second World War was undoubtedly the most horrific experience that we in this country have ever had, yet the number of casualties on our roads is about three times as great as it was during that war.
I have worn a seat belt for many years, and so have my family. I have never suffered any discomfort from wearing one. Indeed, I now feel very uncomfortable unless I have one on. I feel rather odd in the train going home at night because I am not wearing a seat belt. That shows how used one can become to wearing that appliance.
We are talking not only about drivers but about front-seat passengers. It is easy enough to tell my young son"Put your seat belt on." Within limits, I can say the same to my wife, although I have to be rather more careful about that. I can say it to a very good friend, but it is much more difficult to say it to a stranger or a passing acquaintance. One can hardly tell such a person"Get your seat belt on or I do not drive you."
That is a difficulty that a driver who is convinced of the argument for wearing seat belts has when taking a passenger. The compulsory wearing of seat belts would remove it. It would be the law, and the driver—who, after all, has a big responsibility for his passenger—would be able to tell the passenger"It is the law that we wear seat belts, and I am sure that you will put yours on."
We have heard a great deal about the saving of lives and preventing serious injuries. It is estimated that 1,000 lives would be saved and 10,000 serious injuries prevented by the use of seat belts. I emphasise that those are the figures for every year, not simply one year.
The numbers of people killed and injured since we last debated a similar measure are 3,000 and 30,000 respectively. It is likely that if we had passed the legislation three years ago there would be 3,000 people alive today who are now rotting in their graves and 30,000 who would be playing tennis or football, having a good time with their
1780
families and living a normal life, who are now in hospital or in a wheelchair. That is the measure of the three-year delay.
Every hon. Member values individual persona] freedom, but the freedom of many people is tied up with this measure. There is the freedom of the policemen, the ambulance men, the doctors and the nurses who have to deal with the casualties. Ambulance men and policemen suffer a horrific experience when they see people splashed all over a motor car or all over a road and have to scrape them up. Their individual freedom is involved and should be considered.
When a serious injury occurs, the position of the relatives has to be considered. There is the wife who sees her life as well as her husband's life ruined because he is confined for the rest of his life to a wheelchair, because of a road accident. She might have to spend 40 years looking after her husband. Her freedom is curtailed—her freedom to go out and about as she would like to with her husband and family. Do we not also have to consider her freedom?
There is the freedom of road users to be safeguarded against other road users. Very often when an accident occurs at speed the door of the car flies open and the occupants are thrown out. The car then careers on and hits the car of an innocent motorist coming the other way and kills or injures him. Does not he have some freedom? A driver wearing a seat belt is likely to remain in his car and be able to control it so that it avoids other vehicles. Those who talk about personal freedom should take into account all those other freedoms that I have mentioned.
The estimated yearly cost to the community of the non-wearing of seat belts is £60 million. The cost to the Health Service is £7·2 million every year, equivalent to building and running a 650–bed general hospital. That must be taken into account by those of us who are concerned about the long waiting lists and shortages in the Health Service.
Undoubtedly, most people obey the law, as the figures in Australia and New Zealand have shown. After seven years of operation of the law the wearing rate is 75 per cent. in Australia and 90 per cent. in New Zealand. The evidence

1781
clearly shows that lives and serious injuries have been saved. People will obey the law.
If the wearing of seat belts is made compulsory and people do not wear them, insurance companies may have something to say if there is an accident, because the law will have been broken, and that may affect the insurance policy. The police are worried about enforcement but the trouble is, although I have great respect for the police, they hold some very conservative views on this subject. The police in general appear to believe that their sole role should consist of fighting serious crime. That may be the role of the police, but I do not think it is. I believe they have a many-sided role in a democratic society. If we pass the Bill we must ensure that it can be enforced by enabling the police force to recruit more men or by setting up a separate traffic police force.
I believe this measure is long overdue, and I sincerely hope that when hon. Members vote tonight they will think of all those who are dead but could be alive, and the people who a year from now will be dead unless we pass this legislation.
7.35 p.m.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: My assessment of the debate is that it is between those who think that if the Bill goes through their liberties will be curtailed and those who think it vital that the Bill should go through to save lives and money and the time of the police, nurses and doctors in doing certain jobs.
We all have a number of liberties, many of which we have given up in war and at other times. We have to weigh in our mind whether it is better to give up a liberty to produce something good. A lady for whose driving I have the greatest respect and who as far as I know has never been involved in an accident told me that she did not think she should have to give up a liberty she prized. She might not have wished to give up that liberty, but I think we should give up liberties if it is necessary for the sake of society as a whole.
I am president of the Motor Schools Association and also on the executive of the Advanced Drivers' Association. Therefore,
1782
I come into contact at certain periods of my life with people who are concerned with teaching people to drive and assessing how they drive. I have always been grateful to the Secretary of State for coming down to Worthing on a rather wet day to open my annual school. I am grateful to him for all he said and what he is doing to help us. The Motor Schools Association is the largest free association of men and women who have come together for a common good. There are some smaller associations which could easily join us but they either have not the money to do so or they like to hold out. The Department knows that we are the people to ask for our knowledge of motoring.
Drivers must be prepared to give up some liberty. I confess that if I had my way I would not wear a seat belt because I am lazy and will not take the trouble. I do not take the trouble to put it on when travelling from my house half a mile down the road to the village shop, but that is when I should be most careful. I put it on when driving up to London, because I feel that it is more risky, but that is not so. It is on the short trips, when one thinks that nothing can happen, that an accident may occur.
After I had been a Whip, I was fortunate in drawing a place in the private Members' ballot three times running. Each time I chose to debate the safety of the roads. At that time I was more closely in touch with road safety and could quote figures. Figures have been quoted today but I shall not give any. I learnt how much suffering and loss of life and limb was caused by not wearing seat belts. It is argued that not wearing a seat belt can in some accidents be beneficial. Those occasions are rare, and we must consider where the greater need lies. We should all wear seat belts.
I hope that the Bill will go through and that we shall become so accustomed to wearing seat belts that we will not consider it inconvenient. I am certain that we shall save money. We hear that the economy is going wrong, and any money that can be saved on hospital charges or elsewhere is worth while, and, by jove, the amount of suffering prevented will be legion. I should not like to think that people are injured unnecessarily.

1783
I presented a Private Member's Bill to increase rear lights on cars or bicycles from one to two, and that Bill passed through the House and was my contribution to road safety. Records confirm that that measure has saved lives. I shall vote for the Bill tonight. I do not know what sort of drivers my grandchildren will be but I hope that, like my son and daughter, they will be good. I hope that they will not be involved in an accident of their own causing, and if they are involved in an accident caused by someone else, I should not like to think that a Bill had not been passed that could prevent their being injured.
I walk with a slight limp. I do not want to be ungallant, and I can only see one lady present. Perhaps I can say that I maintain that that was caused by a lady driving up Whitehall far too fast. She knocked me over, threw me on to the roof of her car and chucked me off into the gutter. I woke up 15 hours later when, fortunately, my wife was by my bedside.
I am sure that the Bill will do nothing but good, and we are here in Parliament to do good. We cannot better spend our time than helping the passage of the Bill. It was a pity that it was not passed last time, and the opportunity does not often occur to put right what one has previously missed. I wish the Secretary of State luck with the Bill. It is presented late in the life of this Parliament, and was cut short in the last Session. I hope that it is not struck off the list in the remaining months of this Parliament.
7.45 p.m.
Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) was perhaps giving an indication of chivalry in reverse. I can just imagine the hon. Member for Fareham (Dr. Bennett) dashing about on his horse, although I do not know whether he could get a steed to hold him.
We should be debating the efficacy and value of seat belts and not the infringement of personal freedom, as though freedom were only an abstract concept. It is no wonder that Parliament sometimes gets a bad name. We have carnage on our roads, and this House often talks as if it were a university debating society dealing with an abstract concept. My hon. Friend the Member for
1784
Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) hit the nail on the head when he talked of balancing the practical situation against the abstract principle called freedom. We are living in the real world. We are not discussing how many angels can balance on the head of a pin, but what is happening year in and year out on our roads.
I am much more impressed by the statistics of carnage than by the wonderful rhetoric of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It is always dangerous to evangelise and assume a superiority over one's fellows in grasping a concept. It is intolerable to talk of infringement of freedom as if we were extending to a ridiculous extent laws for the protection of the public. Of course it is interfering with an individual's rights to injure himself or other people, but that interference does not worry me overmuch.
Reasonable people know where to draw the line. A well-thought-out slight improvement should not open a floodgate, as those who are against the Bill suggest. They suggest that such legislation opens the gate to all kinds of infringements of personal liberty and freedom, whatever that means.
There are countries whose legislatures start with that basic assumption that people are incapable of thinking for and looking after themselves and believe that every possibility of any kind of individual or personal freedom should be banned and that only gradually and very gently should limited exemptions be introduced.
But we in this country start from almost the opposite standpoint. We believe that people can think for themselves and very often want to do for themselves things which impinge upon the rights and freedom of others. We believe that interference with that freedom is necessary in some instances, and I believe that in a matter such as this it is not only necessary but vital.
I am impressed by the statistics. We have seen repeatedly the incontrovertible evidence of the value and efficiency of seat belts. Doctors throughout the country are in the forefront of the demand for this legislation. Medical and nursing staffs of hospitals near motorways or dangerous junctions will tell anyone of the deaths which could have

1785
been prevented if seat belts had been worn.
Many of these highly respected members of the medical profession believe that it is wrong to use their scarce skills and resources in matters which are so largely and calculatedly self-inflicted. I use that word advisedly. Under the influence of emotion—that is, adrenalin, or any other drug—people may do something silly or even dangerous. It is an action carried out in the heat of the moment. But that cannot be said about not wearing a seat belt. That is a deliberate act of omission, and it is not something about which one feels emotionally charged and which leads to an act of folly.
As a doctor, I believe in prevention. How much more do we need to be convinced about the value of seat belts? I concede that this matter involves an interference with rights and liberty, but I argue that that interference is minimal and is vital in present circumstances. I am not impressed by those who say that they are not concerned about what happens in other countries. I am concerned that other countries have had experience of this. They have had seat belts legislation for some time, and their statistics bear out what we believe would happen in this country.
I ask my Front Bench colleagues whether it would be possible for them to ensure chat seat belts are made more comfortable. Many seat belts tend to hold the body too closely and too tigthly. All belts should be of the inertia reel type.
We are talking here about the driver wearing a seat belt, because in the final analysis it is the driver who is responsible for steering and controlling the car. Often, however, it is more important for his passenger to be wearing a belt. It is possible for the driver with a quick reaction to brace himself. That possibility does not exist for the passenger, who can get thrown through the windscreen and break his or her neck or, at least, suffer serious injury to the face and head.
I mention one psychological point. One of my hon. Friends said that he felt better when he was wearing a belt. That is true, and it could be dangerous. Wearing a seat belt neither guarantees total protection
1786
from an accident nor does it, per se, have any intrinsic value. Wearing it may give some people a feeling of security which could make them less careful. That is an important point of psychology. Although legislation is not enough in a matter of this kind, it is essential. Equally it is essential that we should continue with the campaign of persuasion as well as with this Bill, which I hope we shall pass.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I have the honour and pleasure—that is all I have out of it—to be the president of the National Association of Approved Driving Instructors, which, as an organisation devoted to road safety, is very concerned about the Bill. If, by some misfortune, the Bill should become law, I hope that the Minister will see the sense of exempting driving instructors while they are involved in tuition. To lock an instructor into a belt at the moment of deceleration, which usually coincides with the pupil's moment of danger, would be not to save lives but to put lives at risk.
I am wholly in favour of seat belts, of encouraging people to wear them, and of insurance companies and courts applying sanctions to encourage their use, but I am against the Bill because it abuses the criminal law and the criminal process. Why should any citizen be forced by criminal sanction to wear something which could in some circumstances kill him? That has never been a legitimate principle of our criminal law. Why should anyone be forced by criminal sanction not to hurt himself? That was never, at least until the crash helmet legislation, a principle of our criminal law. Where will it end? Why make driving without a seat belt a crime because it could save a thousand lives, when we could stop cigarette smoking by the criminal law and save 20,000 lives a year? Why not stop by making it criminal the drinking of alcohol, which would save hundreds of thousands of lives?
When will we realise that laws not only cannot cure every evil but are frequently counter-productive? Here the harm done to our criminal process may well exceed any good that the law can do. We can see that in advance, so why do we persist with it? If there was a law which made it a criminal offence to smoke or to drink

1787
alcohol, neither of which, of course, do I advocate, just think of the amount of bereavement that would be saved, the number of hospital beds that could be put to better use, and the time and energy of our doctors and nurses which could be more usefully employed. Yet we do not consider doing that. What is it about the motorist that requires him to be singled out and subjected to this sort of legislation?
The Bill would also be an abuse of our criminal law because it would be an abuse of our criminal process. We can foretell that there will be widespread evasion of a law such as this. If there was 20 per cent. evasion among the 26 million people with cars, that would involve millions of British subjects evading the law. That could only drag the law further into disrepute. The Bill would irritate the police—and they are the defenders of the liberties of the subject. How many times would they be forced to stop motorists who would subsequently be found to be exempt from the seat belt law because they were too big, too small, too pregnant or too disabled, or because they fell within one of the other exemption categories? How irritating would this be to motorists who are stopped in these circumstances, and how much harm would this do to the relationship between the police and the public?
How much harm would it do to the legal system to have our courts even more overcrowded than they are now? Would not people feel that the legal system was once again failing and that the system of justice was yet again slowing down?
The harm to justice caused by this legislation will be far more substantial than we think. When will we realise that every little infringement of liberty, for whatever good cause, diminishes the whole concept of liberty? If life is the only criterion, why did we sacrifice so many millions of lives in two world wars? Why did we not in the Second World War lie down and say"Because millions of people may die, we should let our liberty be taken away before the onset of the Nazis "? The answer is that more important than lives is the concept of liberty.
Since I have been in the House I have seen the cogent arguments and the telling pleas of hon. Members on both sides of the House persuading and succeeding
1788
in persuading the House that it is only a very little piece more of liberty that we are withdrawing and for such great benefits and advantages. As a result we have far fewer of our freedoms now than was ever dreamed possible a few years ago. In the end we shall find that our liberties have all but disappeared. It might be possible to save more lives in Britain by this measure—and by countless other measures. But I do not see the virtue in saving more lives by legislation which will produce in the end a Britain where nobody wants to live.
8.1 p.m.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I welcome the Bill, but in welcoming it I should like to express my concern at the way that it has been treated before it reached the Floor of the House. It is an important and vital measure for saving lives and has had strong support from public opinion, as demonstrated by the opinion polls. It would be more directly useful in saving lives and avoiding injuries than most measures that the House could possibly discuss but it has been so long delayed in being brought to the Floor of the House. It has been left to moulder until a time when the Government have seven more months—seven more days on some accounts—of life and it has been left to the end of the week, at a time when many hon. Members who would support it are wearing their seat belts as they drive east, north, west, or south, or around their constituencies.
The Bill has been asked to run the parliamentary race with a ball and chain around its legs. I am reconciled to this treatment only when I see the lack of vision with which it has been greeted by all too many Conservative hon. Members. That helps me to restrain my indignation at its treatment. We are told of driving instructors, for example, who seem not to have heard of inertia reel belts which allow them to move within the vehicle. The attack on the Bill has been paraded as a sort of freedom fight, based on the wholly specious argument that we should not infringe a principle by legislating to protect the individual from the consequences of his own actions.
It is wrong to erect that principle against a measure of such importance. No principle can lead hon. Members to discount the savings in deaths and injuries that the Bill could provide. The principle

1789
has been breached already in the crash helmet and health and safety at work legislation. It is a principle that ignores our obligations to others. We are not isolated individuals taking decisions whether or not to wear seat belts. Those decisions affect the families of motorists killed and injured and place great strain on the medical services. The principle also ignores the after-effects of accidents and the need to keep control of the vehicle which can be facilitated by the wearing of a seat belt.
The principle ignores the statistics. In praising the Bill, the Conservative Party spokesman on transport—the ayatollah—accepted the figures on the saving of death and injury although some of his lower-tollahs have queried those figures. Even if the figures are reduced marginally—or substantially—that would still be a major saving in deaths and injuries. How can the principle be opposed to that? In order for a principle to be effective and maintained, it has to be seen to be beneficial. When it stands against large numbers of deaths and injuries caused by the failure to wear seat belts, one is erecting a principle to an unreal importance. No principle can lead one to close one's vision to everything else. A sensible balance must be drawn. I draw that balance in favour of seat belts and in favour of compulsion.
I do so largely because of my own experience. Fourteen months ago I was driving north on the A1 from the House of Commons. A car shot across and I had no chance to avoid it. There was a collision. At one moment, I was in the safe, insulated and artificial world of the new car with its consumer joys as portrayed by advertising driving along the highway. The next moment I was a bleeding, battered piece of humanity in the written-off debris of a car. It is not only an intimation of mortality but it shows how suddenly accidents can occur and the need to be constantly prepared. Part of that preparation has to be the wearing of a seat belt.
Like another hon. Member who spoke, I am here today because I was wearing my seat belt. It saved my life and, at the very least, avoided much more serious injuries than those which I incurred. Therefore, I see the wearing of a seat belt as essential and compulsory. Even with
1790
my experience and that warning, there are occasions—isolated occasions admittedly—when I, too, forget to wear my seat belt. There needs to be the constant reminder of the law—a constant memory-jogger. It is not as if we were trying to erect the massive machinery of the police State to force motorists to wear their seat belts. The sight of policemen, the occupants of a police car, or other motorists wearing their seat belts provides that constant reminder. In that respect, the law will be self-enforcing and self-policing.
If someone like myself, with the experience of a severe accident, still occasionally forgets to fasten a seat belt, it is a demonstration of the need for a constant reminder, which would be provided by the law. My passenger in the accident to which I have referred sustained far worse injuries than myself. He is still undergoing treatment. He was not wearing a seat belt—I had not asked him to wear a seat belt. I bitterly regret that fact, and it is something that will remain with me for the rest of my life. The law would clear up the embarrassing situation and also the situation in which passengers are diffident about wearing a seat belt for fear of insulting the driver, or the driver is afraid to ask his passenger to wear one. It would clear up that difficult problem and make the driver responsible not only for his own safety but for that of his passengers.
I strongly support the Bill. It is a measure which should have been carried many years ago and it does no more than bring us into line with many other countries. I submit that the opponents of the Bill need to prove, first of all, that the statistics that have been quoted are wrong—the saving of 1,000 lives and 10,000 serious injuries per year. They may quibble and reduce the margin by one-tenth or even one-third, but there would still be a major saving demonstrably arising from the Bill. That cannot be eliminated by the quibbles and arguments that have been brought against it.
Secondly, the opponents of the Bill would need to show that the voluntary system is working and that it produces the kind of compliance which they want to see. That voluntary system is not working. We have only to trust our eyes when we are driving to see how many motorists are not wearing their seat belts. It might

1791
be an average of about 30 per cent. wearing them but no higher, and any driver must be aware that, given the risks that we face when driving that lethal instrument, the motor car, the number of drivers wearing seat belts is a comparatively small minority.
If the libertarian argument is to be mobilised, its supporters need to show to a public which the opinion polls indicate will not be convinced how essential a freedom it is to go head-first through a windscreen, to be bashed against a steering column, or to have one's face cut and bloodied against a windscreen. Given the savings in death and injury that would occur from the slight compulsion of wearing seat belts, I submit that it is not a question of basic freedom; it is a matter of social responsibility and of creating a climate in which people will do what is in their own best interests. Drivers have responsibilities not ony to themselves. It has been asked why the motorist is picked out for special treatment. The reason is that he is in charge of a lethal instrument.
Motorists have obligations to their families, their dependants, themselves, society and the medical services which are brought in when there is an accident. The compulsory wearing of seat belts is a minimal way of fulfilling that obligation.
8.11 p.m.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: We have had a good and intellectual debate, but I wonder what would have been our reaction if, instead of discussing motor cars and seat belts, we had been discussing an epidemic illness that affected 200 people a week, killed 15 people every week and cost the community £60 million a year and the cure for which was readily and freely available in an innocuous medicine, yet the people of this country refused to take that free medicine.
Mr. Powell: Vaccination.
Mr. Wiggin: The effect of vaccination was to wipe out a dread disease which caused immense human suffering. Sadly, some people were seriously affected by the ill consequences of vaccination. I shall deal later with the ill consequences of wearing seat belts. I am far from convinced that the vaccination programme is comparable to the wearing of seat belts or has done damage to the people of this country.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that until recently the vaccination of children under six months of age was compulsory in this country?
Mr. Wiggin: I am well aware of that. That is the point that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was making.
If 25 people a day were jumping off Westminster bridge, does anyone seriously imagine that there would not be an outcry from the public, the press and the House demanding that we should put up a barrier to prevent such action? Of course there would be. The barrier would be put up within a few days.
Most hon. Members taking part in the debate have been through it more often than Red Rum has been round Aintree. Although we have won the vote, just as that: horse has won the race, we have not yet collected the prize. The Government should be substantially criticised for talking about introducing the legislation but leaving it so late that its chances of becoming law are slim indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) made much play of the problems of supervising the law, but in no country where the wearing of seat belts is compulsory—and they total 21 to date—has there been any suggestion that supervision has been a problem. About 18 months ago I spoke to the chief superintendent of traffic police in Auckland, a city of more than 1 million people. He told me that not only was supervision no trouble but that the subject had not even been raised with the force since the law was first enacted six or seven years ago.
The Government's suggestion that the regulations for exemption should be produced in draft form is useful and deals with many of the criticisms levelled at the Government on that aspect of the legislation.
Both sides of the argument accept that seat belts are a good thing. The differences are over freedom of the individual and whether there can be imposition of injury by seat belts. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) put such good arguments about the freedom of the individual and liberty that I do not wish to follow them.

1793
However, is it seriously suggested that the 21 other countries in which the wearing of seats belts is compulsory are any less keen on freedom or the liberty of their individuals? Of course not. They are just as keen as we are and they have thought that the small price was worth paying.
Comparisons have rightly been drawn with drugs legislation, and perhaps the only hon. Member who can take a righteous attitude to the question of drugs legislation is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). I always acknowledge that he voted against the misuse of drugs legislation because he thought that it was a genuine imposition against the freedom of the individual. However, I do not find that many of my constituents consider that to be the case, and when the comparison is made I think that they take the point.
The Automobile Association has supplied a substantial list, drawn up by learned counsel, of legislation that it considers has been passed, over many centuries, dealing with the right of the Government to impose upon individuals legislation to protect them from their own folly. The legislation goes back hundreds of years in some cases.
Can seat belts cause death? I hope that no hon. Member will base his assessment of that question on the inexpert opinions sometimes given by coroners and widely publicised in newspapers. They are not based on scientific assessments.
Mr. C A. Hobbs examined 2,879 cases to find examples of seat belts being disadvantageous. He found that none of his vast sample would have fared better without a seat belt. It is almost impossible to argue in the mess, disaster and catastrophe of a serious car accident just what might have caused the death of the driver or passenger, but I have spoken to a number of people who have researched these matters and I am convinced that if there are any cases of seat belts causing injury, they are so infinitesimal and the proof is so lacking that it is an argument which we should rightly reject.
I asked the Secretary of State last week if he had any evidence that wearing a seat belt had contributed to any deaths last year and, if so, how he came to that
1794
conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
" I have no such evidence."—[Official Report, 19th March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 390.]
He also gave a helpful answer to another of my questions when he outlined the statistics of drivers and front seat passengers killed in cars and light vans in 1977. There were 44 deaths of persons who had no seat belts fitted to their vehicles. In 407 cases it was not known whether those who were killed were wearing a seat belt. However, 1,509 deaths occurred in vehicles in which a seat belt was fitted but was not being worn. Only 252 deaths occurred in vehicles in which seat belts were being worn.
Those figures speak for themselves and, loth as I am to surrender any personal freedom, I find that the price for preserving this particular freedom is too high. I refuse any longer to stand by and see the dreadful consequences of the present situation prolonged a minute more than necessary.
8.21 p.m.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I agree with every word with which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has so eloquently shortened my speech for me.
I join with those other hon. Members who have welcomed back the new hon. and learned Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington) because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute—it is the only chance one gets in the House—to David Walder, who was a personal friend. He was greatly loved here as one who did not overvalue himself or undervalue others in the way that some people do after a period at Westminster. He died as he lived, in the company of friends, and none of us would wish other than that. He will be greatly missed in the House.
Another hon. Member, Tom Swain, died recently and violently. He was killed quite close to where I live in Derbyshire, in a car accident, a few weeks ago. His death has nothing to do with the seat belt argument, one way or the other, because in the circumstances he would have been killed anyway. I use the fact of his death to remind hon. Members that our number is diminished by deaths on the road more than by any other external cause. We tend to take it less seriously

1795
than if one of our hon. Members were to die in a plane crash—I am not sure that that has happened in peacetime—or in some other way. Traffic accidents are such an extraordinary decimator of the population, which is why we are having this debate.
Many hon. Members who have spoken already have had personal experience of road accidents and though some have been cruelly touched they have not referred to the facts themselves. Others, equally scarred by what has happened, for example my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), have done so. On one occasion in my life I made that brief and unpleasant journey through the windscreen of a car in circumstances that I cannot say much about because I was concussed for a considerable time. I am extremely lucky to be alive. The point I make is that I was not wearing a seat belt. Looking back on that accident, I am not only lucky to have survived my own folly; I have had my mind concentrated on the arguments for and against compulsory seat belts.
The opponents of compulsion—their views were cogently expressed from the Conservative Front Bench—have three arguments. They have sought to challenge the validity of statistics, though none of them have done that very satisfactorily. They have advanced the arguments about liberty and utility against this proposed change in the law. I will say a word about all three.
No very clear argument has been advanced by the Conservatives to say that there would not be a saving, though perhaps we cannot quantify such a saving. It may be that the figure of 1,000 lives saved is too high. Perhaps the figure of 10,000 serious injuries avoided is also too high. But when we consider that there clearly would be some saving—and with only one exception from the Conservative Benches I think that this point has been conceded—are we really as free as perhaps some have suggested to put the argument of absolute liberty so high?
Only the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), using the figures for motor cycle accidents since crash helmet legislation was passed, said that the number of deaths each year, gave no clear evidence that there had been an
1796
improvement. The official calculation for 1977—the worst year for deaths which the right hon. Gentleman quoted—was that the lives of 120 motor cyclists were saved who would otherwise have been killed because they would have been involved in accidents when they were not wearing crash helmets.
A great many people are going to die in motor cycle accidents because when one is travelling at speed, and one comes off, there is a pretty good chance of breaking one's neck. That cannot be prevented. However, some may be, and some will be, saved and we should take that argument extremely seriously.
The libertarian argument has been put in its extreme form by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). He said that we should not have fought the Second World War if we had wanted to put such a high premium on life and liberty. He pointed out that in a war people would be killed or hurt and that others would be bereaved. That was the most absurd argument of the whole debate. We must look at the degree to which liberty is put to different uses according to society and the times in which we live. We cannot ignore that, because all liberties are adjusted by the uses to which they are put.
There was far more freedom for motor car drivers 100 years ago, because there were no motor cars. Nobody then would have said—nor did people say for a time after cars were introduced—that a driving licence was necesary. For a long time one could drive around without a test, or without any restriction on speed. To this day, in some of those European countries where accident figures are higher than ours, the speed restrictions on roads where wild and high-speed driving is the order of the day are far less restrictive than they are here. That is probably one of the reasons why the accident rates also are higher.
I do not, therefore, take the argument based on liberty in this sense as all-embracing. I do not believe that we can do that. We have to say—I put this to the right hon. Member for Down, South—that one's liberty here has to be seen in terms of how one's freedom to do things impinges on the freedom of others, including their freedom not to be bereaved and not to be left to care for

1797
a helpless invalid or near-vegetable for the rest of their lives.
Finally, I come to the question of the utility of the regulations. It is a regrettable fact that Jimmy Savile's admirable"clunk click"campaign—admirable in its intentions and in its execution—has not, I think, had a sufficiently significant impact. Each time these advertisements come on, the shock horror effect of them is less and the consequential increase in the number of people wearing seat belts for a period after the advertisements appear has diminished.
I believe that, so long as that is the case, we have to do as has been suggested by the National Association of Health Authorities and other bodies which have made representations to us and turn to a measure of compulsion.
I regret that there is a loss of liberty involved, but I do not for a moment believe that it is one which should overwhelm the other arguments. We know the kind of people who will ignore such an advertising campaign. We know the anecdotes—they have been retailed in the House today—and we know that there are people who believe that they always know best and that, of course, nothing will happen to them. A few years ago, the Peter Simple column in The Daily Telegraph invented a rather splendid character, J. Bonnington Jagworth, the terror of the Kingston bypass, who was always going out on burn-ups and who would never come to any harm because he knew best how to use the road and handle his car.
Such people will resent a requirement by law that they belt up. But I believe that they will do it. The problem lies in the implementation of the legislation in the early stages. I think that the lesson of the crash helmets legislation has been that once the law was seen to be what it is, evasion has been relatively negligible. Some hon. Members opposite splutter at that, but how often does one see a motor cyclist of any age now riding without a crash helmet? I have not seen one. I have not even seen any Sikhs riding about without crash helmets, in spite of the protestations which they made. I believe that once people get used to the idea that this is the law of the land, they will come to use seat belts.
1798
One more change which must come in line with what is here proposed—I am sure that it will come once there is this pressure—is in the manufacture of seat belts themselves. Until we have inertia reel seat belts in general use, we cannot effectively introduce legislation which makes the wearing of seat belts compulsory both for driver and front-seat passengers and eventtually, perhaps, for people in the back seats as well.
I have in mind here the kind of seat belt that I have in my car. One of the reasons why I do not wear it all the time, although I should, is that it is very uncomfortable, and I almost disclocate my elbow every time I try to put it on. We do not want seat belts of that kind manufactured in future, and I think that there will hereafter be some urgency in the call upon manufacturers to see how they can improve the design of seat belts and also speed up the process of testing them.
If the Bill goes forward in this Parliament or the next, it will, I believe, offer an admirable occasion for the use of the new procedure that the Procedure Committee has suggested—that is, a Select Committee stage incorporated within its passage. A good deal of what is advanced on both sides of the argument has not yet been properly proved. No one can say for certain everything that needs to be said about this legislation, and one of the ways in which we can clear our minds on the subject much more effectively is to have the relevant witnesses examined in some way or other—in this Parliament or the next—before the Bill becomes law.
In the meantime, I wish the Bill a good passage. I believe it to be one of the most important things that we could be debating this week.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Chair is to accommodate all hon. Members who are anxious to take part in the debate, it is necessary to appeal to hon. Members to limit their speeches to about six minutes.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said that it would be wrong to introduce a Bill to make compulsory the wearing of seat belts until the inertia reel belt is generally available. That is precisely what the Bill is doing. I

1799
strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Bill being pre-eminently a measure for a Select Committee. I wish that it could go to such a committee.
The hon. Gentleman will have heard what Mr. Deputy Speaker said about six-minute speeches. I should like to examine the statistics. I think that I could show that they are substantially and materially wrong. However, I do not know how one can set about examining the statistics in a six-minute speech. Such an examination could be carried out in a Select Committee, where it is possible to call and cross-examine witnesses and elucidate the validity of the propositions that are put forward. I am happy to propose that the Bill should go to a Select Committee.
For me the Bill is basically a matter of principle. I have been rather sorry to listen to the speeches of some Labour Members whose views I often respect and with whom I occasionally agree. They have somewhat diminished and cheapened the concept of liberty, to which we all attach great importance. They have even asked, like a famous character in history,"What is liberty?"Surely the answer is that there is only one sort of liberty, and that is freedom from constraint. There are not many liberties. There is freedom from this and freedom from that, but that is not real freedom.
Reference has been made to the freedom not to scrape people off the road. There is no freedom not to scrape people off the road. There is no such thing as a freedom not to have an injured husband. These are advantages or detriments, but they are nothing to do with freedom. Freedom is immunity from constraint.
We do not run a complicated society without constraints. It is necessary to interfere with people's freedom so that we may live together in rather crowded conditions. The question is always whether the circumstances being alleged justify the intrusion upon freedom from constraint. That is why I consider it important to examine the statistics. If there were not 1,000 deaths a year but 10,000, I should still, on principle, be against the Bill. There may be those whose thresholds for these matters are lower than mine.
1800
A quick study of the statistics may be justifiable. We have heard some wild figures, especially the 1,000 deaths and 10,000 injuries, which are nonsense. About 6,600 people are killed on the roads annually. However, at least 4,000 of those are in categories to which the Bill has no relevance—for example, pedestrians, cyclists or motor cyclists. The Bill is about wearing seat belts in motor cars. It is no good the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) shaking his head.
Dr. M. S. Miller: It has been said that if the driver is wearing a seat belt and there is deceleration the belt will be tightened around the driver, and he will thus have better control of his car and he may miss the other person.
Mr. Bell: If the hon. Gentleman considers that that is a substantial element in the statistical evaluation, I must pass on. I regard that theory as ridiculous. We are talking about a Bill that refers to the wearing of seat belts in motor cars, and by the front seat occupants of motor cars. Each year about 2,550 people are killed in motor cars. The exempted categories, whatever they are to be, cannot be fewer than 550. I imagine that even those in the back seats would add up to that, apart from all the other categories.
The Bill will affect 2,000 people every year. The Government's statistics show that of those killed 235 were wearing seat belts anyway. Therefore, we must subtract that figure. There is a further category. It was not known whether people in that category were wearing seat belts. They amounted to 103. We are left with 1,650 people per annum whom the Bill might affect. These are Government figures. It is suggested that we may save 1,000 lives every year out of the total of 1,650. On the broadest approach to the subject, that is highly improbable.
In recent months there has been controversy on this matter. The medical people, who supplied the pressure behind this move, reduced the figure to 800 and then to 600. I do not say that seat belts do not work to some extent. However, I suggest that the correct figure is about 250. The Government's statistically based justification is weak. It is based on the difference between those

1801
who were and those who were not wearing seat belts when killed. That is a dangerous extrapolation. The Government's figures overlooked the fact that those wearing seat belts were voluntary wearers. It is reasonable to assume that they wore seat belts efficiently and did so in the hours of darkness.
I come to the compulsory wearing of seat belts in the hours of darkness, when the accident rate is twice as high as in the hours of daylight. We shall not find the reluctant or compelled person wearing seat belts then. I shall not do so because the police will not see me and because I am against the measure. That is easy. Therefore, we cannot extrapolate the saving rate even if we accept the Government's figures.
The Government justified the figures by a reference to the Victoria statistics. Victoria was the only place in the world that showed a 50 per cent. reduction in injuries when compulsory belt wearing was introduced. There were material distinctions. In Victoria the wearing rate was 15 per cent. when the law was introduced. Therefore, the comparison must be between 15 per cent. belt wearing and 90 per cent., which was ultimately achieved. That is different from the British figure of an increase from 33 per cent. to 85 per cent. At the same time, a 60 mph speed limit was introduced in Victoria. If that factor did not falsify the statistics, I do not know what did.
When there was a fuel crisis in the United Kingdom a 50 mph speed limit was introduced. The number of deaths on the roads dropped by 1,400. There is nothing like a speed limit for reducing the numbers of deaths. If we introduced a 50 mph speed limit we should unquestionably save the lives of 1,200 people every year who would otherwise be killed on the roads. In that case we should be dealing with pedestrians, motor cyclists and others. How can we derive any sensible analogy from the statistics?
In the other states of Australia the savings ranged from nil to 30 per cent. In Sweden, when compulsory seat belt wearing was introduced the saving was nil. Every country has its own statistics. If, in Britain, we start with 33 per cent. and take account of the difference between voluntary and compulsory wearing,
1802
and the difference between day and night for frequency of accidents, we arrive at a probable saving of deaths of about 15 per cent. That is what we are talking about. It is a matter for each Member of Parliament to decide for himself.
Serious injuries are said to amount to 10,000 per year. That figure is based on the same calculation to which I apply the same qualifications. Let us start by remembering that the definition of serious injuries is absurd in this context. It applies to someone who stays in hospital for an hour. I am told by my medical advisers that the true figure of serious injuries is about half that mentioned in the departmental statistics. We are in fact starting from 5,000, and to that figure we apply all the considerations that I have been applying to deaths.
It is impossible to do justice to the arguments in the number of minutes available to speakers in the debate tonight, if one is to be fair to other hon. Members who are waiting to speak. All I can say is that if it is a question of balancing magnitude against intrusion into the realm of personal decision, I cannot accept for a moment that this kind of advantage in any way justifies what it is proposed to do. It is a very serious intrusion into people's liberty.
We have heard much argument today about precedent, but this liberty has been encroached on already. In any State in the modern world, freedom is never lost to people who preach dictatorship. It is lost to pressure groups whose purposes are benevolent in every respect. It is erosion by balancing the tangible advantage against the intangible advantage of not accumulating restraints upon the individual until he has been weakened. We cannot have a strong society made up of weak individuals. If the people in that society are constantly prevented from making unwise decisions, they become weak individuals.
We cannot look at seat belts in isolation. That is just where the latest push has come from the medicos. The risk is a very remote one. The risk of serious injury to a driver in this country, if he is doing an average annual mileage, is once in 800 years. The risk of death to a driver of an average mileage is once in 10,000 years. If he is over 25, it is once in 25,000 years. But when we are dealing with a population of 55 million

1803
or 60 million, obviously there is a steady trickle of a few a day, and they are all channelled into the accident and casualty departments of hospitals.
The medicos who write to us watch this wretched procession of damaged human frames and they say"This is terrible, it has got to stop ". But who are they to advise us on the balance between freedom and restraint? By definition, they are people whose minds have lost their balance because of the narrow and intense experience they have.
I must stop, in fairness to others, but I hope that hon. Members, when they vote at 10 p.m., will bear in mind that this argument from my side of the question is not one that can be brushed aside. It is one of the greatest gravity and of the greatest significance for the future of a free society.
8.43 p.m.
Mr. Percy GrieveThe Secretary of State moved the Second Reading of the Bill cogently, courteously and persuasively, but to what end was that persuasion? It was to show the desirability for the individual of using his seat belt. I have a cardiac pacemaker. It is fitted epicardially—that is to say, in my diaphragm. I find it very uncomfortable to wear a seat belt, but I am nevertheless persuaded by the statistics that it is right that I should wear one, and I have brought myself to do so. Perhaps I would obtain exemption under the exemption rules, but on balance I think that it is right for me to wear one. To say, as speaker after speaker has said, on the one hand that it is desirable that the individual should wear his seat belt and, on the other, that society should impose on him by law the obligation of doing so and should make it a criminal offence should he not do so, are two entirely different things.
In my submission to the House, there is here an issue of fundamental principle. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) put it absolutely clearly to the House. Were we not to limit our freedom to the extent that our freedom impinges on the freedom of others, then, in the words of Hobbes, life would indeed be
" nasty, poor, brutish and short ".
1804
We must limit our personal freedom for the good of others, but only to that extent and to that end.
What we are facing in the House this afternoon is not that problem; we are being asked to say that it is convenient for society—convenient only—that there should be fewer deaths on the road, fewer injuries on the road, and that, therefore, the individual must be compelled, for his own good, to limit his freedom. That is something that I absolutely and totally reject. It is not right. The only precedent—and I am not concerned with precedents because they may be bad—was the crash helmets Bill for motor cyclists. There, at least, there was the argument—and it was a powerful and cogent argument—that motor cyclists were mostly young people and that society has always assumed an obligation for young people in order that they should be protected against themselves.
Here we are not dealing with a section of the community consisting of minors under 21, or 18 as it is now. We are dealing with the whole of society. We must beware of eroding the liberties of the individual because we find it convenient or expedient so to do. In the complexity of modern society, where there are innumerable things at which we can look, it is all too easy to say"Ah, yes, it would be very good for the citizen, the subject of the Queen, to be restricted or constrained in this or that respect ". We should not erode the fundamental freedom of the individual where his act concerns himself alone and go beyond that and say"Ah, yes, for the good of society his freedom should be limited ".
For that reason I see a fundamental clash of principle. The principle for which I stand, for which I hope I was elected and which, for as long as I stand here, I shall sustain, is that I shall not tolerate or support any erosion of the freedom of the individual which is not absolutely essential for the freedom of others and the good of society. I do not see that in the Bill.
I should like to see more education and encouragement for the use of seat belts, but, as many of my hon. Friends have said, it is wrong that people should be compelled to do something which, in fact, may be harmful to them. That is

1805
not the core of the matter, although it is an extension of it. Seat belts may injure or kill—just as vaccination may injure or kill. That is the danger that we get ourselves into when we seek to limit the freedom of the individual. That is the major point and the principle on which I shall go into the Lobby—I hope to see many of my hon. Friends go into the same Lobby—and vote against the Bill tonight.
My second point is that the Bill creates a new crime. We cannot create a new crime, and ought not to do so, unless we have a consensus of a very large part of society. I am not saying, of course, that we must get the consent of burglars to a law against thefts, or the consent of rapists to a law against rape, but, having had a good deal to do with both types of criminal, I find that many of them recognise the justice of the law even when they offend against it. We cannot have a law that many people think is wrong and bad, which goes against the fundamental principle that should govern society. That is the second point that I desire to make.
My final point is that enforcement will create appalling problems for the police, who could be better employed. It will also increase that misunderstanding between the police and the community, which has done so much harm to the reputation of the police, when matters of real moment are tried in our criminal courts.
Suicide in this country ceased to be a criminal offence only after the war. I shall not go into the historical origins of the reasons why suicide was a criminal offence. In the old days it greatly benefited the Crown, who could seize the lands of the suicide because it was a felony. Attempted suicide has also ceased to be a criminal offence. Why? It is because this House respected the freedom of the individual. Indeed, it was a learned lord justice who said only the other day that if Mr. Relf wished to kill himself he was free to do so. The people of this country should be free to decide for themselves whether or not they should wear seat belts.
8.51 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: Every hon. Member who has opposed the
1806
Bill has conceded that its passage would save some lives and some injuries, even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). Every hon. Member who has supported the Bill has also conceded that some diminution of freedom is involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) said, one is faced with a balance.
But, for the average man in this country, the argument about the compulsory wearing of seat belts has already been sold. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) pointed out, it is impossible for the average British citizen to leave or enter this country by air without wearing a seat belt in the aircraft. Of course one can, if one buys or rents an aeroplane, but the average person travelling on one cannot avoid wearing a seat belt. During the last 25 years, I suppose that I have travelled nearly 1 million miles in the air, and I have never come across anyone who has had any conscientious objection to wearing a seat belt in an aircraft.
But I can see that there is a difference in regard to cars. This was put most forcibly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Wadding-ton)—whom we are delighted to welcome back into the House—when he pointed out that a considerable number of people, irrespective of the official statistics put forward and the ministerial statements that only one person in 1,000 will be actively harmed by the wearing of seat belts, still believe that they will be damaged by being forced to wear a seat belt. This is a serious problem which we who support the Bill must face.
I wish that there were some way to exempt those who feel seriously about this. I accept that some people are neurotic and have phobias about it, and I believe that some machinery should be found for exempting them. I therefore regret that in the exemption procedures which the Minister outlined this afternoon we seem to have gone back on some of the exemptions that were contained in the 1976 Bill.
I also take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield that the problem of enforcement will be considerable. I do not want the police to start a draconian drive against those who do not wear their seat belts. I also regret the

1807
fact that under this Bill the maximum penalty has been lifted from £10, as it was in the 1976 legislation, to £50. I hope that if we get to the Committee stage we will reduce it to £10. But I believe that this Bill is largely self-enforcing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield cited Australia and France. In both those countries enforcement has been very weak at times. Indeed, in France, when the Bill came in, in the rural areas no attempt was made to enforce it. Yet seat belt wearing went up from about 30 per cent. to about 70 per cent. I believe that would happen here and I believe the enforcement problem can be coped with. A lot of it is going to be done photographically in a few years' time, and I do not believe that there is going to be the friction between the police and the public that my hon. Friend thinks there will be.
To my mind, the clinching argument is that 21 countries now have compulsory legislation and in not one of them is there a serious drive to get rid of that legislation, because it saves a great deal of misery.
8.56 p.m.
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I think it was the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) who put his finger on one factor that has been very clear in our debates and to those who have taken part in a number of debates when he asked whether hon. Members were simply making statements or were here to argue. In a sense, those who have taken part in these debates over the years know very well the opinions that are going to be expressed and recognise them when they are expressed.
One thing has become clear in this debate today, and that is that the real issue is not whether, on practicalities, it will work, but the divide between hon. Members on both sides of the House as to whether this is a matter of personal freedom or whether, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) put it rather more elegantly, it is a law which interferes with others. It seems to me that that argument is fundamental, and that its resolution is fundamental, to getting the Bill through, because this is why both Front Benches have allowed a free vote on it tonight. I believe that that is not sense. I see no reason why there should
1808
be a free vote. I think that this is something that the Government have to take a grip on, decide their policy and put it through, but because there is this continuing argument whether this is a matter of freedom, both parties treat it as a matter of free conscience.
I want to devote the very few moments available to me to dealing with whether this is in truth a matter which involves personal choice or whether it seriously involves third parties. There seem to me to be three arguments, and I shall take them in reverse order of importance.
The first, I concede, is one of pure practicality and nothing else. There is no doubt that the failure to use seat belts is expensive for the National Health Service. It involves the State in disability payments and medical payments, and it involves us in loss of employment. Of course, it can equally be said that there are a number of other unsocial activities, alcoholism and so on, which result in exactly similar cost to the State, and therefore one can do no more than note that it is a cost to the State.
It is suggested that whether to use a seat belt is in itself a decision which one can make purely on one's own, without involving other people. I put aside the family because in the end, if one goes without a seat belt and ignores the consequences for one's family, on one's own head be it and on their heads be it. Nobody who has been involved in investigations into accidents or has dealt with them legally afterwards can have the least doubt about the terrible trauma when accidents happen when seats belts are not used.
For the motorist, perhaps innocent, who runs into another car and sees the other driver or his passenger thrown on to his own car or mangled on the road in front of him, it is not a matter of no importance. The incident will cause him misery at the time, and he will remember it for the rest of his life. It will cause him, and perhaps his passengers and others who see it, anxiety over months and years. A serious motor accident affects other people desperately. It may ruin their whole motoring lives.
The most important question is: what is the purpose of wearing a seat belt? Is it simply to protect the individual, or does it help third parties? My hon. and

1809
learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington), whom I, too, welcome back as a very old friend, was inclined to dismiss this matter as of no importance. I think that at the end of the last debate, when I made this point, the right hon. Member for Down, South remarked to me"If you are right, and it really does affect third parties, the argument is reversed ". He will probably accept that.
Does the wearing or not wearing of seat belts seriously affect third parties? Let us look at the arguments. I draw my support from some helpful figures supplied to me by an expert who has been mentioned before. Nobody who thinks about the matter can long avoid coming across the figures supplied by Dr. Mackay, reader in traffic safety at Birmingham university. He is the senior expert at the university.
The first thing that becomes clear from the figures of Dr. Mackay's papers and from other statistics is that the impression that traffic accidents involve head-on collisions and that therefore one is not protected by one's seat belt is false. At the very most, 60 per cent. of accidents occur in that way. Twenty per cent. of those are collisions on either wing, though they are included within the figures for the front of the car. Therefore, in a sense they are glancing blows.
When we look further at the figures we find that no less than 25 per cent. are side impacts. Moreover, 26 per cent. of all accidents involve no other vehicles. They are the kind of accident in which someone tries to avoid a dog or another car, does not come into contact with it, but hits a hedge, bollard or pavement.
It seems clear beyond doubt that all such accidents can be described as glancing blows. One must conclude that if the driver is retained in his seat and can control the vehicle after the glancing blow he will be able to prevent it doing more damage and hurting people on the pavements or in other vehicles.
Casualties in cars are untypical when the only occupant is the driver. More often than not—the ratio is three to one—there is more than one occupant. The driver has a duty to his passengers to wear a seat belt, because he can then control the car better.
1810
We have the startling figure that 80 per cent. of accidents occur when vehicles are being driven at speeds between 15 mph and 30 mph or 35 mph—there is a variation between the statistics for this country and abroad. Let us take the higher figure and say that they occur at speeds between 15 mph and 35 mph. Within those limits there is every chance of the driver being able to control the vehicle once the first glancing blow has occurred. That applies to as many as 50 per cent. of all accidents. In the time available I cannot do justice to the statistics, which I have to put very badly to the House.
There is not the least doubt that the arguments about personal freedom are phoney. They do not stand up. People are not being asked just to protect themselves as occurred when the wearing of crash helmets was made compulsory. They are asked to protect, first, their passengers and, secondly, those who will be gravely hurt if they cannot control their vehicles. Lastly, they are asked not to be so selfish as to think it does not matter if they are thrown out of the car through the windscreen and torn to bits on the road in front of another car, or land on the bonnet, and think that no one else will be involved. That is rubbish, and the sooner the House says so, the better.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Although I speak regularly on transport matters, I rise on this issue subjectively in the spirit of a convert, if not, the House will be relieved to know, with the passion of a convert, in the sense that, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) recently reminded me, although I had not forgotten, I voted against the compulsory use of seat belts on the last occasion. In 1976 I even sat through long debates upon public lending right and other matters whilst my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) was speaking at considerable length before the seat belts debate was reached, in order to vote against the Bill.
I principally rise subjectively to record my personal stand, my support for the Bill, and my congratulations to the Government on bringing it forward. I wish they had done so sooner. That is a valid criticism that should be made against them. I also rise to record my disappointment that the Opposition Front Bench,

1811
with whom I agree on almost everything, should on this occasion not be in full agreement with me and certain of my hon. Friends. I nevertheless congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on his excellent debating speech, even if it was not in the right direction.
I originally thought that voluntary persuasion would suffice. It has not worked, with due deference to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington), although a great deal of money has been spent. For me the substantive arguments are that it is beyond dispute that the measure will save lives and serious injury. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield spoke of deaths and narrowed it down. He completely ignored the 32,000 serious injuries. That is beyond dispute, and it has been conceded by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield.
The general accident rates are all very well. We know that Britain is doing a good job and that the rate in France is dreadful. But we are not dealing with general accident rates; we are dealing with serious injury and death, and that is what we want to stop by this measure, as individual Members of Parliament, on a free vote. It is a matter of common sense that it is safer to wear a seat belt. Figures can be argued up hill and down dale but we know perfectly well that if we wear our seat belts we are safer.
We have a heavy individual responsibility in the exercise of this vote. We should measure and consider that carefully. It is a bipartisan matter. A certain amount of"this side and that side"has crept into the debate, but on both sides of the House we have considered the question objectively.
There is the argument about personal liberty and individual choice. It has not been sufficiently emphasised, but we are not, by the measure, preventing anyone from doing anything. The right hon. Member for Down, South mentioned cigarette smoking. We were left with the picture that if we banned this and that everything would be much healthier, the Health Service would be saved money and so on. We are not preventing anyone from driving. We are merely advising someone to strap on a belt. If it is a challenge to civil liberty, it is extremely limited.
1812
I greatly enjoyed the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). He was in good form, but I wish that he had applied his rhetoric to a more deserving issue. I cannot stand strapping on the miserable belt but realise that it is necessary that I and others wear it. There can be exemptions for people with phobias. It would be simple for a person with a phobia to sit in the back seat. The more who do so, the better.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) mentioned the affect on third parties. Anyone who has dealt with personal injury cases in court well knows that in an accident after impact a lot more can happen, not only to other vehicles but to pedestrians. The better control that one retains of a vehicle, the more that can be avoided.
One of the fallacies in the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South was the question of children. Parents can be complacent and careless in not telling their children to wear seat belts. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that he had not told the person with him, who was seriously injured, to wear his seat belt. Many parents do not tell children and young people travelling in the front seat to wear seat belts.
On the arguments of principle, it is a question of balance. That was well covered by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee). We should adopt a balanced approach rather than waxing a little bit strongly and fighting the Second World War all over again.
We have heard a great deal on two subsidiary arguments concerning enforcement. The British people are generally law-abiding, and the foreign experience is overwhelming. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said that enforcement would be difficult, especially at night and on motorways, but he went on to say that in France the law did not work until it was enforced, and we must be objective. It is most important to remember that the public will see the sense of the legislation. That is evident from opinion polls. I am sure that the law will be obeyed.
The relationship of the police and public goes much deeper than mere seat

1813
belt legislation. Spot fines, general enforcement and police relations go way beyond it. If wearing seat belts is made compulsory, I cannot see that it will be a great problem for the police force. It has its problems, and we must deal with those in an imaginative and general way, but it is a gross overstatement to say that this matter has any bearing on such problems.
9.14 p.m.
Mr. Roger Moate: I mean no disrespect to any hon. Member when I say that the House has heard no new arguments tonight. The speeches, the responses and even the interventions have been predictable. But in many ways the debate has not concerned the arguments about the Bill. A Second Reading is a practical occasion on which the House concerns itself with the prospects for the Bill. The House has been here before and heard all the arguments. On 1 March 1976 the House gave a Second Reading to an almost identical Bill to this by a majority of 110. Now we are concerned with the prospects for the current Bill. To bring in a Bill of this kind on 22 March in the dying days of the Parliament—even if the Parliament were to continue for some months—means that it is most unlikely that it will make progress.
We welcome the efforts of the Secretary of State, but we must say that the efforts on the other side of the argument by the Leader of the House can only be regarded as a cynical manipulation of the business of the House for the sake of his own private prejudices.
There is little prospect of the Bill making progress, so my concern is for the chances of a similar Bill getting on to the statute book in the future. Hon. Members may suspect that I am a little disappointed at the attitude of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench in that they have indicated, as Conservative spokesmen, that they are not in favour of seat belts legislation. What, then, is the prospect of a Conservative Government introducing a Bill of this kind?
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), or whoever occupies his position in the future, will be persuaded, as previous Conservative spokesmen have been, of
1814
the need for compulsory seat belt wearing. I remind hon. Members of what may have been a conversion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) in 1973, when he made clear in a statement that he conceded that the public accepted the need for compulsion and that the chief officers of police accepted that legislation in this form was inevitable. The matter then went to the House of Lords and was accepted by the Conservative spokesmen there. When the Labour Government reintroduced the Bill later in 1974 the Conservative spokesman at that time officially welcomed the seat belts clause and no less a person that my noble Friend Lord Hailsham voted in support of compulsion.
Even if the Bill fails on this occasion, as I fear it must, I hope that a future Conservative Government will introduce such legislation. Of course, they will introduce it on a free vote, but the House has already demonstrated that it is overwhelmingly in favour of the principle. This is largely because of the overwhelming acceptance on both sides of the argument that whatever the differences of principle on the question of freedom, and so on, there would be a substantial saving of life and limb. That is one clear point that has come through in almost every speech. Even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), one of the most determined opponents of the legislation, putting his own interpretation on the figures, conceded that 250 lives a year could be saved. He thought that an insignificant figure. I do not agree. The forecasts of possible saving of life and limb are of such a magnitude that even a considerable error in those estimates would still provide a considerable saving.
If 250 lives a year could be saved, that would justify compulsion. This is a question of numbers. If the numbers were few, perhaps one could not justify this extra restraint—and restraint it is—but I do not believe that the extra restriction involved in simply putting on a seat belt involves a more valuable principle than the principle of life itself. I cannot understand why so many hon. Members accept that it should be the law to have seat belts fitted into cars and yet cannot concede that it is worth making that extra effort to compel people to use the belt, thereby saving several hundred lives a year.

1815
Many fine points of argument have been put, for example, that it is not the same as the wearing of hard hats on a construction site. However the law was devised in the first place, they are worn to protect the workmen and that is why the wearing of them is compulsory. Why are car seat belts different from a belt in an aeroplane and the enforcement of so many health and safety at work rules? We have gone so far as to enforce the fitting of seat belts in cars, yet we have refused to take the step which would save hundreds of lives every year.
I conclude by recalling the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made on 1 March 1976. He said that he was opposed to the compulsory wearing of seat belts until he went to the Department of Transport and became responsible for road safety. After that, he saw the necessity for the legislation.
It is because the House and the Government are responsible for road safety that I believe the legislation is necessary. It is possible to reduce the appalling slaughter on the roads, and we should be neglecting our duty if we failed to take this opportunity to save lives—perhaps 1,000 lives and 10,000 serious injuries a year. It would be the most effective way of saving lives. It is a simple, practical step and there is nothing complicated or difficult about it.
I believe not only that the House should give an overwhelming majority to the measure but, more importantly, that it should bring pressure to bear to ensure that, if future legislation is needed, it is brought in at the beginning of a Session and not at the end. In that way we can forget the argument that has gone on for so many years and try to reduce the slaughter on the roads.
9.21 p.m.
Mr. George Younger: I should like to begin by reiterating what several hon. Members from both sides of the House have said. It was a great pleasure to hear the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington). He made an excellent speech—which came as no surprise. It is good to see him back, and we hope that he will continue to contribute to debates. I am certain that he will. I
1816
appreciated particularly the remarks that he made about a great friend of many of us, his predecessor Mr. David Walder. I worked closely with Mr. Walder on defence matters for a number of years. He was one of the nicest people that it has ever been my privilege to know in the House.
Like all other hon. Members, I shall express my own view on the matter. I am glad to give a personal view. I shall not conceal from the House the fact that I have found it difficult to make up my mind on the issue. It is not an easy issue, and there are extremely powerful arguments on both sides. Therefore, I have done my best to listen to the debate and to weigh up arguments.
Both sides of the issue have respected the views of the other. I respect the views of the Minister and those hon. Members who believe that the Bill should be introduced. It was introduced with sincerity, and the arguments were put clearly. On the other hand, those hon. Members who believe that it is not the right measure have a case which it would be wrong not to respect and listen to. I shall try to sum up the main arguments of substance, which are reasonably clear and short.
I am a total and absolute believer in the use of seat belts. I always—and I mean always—wear a seat belt and I always require my front-seat passenger to wear one. It is a great assistance to safety. However, that is not what we are discussing—that is common ground between both sides of the argument. We are discussing whether, accepting all that, it is right, necessary and proper that we should make it compulsory to wear seat belts and that it should be a criminal offence, albeit a slight one, to fail to wear them.
I hope that the Secretary of State understands that for those of us who have doubts about the Bill the question of exemptions will be extremely important in the later stages of the ligislation. Many people, drivers and others, find it intolerable, difficult, unpleasant, uncomfortable and upsetting to use seat belts. I confess that I do not understand their reasons. I find seat belts convenient and comfortable, but others find them awkward, and in Committee we shall have to probe carefully what is meant by the reference to a doctor's certificate and what guidance

1817
doctors will be given about what will be considered a reason for being excused from having to wear seat belts. I believe that there will be a number of cases in which it will be extremely difficult to describe the reason as medical.
The Minister intends to introduce details of exemptions in a statutory instrument or order under the Bill, but it will be unsatisfactory for us to be asked to vote on the exemptions in a block decision after one and a half hour's debate, probably after 10 o'clock at night. We shall have the option only of accepting or rejecting the whole package.
I hope that the Secretary of State will come to the Committee stage with a clear list of detailed exemptions and, if possible, a draft of the draft order so that we may thrash it out bit by bit.
Unless the right hon. Gentleman does that, it will not be good enough for the House to have to accept or reject a whole package in which many details may not be acceptable to some hon. Members. There are important difficulties. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) raised the question of the difficulties faced by driving instructors. They have not been covered in previous attempts at legislation, and they are important.
Two key arguments have to be decided by every hon. Member before he votes. The first argument is that because the statistics demonstrate that using a seat belt saves lives we must compel everyone to wear them. I respect the views of those who use that argument, and it has been useful to have the many representations that most hon. Members have had from members of the medical profession giving us the benefit of their direct experience, which cannot be taken lightly. They ought to know that hon. Members have taken their views seriously.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) does not regard the conclusions drawn from the statistics as entirely convincing and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) takes the same line. I believe that many of the estimates are on the extravagant side, but I accept that there is an important saving of life by the wearing of seat belts. I do not base any
1818
part of my argument on disputing or minimising that fact.
The financial argument is that it costs the community a great deal of money to treat road accident victims. One point not made in the debate is that, as I understand it, when an accident victim has to attend an NHS hospital, that hospital has to be reimbursed, at least to some extent, through the driver's insurance policy, for the cost of looking after him. Though it is still a cost, it does not necessarily fall on the public purse. I believe that this is what happens in most cases and I hope that the Minister will confirm it.
If we accept the argument that because lives are being saved it follows that we are justified in making it compulsory for everybody to use seat belts, I suggest that we are embarking on a slippery slope. If the only argument for compelling people to use seat belts is to save lives, we should be passing a law making it illegal to cross the road. That is an extremely dangerous activity, which accounts for a large number of road casualties every year. I do not know what the exact figure is but it is large.
It would be logical to say that if we believe that saving lives is the only criterion, crossing the road should be made a crime. That smoking costs lives cannot be denied, yet I have heard no one suggesting that we make smoking a crime. There is also the question of dangerous sports. Again, if the criterion is to save lives and prevent injury, we ought to curtail dangerous sports.
Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend accept that wearing a seat belt does not stop one going where one wants to go, whereas if one is prevented from crossing the road, or from smoking or from mountaineering, one is being prevented from doing what one wants to do? Is there not a difference?
Mr. Younger: That is a good point. My point is that if saving lives is everything in this argument, the activities that I have mentioned ought to be made illegal, in order to save lives. It is an argument that needs to be weighed, but it is not crucial.
The second argument is much more important and is different from other arguments that we are considering. I

1819
accept that most people who wear seat belts are safer than those who do not, but there are people who believe that they are alive today because they were not wearing seat belts at the time of an accident. They may not be right, but they believe that they are.
I was impressed by the speech made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who told us in a very effective way of his being saved because he was wearing a seat belt. He is with us today because of that. Without wishing to detract from that, I must tell him that my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) believes—he may well be right—that he is with us because, when he was involved in an accident, he was not wearing a seat belt.
Although the majority of people who wear seat belts are safer, there are some who are not. This introduces another set of calculations and criteria which we must take into account and which emphasise the difference between seat belts and crash helmets for motor cyclists. There may be people who argue that there are occasions when it is safer for a motor cyclist not to wear a crash helmet. I am not aware of such an argument, and unless I were convinced I would not believe that it could convincingly be made. To my mind, that is the difference in the argument about the wearing of crash helmets, since it is very nearly—as near as one can get—self-evident that one is at least marginally safer when wearing a crash helmet.
But let us consider some other examples. There has already been reference to the requirement, with criminal penalty attached, that one shall not run a car on the road without an MoT certificate if its age calls for the test. Moreover, it is wrong, and subject to penalty, to drive a car on the road without effective brakes.
Some would say that the same principle applies, but it is not the same principle because there are no circumstances in which it can be safer to drive a car with no brakes or with defective brakes than to drive it with proper brakes. There is a complete difference in degree there.
Several hon. Members have spoken of the requirement to wear seat belts in an aircraft. Of course that is so, but the
1820
difference is that it is not a criminal offence to fail to do so. Again, therefore, there is a difference between what happens in that context and what is proposed under the Bill.
We should face the consequences of what is here proposed and be clear about them in our minds. What happens if a person wearing a seat belt as required under the Bill has an accident and is killed but, in the opinion of his wife, family and dependants, his life would have been saved had he not been wearing a seat belt? That is not at all fanciful. Such an event may well happen in many cases already. What is the position of the bereaved family? Are they able to claim any redress from the State if they believe that the father wore his seat belt, being required to do so under the Bill, and this led to his death? That may well happen in a number of cases, and we should think carefully about the effect of what we are doing.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since my hon. Friend is giving thought to the effects on other people, will he take it from me that in many of our hospitals men and women spend their lives looking after frontal lobotomy cases, doing the frightening job of caring for people who did not wear a seat belt and collided with the windscreen, being reduced to gibbering idiots as a result? My hon. Friend should consider the position of those people who are affected as well.
Mr. Younger: With respect to my hon. Friend, I have indeed considered them and I have covered that matter already in what I have said.
I wish to conclude now, and I think that it would not be right to make this speech without being constructive as well. In my view, it is both desirable and necessary that we should look at the positive side. Seat belt design has been mentioned already by several hon. Members. We have a long way to go before seat belt design is satisfactory, and I hope that the Department will do all that it can to put pressure on the manufacturers to that end.
Secondly, I am all in favour of the maximum number of requirements in the construction of motor cars with reference to seat belts. Seat belts should be built in, there should be flashing lights to show whether the belt is fitted on, and, if

1821
necessary, even noises produced by an instrument in the fascia board to warn people and to encourage them to use the belt. There should be an extension of the penalties under insurance policies if those who have accidents were not wearing seat belts. The rule which is sometimes already adopted of applying penalties in the compensation should be extended. Certainly, there will be need for continued advertising and persuasion even if the Bill should go through.
I have not found it easy to make up my mind. I accept that there are great advantages in the wearing of seat belts, and I believe that everybody should always wear them, but many hon. Members have made a powerful case for saying that there would be an intrusion here upon individual freedom by the requirement on everybody to wear a seat belt, making it a criminal offence not to do so with a penalty of £50, and there are cases, however few they may be—I believe that they are a significant number—where wearing a seat belt is harmful to the life and health of driver or passenger.
This is a requirement which we should not lightly impose upon people who, for whatever reason and however misguided we may think them, do not wish to wear a seat belt. I shall continue to wear a seat belt, but I hope that the House will not make it compulsory and a crime not to do so.
9.40 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): First, I say in response to comments made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that this is a Government Bill. My right hon. Friend and I believe that the Bill deals with an important issue. That is why we have brought the Bill to the House. That is why my right hon. Friend opened the debate and why I am replying. On an issue of this sort we felt it right to have a free vote. There will be a free vote for Labour Members, as I understand there will be for Opposition Members. I thought that I should make those matters plain to avoid any misunderstandings about the position hon. Members will face when they go into the Lobbies to vote at 10 o'clock.
1822
Before I come to the central issues for and against the Bill, I shall take up one or two remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, referred to consultation. They fairly said that it is three years since a similar measure came before the House to receive its Second Reading. That was a Bill not dissimilar from the measure before us. They fairly asked what consultation had been undertaken on exemptions, for example. A great deal of consultation has been undertaken. The hon. Gentleman will readily be able to ascertain the extent of the consultation if he wishes.
For example, there has been considerable consultation with the police on exemptions and enforcement. We have talked extensively with medical authorities on a number of issues. Our talks have concerned not merely the principles of medical exemption and who should be exempt, but the mechanics of the certificate, the fees and all the details that it is necessary to consider and which legitimately concern hon. Members. We have also entered into consultation on children and how we should treat them. My right hon. Friend made plain the Government's attitude to children in terms of the Bill. We have also talked to our own examiners, who have problems with a Bill of this sort. Therefore, my right hon. Friend was able to make a clear statement, though necessarily brief as there was a great deal to say on other matters and it was a Second Reading debate, on the broad approach that we have adopted to exemptions.
I note the remarks of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) about our proceedings in Committee and how they might proceed. I am not able to say how we shall progress from this stage of the Bill's passage, but we shall take into account the argument that he has advanced.
We decided that it was right to introduce what is in effect an enabling Bill, followed by the business end, to quote the right hon. Member for Down, South, in the form of regulations. That decision was taken for good reasons. We shall have a degree of flexibility. Other countries have found it sensible to make small

1823
alterations to exemptions from time to time.
I do not believe that it would have been right to go any further than the fairly extensive though informal consultation in which we engaged. There was clearly no legislative backing for any of the consultation. Consultation took place on the premise that there would be a Bill. Secondly, it would have been discourteous to the House to go too far with consultations before there was clear legal backing for them. Therefore, we have made no final decisions on exemptions, for example. However, we have done a considerable amount of essential spade work. It is now a matter of putting the coping stone on to the views that we have formed after taking into account the views that are expressed in Committee.
A number of hon. Members have talked about enforcement. It has featured fairly extensively in the speeches of those who are opposed to the Bill. The basic premise of those who argue that enforcement will be a problem is that many people will not obey the law. I do not believe that that will be so. In other countries where there has been an approach similar to the one that we intend to adopt—for example, France, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden—high levels of belt wearing have already occurred. About 80 per cent. have worn belts without any excessive enforcement effort.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Will there be a period of grace to allow people not accustomed to wearing seat belts to get used to wearing them without the police pushing for them to be worn?
Mr. Horam: The answer is"No ". There has already been extensive consultation. The Bill is being discussed on Second Reading. It will go into Committee, and if it passes through the House and is enacted regulations will be introduced. If there are those who are not aware of exactly what is involved after all the talk that has taken place, they must be living in a different country.
Does the Bill pose unique difficulties in the general area of road traffic legislation? I take the point that it is difficult to tell whether someone is wearing a seat belt at night. It is equally difficult for the police to spot whether someone is driving when over the drink limit, or
1824
whether a car has taken an MoT test. Enforcement difficulties are inescapably linked with road traffic legislation. It is for individual chief officers to decide how they will handle matters. The police do not pretend that it will be easy to enforce this measure. I concede that. None the less, the majority of police representatives are in favour of compulsion. They must have weighed up this matter and come to that conclusion. They remain in favour of compulsion.
Mr. Lawrence: Does the Minister imply that the police will stop a vehicle and arrest somebody for the offence of not wearing a seat belt only if the vehicle has already been involved in an accident or other incident, as normally applies in drink-driving cases?
Mr. Horam: I said nothing about that, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. The police have said that they would enforce the law. They have not seen particular difficulties in this problem.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made—fairly—an important point. He referred to the relationship between the police and the public flowing from any enforcement difficulty. In our discussions the police did not raise this as an issue that concerned them. Indeed, I suspect that they are caused far more trouble by existing problems, such as speed limits. I expect that there are many more difficulties in their relationships with the public in enforcing matters of that kind than they might encounter over a seat belt measure which the majority feel to be in their own best interests.
Secondly, the police have weighed the matter up. They remain in favour of compulsion. The majority of police representatives are in favour of compulsion. The hon. Gentleman made a great deal of that point in his opening remarks. He is trying to be more royal than the king. We should take the view of the police on this matter. They are clearly in favour of compulsion.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
Mr. Horam: I have already given way twice. I have little time. I deliberately shortened my remarks to allow a number of hon. Gentlemen to speak both for and against the Bill. I must press on.
Mr. Norman Fowler: The Minister mentioned police views. I spoke to the

1825
Association of Chief Police Officers this morning. Its information to me was that it was apprehensive about compulsion on the grounds of enforcement and exemptions. That does not tie in with the general blanket assurance that the Under-Secretary is giving to the House now.
Mr. Horam: I am not giving a blanket assurance. I accept the point that the police made, that enforcement would not be easy. That is plain. I said that I did not believe that it would be as difficult as the Opposition said.
I quote relevant experience on the matter. One of the few international conferences on this matter was held in Melbourne in 1977. For seven or eight years, the wearing of seat belts has been compulsory in many Australian states. Mr. Butler, the commissioner for motor transport in New South Wales, speaking of his experience over seven or eight years, on a regulation to enforce compulsory seat belt wearing, said:
" Enforcement has not turned out to be a problem."
He went on to say:
" This is, in fact, a regulation with a very high degree of self enforcement."
That is likely to be the case in this instance. I do not expect the problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman to arise.
The central argument against the Bill was spelt out with characteristic cogency by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I quote not from the speech that he made this evening but from the speech that he made three years ago, on Second Reading. He said then:
" The principle at stake is very precise. It is whether it should be a criminal offence for a person to neglect or to risk his safety when, by so doing, he does not involve the physical, personal safety of others."—[Official Report, 1 March 1976; Vol. 906, c. 949.]
I do not think that can be improved upon as the statement of the principal opposition to the Bill. But the statement is not quite precise enough, for the fact is that the safety of others may be involved. If a person has an accident and is not wearing a seat belt, he is more likely to be flung through the windscreen or incapacitated through injury. If that is so, he is less likely to retain some kind of control over the car.
1826
This is not the main argument that I would deploy against the right hon. Gentleman's principle but it is an important argument, for in rather over one case out of 10 there is not one collision but two. Wearing a seat belt may therefore help a person to avoid, or lessen the impact of, the second collision, and thus save the life of someone totally uninvolved in the first accident.
Some caution is therefore necessary in stating the libertarian argument. None the less, it is an important one and it must be answered. I believe that the essence of the answer is that there is not just one principle at stake here but two, and the second principle is the preservation of human life. We must choose between these two principles, and, as in any choice, we are bound to measure as objectively as we can the relative weight that we attach to each of these principles in the particular circumstances that we have here. That is how, in practice, we decide between conflicting arguments, in this field as well as in any other. It is when we look at it in this light, comparing the relative strengths of the argument, that we see the case for the Bill and the weakness of the personal freedom argument.
The right to drive a car unbelted is scarcely one of the fundamental freedoms. It is not a freedom to be set alongside freedom of speech or free elections. It is actually a minor appendage of another freedom—the freedom to drive a motor car. That itself is a freedom that, for most people, has arrived only in comparatively recent times. It is one which, as we have often said in transport debates, is very highly valued. To be asked to make that wider freedom to drive a car dependent and conditional upon fastening a belt across one is surely not to ask very much.
The other libertarian argument is that one encroachment will lead to another—that before long we shall not allow mountaineers to climb until they have been safely anchored to the top, or that we shall prohibit smoking. I do not believe that those are serious possibilities, and I do not think that hon. Members think so, either. Quite apart from any other consideration, to regulate in these areas of smoking, sport, and so on, is to regulate people's pleasures and enjoyment. The Bill is really not the herald

1827
of some new era of prohibition, or something of that kind. To claim that it is is really to claim too much.
I submit, therefore, that the infringement of personal liberty brought about by the Bill is small. Indeed, one is well justified in using the word"trivial ". It is not unprecedented in legislation and it is not the precursor of some major invasion of individual freedom. The arguments in favour of the Bill are straight forward.
About 60 per cent. of all car accidents are frontal collisions. In such a collision, a car comes to a halt in perhaps one-tenth of a second, but an unbelted occupant continues to move forward at about the previous speed of the car until he or she hits the windscreen, or some other part of the car, or is ejected. If the speed of the car is 30 m.p.h., such a movement is equivalent to jumping from a second storey window on to the pavement. That is the effect of the person hitting the windscreen. A seat belt meets the problem in a most simple and direct way by holding the occupant to the seat.
How effective a seat belt is can be judged by comparison of accidents when seat belts are worn with those accidents when they are not. We are not talking about hypotheses; we are talking about fact. These facts show that when a seat belt is worn the number of deaths is 50 per cent. less, and the number of serious injuries 45 per cent. less.
In other countries where seat belts have been introduced, the saving of life has always been substantial and frequently of the proportions that I have stated. If one applies this proportion to the number of front-seat occupants who are killed every year, and who were not wearing seat belts, one arrives at a figure of a possible 1,000 lives a year saved. That is the figure that has been extensively quoted.
Naturally, it is right to claim that this figure is based on a wearing rate of 100 per cent. Clearly the rate will not be 100 per cent.; it will be less than that. When based on the figures that have been achieved in other countries, of approximately 45 per cent., one is talking about the saving of lives in the region of 800 people per year. Even if we arbitrarily halve that figure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) suggested,
1828
we would still be talking about a truly enormous saving of lives.
It is right to be cautious about estimates of this kind, and the right hon. Member for Down, South urged us to be cautious, though curiously enough he was rather cavalier in the way that he used statistics, because he actually quoted motor cycle casualties without mentioning the fact that the number of motor cycles ridden has increased very substantially during the period about which he was talking—in fact, the number has risen by 50 per cent. in the two years after 1975.
I am quite unable to accept that legislation on motor cyclists' crash helmets and drinking and driving has had no beneficial effect. I accept that the estimate that we made at the time has not been fulfilled, but the fact is that 120 lives per year have been saved since the wearing of crash helmets was made compulsory. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that our calculation is—though certainly the effect is wearing off since the passing of the legislation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) all those years ago—that the number of lives saved has been about 5,000 as a consequence of the drink-driving legislation. Certainly we can go into those figures in detail if hon. Members so wish, but that is where we rest our case.
When injuries occur in a head-on collision they are very often extremely severe. It is therefore interesting to note that indications are that seat belts are most effect in reducing the most severe injuries. In particular, they are most effective in reducing head injuries. The saving of life and limb is, therefore, unquestionably high, and if there were no other reason for the Bill than that, it would be amply justified.
But there is a further argument in favour of the Bill, and that is the consequential savings to the police, the emergency services, and the National Health Service. My right hon. Friend said that the savings to the National Health Service could be about £50 million per year. Even in these days of inflation and funny money that is not a negligible sum, and in a week that began with a debate on public expenditure it is not inappropriate to close with a social measure that is absolutely costless.

1829
It is not just the money that is important, but the nature of the demands that car accidents make on the NHS. The accidents that occur are severe and stretch the NHS at its most vulnerable point.
The Bill is comparable with others in the area of health and safety legislation. The infringement of personal liberty that is involved, though real, is tiny. To suggest that the Bill opens the door to major invasion of personal liberty is surely farfetched. The Bill will save hundreds from death and thousands from injury, disfigurement
and disablement. It will save literally tens of thousands of families from the pain and grief that these accidents cause.
For these reasons, the Bill has been described by the Medical Council on Accident Prevention as a major piece of public health legislation. I hope that the House will indicate its support in no uncertain manner.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 147.

Division No. 1041]

AYES

10.00 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Anderson, Donald

Duffy, A. E. P.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dunlop, John

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Armstrong, Ernest

Dunnett, Jack

Knight, Mrs Jill

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Dykes, Hugh

Knox, David

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lamborn, Harry

Baker, Kenneth

Elliott, Sir William

Lamont, Norman

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Bates, Alt

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Bean, R. E.

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Litterick, Tom

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Loveridge, John

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Luard, Evan

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

McCartney, Hugh

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

McCrindle, Robert

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

McCusker, H.

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

MacGregor, John

Bottomley, Peter

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Maclennan, Robert

Braine, Sir Bernard

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Magee, Bryan

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

George, Bruce

Marks, Kenneth

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Bryan, Sir Paul

Goodhart, Philip

Mates, Michael

Buchan, Norman

Gould, Bryan

Maynard, Miss Joan

Buchanan, Richard

Graham, Ted

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Cant, R. B.

Griffiths, Eldon

Mills, Peter

Carmichael, Nell

Grocott, Bruce

Miscampbell, Norman

Carter, Ray

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Moate, Roger

Cartwright, John

Hannam, John

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Morton, George

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Clemitson, Ivor

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Mudd, David

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Hayhoe, Barney

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Cohen, Stanley

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Neave, Airey

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Newens, Stanley

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Heffer. Eric S.

Newton, Tony

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Henderson, Douglas

Noble, Mike

Cope, John

Heseitine, Michael

Ogden, Eric

Corbett, Robin

Higgins, Terence L.

O'Halloran, Michael

Corrie, John

Hodgson, Robin

Onslow, Cranley

Costain, A. P.

Hooley, Frank

Orbach, Maurice

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Horam, John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Hordern, Peter

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Cryer, Bob

Huckfield, Les

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Park, George

Dalyell, Tam

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Parker, John

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Parkinson, Cecil

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

James, David

Pavitt, Laurie

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Penhaligon, David

Deakins, Eric

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

Perry, Ernest

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Jessel, Toby

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

John, Brynmor

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Dormand, J. D.

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Radice, Giles

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Raison, Timothy

Rathbone, Tim

Speed, Keith

Watkins, David

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Watkinson, John

Raid, George

Stallard, A. W.

Watt, Hamish

Rhodes James, R.

Stanley, John

Weetch, Ken

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Steel, Rt Hon David

Wellbeloved, James

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Whitehead, Phillip

Rooker, J. W.

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Whitlock, William

Roper, John

Stoddart, David

Wiggin, Jerry

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Stott, Roger

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Strang, Gavin

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Sainsbury, Tim

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Sandelson, Neville

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Shepherd, Colin

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Tilley, John

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Tomlinson, John

Sillars, James

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Silverman, Julius

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Mr. John Evans and

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Mr. James Tinn.

Snape, Peter

Ward, Michael

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Grieve, Percy

Nelson, Anthony

Alison, Michael

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Neubert, Michael

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Grist, Ian

Osborn, John

Banks, Robert

Grylls, Michael

Page, John (Harrow West)

Bell, Ronald

Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Benyon, W.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Percival, Ian

Bidwell, Sydney

Hawkins, Paul

Pink, R. Bonner

Biggs-Davison, John

Hicks, Robert

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Body, Richard

Holland, Philip

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Hunt, John (Wirral)

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Hurd, Douglas

Ridsdale, Julian

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rifkind, Malcolm

Brotherton, Michael

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Royle, Sir Anthony

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Carlisle, Mark

Kerr, Russell

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Kilfedder, James

Shersby, Michael

Clegg, Walter

Kimball, Marcus

Silvester, Fred

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Crowder, F. P.

Lawrence, Ivan

Skinner, Dennis

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Lawson, Nigel

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Drayson, Burnaby

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Durant, Tony

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Sproat, Iain

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Emery, Peter

Lloyd, Ian

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

English, Michael

Luce, Richard

Stradling Thomas, J.

Eyre, Reginald

MacCormick, Iain

Tebbit, Norman

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Macfarlane, Neil

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mackay, Andrew (Stechford)

Torney, Tom

Farr, John

Madden, Max

Townsend, Cyril D.

Fell, Anthony

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Urwin, T. W.

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mather, Carol

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Maude, Angus

Viggers, Peter

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mawby, Ray

Waddington, David

Fookes, Miss Janet

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wakeham, John

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mayhew, Patrick

Wall, Patrick

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Walters, Dennis

Fox, Marcus

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Weatherill, Bernard

Freud, Clement

Molyneaux, James

Wells, John

Fry, Peter

Monro, Hector

Welsh, Andrew

Ginsburg, David

Montgomery, Fergus

Winterton, Nicholas

Glyn, Dr Alan

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Goodhew, Victor

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Younger, Hon George

Goodlad, Alastair

Morgan, Geraint

Gorst, John

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Mr. Patrick Cormack and

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Mr. Nick Budgen.

Gray, Hamish

Questions accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

FIREARM CERTIFICATES
10.14 p.m.
Mr. John Farr: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order 1979 (S. I., 1979, No. 86), dated 30 January 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7 February, be annulled.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that the debate must end at 11.30 p.m. Already six hon. Members, in addition to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), have indicated to me that they hope to speak.
Mr. Farr: It may be as well if I begin by telling the House about those who are interested in shooting and those who take part in the pastime. Many people think that those who shoot come from certain sections of society.
A recent pilot survey of the people who shoot was classified into the 17 generally recognised socio-economic groups. Of these 17 groups, 35·7 per cent., or the biggest sector, were people who were classed in the sociological grouping as skilled manual workers. The next largest, 26 per cent., were intermediate and junior manual workers. The third largest, 14·3 per cent., were professional workers, 13·3 per cent. were employers and managers and the remaining 10 per cent were semi-skilled, or not at present engaged in a viable occupation. This shows that the sport of shooting has widespread application in Britain and that many thousands will be concerned with what we are discussing tonight.
The prayer was laid by my hon. Friends and myself because fees for firearm and shotgun certificates have escalated so much during the past four or five years, particularly since 1975, that considerable unrest has been caused throughout the country. Without going into details of how the fees have increased, it is sufficient to say that the fee for a firearm certificate, which in 1975 was £3·50, will be £18·50 if the order is approved, and the fee for a shotgun certificate, which in 1975 was £1, will be £8·50.
Those are startling increases. A fee which would be appropriate in line with the increase in the cost of living and the index of retail prices would be £8
1834
for a firearm certificate instead of £18·50, and £2·50 for a shotgun certificate instead of £8·50. That is why we have laid the prayer.
A great deal of correspondence has come to my hon. Friends and myself on this subject recently. The figures I have quoted showing the shocking way in which fees have increased are borne out by a written answer given to me by the Home Secretary on 3 May 1978, when he stated that no fees for which he had responsibility had been increased to the same extent as the fees under the Firearms Act 1968. That was a significant admission by the Home Secretary. There are several other fees with which the Home Secretary is concerned, namely, fees under the Aliens Act, which involve a considerable amount of police time, and fees for liquor licences, which again involve much police time in inquiries. There are many other fees with which the Home Secretary is concerned, such as burial fees, which have increased only at the rate of inflation or less.
The Home Secretary issues some licences without charge, and there are circumstances where police time may be considerable but no charge is made. The police are required to inspect and advise retail chemists on the security of drugs. and no charge is made for the appropriate authorisation to possess drugs. No charge is made for police duties in relation to commercial storage of explosives. The police quite rightly spend a considerable amount of time on crime prevention advice, particularly for people wishing to install burglar alarms, and no charge is made for that.
From time to time these regular increases in fees have been questioned in debate. The Government over the past three or four years have given three reasons for these increases: first, that they are necessitated by inflation; secondly, that such fees have been dealt with in the same way as all other fees; and, thirdly, that by virtue of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 they were required to increase fees.
I have touched on the savage way that fees have been increased in an unjustified way since 1975, and I have also dealt with the inconsistency, admitted by the Home Secretary, that no other fees have increased at the same rate as firearms

1835
fees. Until recently, the third reason was consistently given by Ministers. In a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 27 October 1976 and 3 May 1978, the Under-Secretary of State indicated that the Government were required to increase firearms fees by virtue of section 5 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968. In December 1976, the Minister of State said the same thing in another place.
The Home Office now recognises that that Act places no such requirement on the Government, and never has done. In section 5 a number of charges are listed that must be regularly increased, but for that to apply to firearm fees a special amendment would be necessary. I think the Under-Secretary will agree that the Government are not required to take action by that Act.
The level of fees is increasing due to increased costs, but there is considerable room for cost reduction by improving the efficiency of the procedure. There is a teriffic variation among police forces in the cost of the procedure of granting a firearm certificate. Although I am referring specifically to the granting of firearm certificates, what I say applies also to shotgun certificates. Looking at the figures for 1977, one sees that in the metropolitan area the average firearm certificate cost £52·80, and from that high figure it ranges down to £10·41 in Cumbria.
There seem to be tremendous variations in the costings given by different police forces, which I find incomprehensible. If we want to make the system more effective, cheaper for those who have firearms and simpler for the police, could not those who have been checked out and found suitable to hold a firearm certificate automatically qualify to hold a shotgun certificate? A shotgun does not require the standard of responsibility demanded by a rifle, and if someone is qualified to hold a firearm certificate he should be able to hold a shotgun certificate without involving the police in a laborious duplication of checking. Such a dual procedure would save the issuing of 150,000 certificates a year, and that would save the police a great deal of time.
I have another suggestion that the Minister might consider. Driving licences
1836
are now valid until the holder reaches the age of 70. Could not the life of a firearm certificate be increased from three years to five or six years?
How can we improve police efficiency in administering the firearms laws? The police lack direction from the Home Secretary on this issue. Section 55(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 empowers the Home Secretary to make rules to regulate the manner in which chief officers of police carry out their duties under the Act. In the debate on this subject in the Standing Committee in 1978, the Minister said that it was for chief officers of police to determine the best system to operate. In another place the Home Office Minister said that it was up to the police to decide how to use their manpower resources and on the variations between different forces.
If, as it appears, the police are not using their resources in the most efficient way, they should be given guidance by the Home Secretary. It seems from repeated statements in firearms debates that the Home Office and the Home Secretary have almost completely opted out of giving guidance in this matter and are leaving these questions more and more in the hands of the chief officers.
Those who engage in shooting in all its forms—they come from many groups in society—are basically law-abiding people who are anxious to help the police in every way. However, the situation is approaching in which the burden of increased fees is making it very difficult for many of them to continue to possess a shotgun, a rifle or another authorised weapon.
In the 1977 annual reports of the chief officers of police for Devon and Cornwall, Essex, Hampshire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside and Surrey, it was made clear that increased fees accounted for the reduction in the number of firearm and shotgun certificates.
The House has a matter on its hands that requires immediate action from the Government. Some of us are most dissatisfied with the continual rise in firearm fees each year since this Government came into office. Some hon. Members say that the continual rises are allied to the failure of the Government in 1977 to secure the advancement of its Firearms Bill.

1837
Many hon. Members would like answers to a number of questions. Why was the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 continually and repeatedly used as a justification for the recovery of costs? I have never received a satisfactory reply to the question. Why has the Home Secretary concluded that firearm and shotgun certificate fees should be increased at a rate disproportionate to inflation? Why are services that are provided free to many sections of the community, in respect of other licences and authorisations from the Home Office, charged at a very high rate to those who use firearms?
Why, in the systems and costings evolved by the Home Office, is the charging of police officers' time made as if they were exclusively employed on investigations? Often they are not. Nominal or no fees are charged for the issue of comparable licences, whereas the fireams fees and examinations charges that are made represent the full time of the police officers involved. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to issue guidance to the police about the efficient and cost-effective administration of their systems? Will the Home Secretary now institute an independent inquiry into the appropriate level of fees?
The House is totally dissatisfied with the actions of the Government. Since 1975 they have taken steps to price legal firearm possession out of the reach of many young people. My hon. Friends and I believe that it is wrong that lawful firearm possession should depend more and more on the ability to pay.
10.33 p.m.
Mr. Max Madden: I am glad that the prayer, which I support, offers the opportunity for the House to question the basis of these fees. Last year, the increase in fees was introduced at a time when there was no parliamentary opportunity to ask questions or draw attention to the concern that was felt about the increase. As a result of that, I tabled a number of questions and wrote to the Home Secretary. I was wholly dissatisfied with the replies I received.
In the meantime, I have been paying considerable attention to the issue. I
1838
hope that the Minister will give a fuller explanation of the basis of the charges than we have received hitherto. There are 150,000 people in the United Kingdom holding firearm and shotgun certificates. Many regard the increase in fees over the past few years as a clear pricing policy, initiated very much at the behest of civil servants in the Home Office, and a blatant attempt to control and reduce the number of guns and shotguns.
The proposed fee for a firearm certificate from 1 May is a 15 per cent. increase on last year's figure. The increase for the shotgun certificate fee is between 20 per cent. and 21 per cent., and the increase for dealers is more than 18 per cent. Those figures are well in excess of the movement of inflation over the year.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) made a number of references to charges having been introduced since the Government came to office, but it is important to point out that fees for firearm certificates were first introduced in 1920, admittedly at only five shillings. They remained at that level until 1968, when they were increased to £2·50. They were increased again in 1971 to £3·50, in 1975 to £7, in 1976 to £12 and in 1978 to £16, and the proposed fee from 1 May is £18·50.
I have referred to the sense of grievance and unfairness felt about such increases. There is a feeling that the charges are unfair and unrealistic, certainly in relation to the cost of administration by the police.
Many certificate holders feel that they are being charged for crime prevention advice or inspection and that that does not apply to other people. They feel that they are charged for the time of patrolling officers as though they were exclusively at the service of certificate holders, and, again, this does not apply to others who seek advice and assistance from the police. The holders of certificates believe that they are charged for advice given at police inquiry desks and that this also does not apply to other sections of the community.
I shall not refer to all the anomalies. They are widespread and they lead to the charge that there is no consistency in the application of fees and charges.

1839
Charges are not payable under the Aliens Acts or for licences under the liquor licensing legislation or under the explosives law. I was told by the Home Secretary in reply to a parliamentary question last year that there was no other charge for which the Home Office was responsible which had increased in the same way as have the fees for firearms and shotgun certificates.
The question of the costing of police time is an important matter. Those who have examined the subject in detail argue that there could be a considerable reduction in costs if a number of changes, of the sort suggested by the hon. Member for Harborough, were made.
A recent survey conducted by the British Shooting Sports Council showed that, for instance, of those making a first application for a firearm or shotgun certificate, 42 per cent. received more than one visit from the police and 8 per cent. received three or more visits. Even more surprisingly, in the case of renewals or variations 45 per cent. received more than one visit and 26 per cent. received three or more visits.
There are also vast differences in practice among police forces throughout the country. This is reflected in the cost of granting firearms certificates as revealed in the reviews. In the 1977 review, the charges of the Cumbria police were £10·41, the charges of the Northern Scotland police were £14·75 and the cost in other authorities, such as Devon, Cornwall, Dyfed, Powys, Humberside, Sussex and the West Midlands, varied between those figures. That is a very wide variation.
The council and firearm and shotgun holders are not grumbling negatively. They have made, and are making, a number of positive suggestions. I think that there is an obligation on the Minister to respond positively to those suggestions, which are not new but have been made over a number of years.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give a positive response to the suggestion of combined inquiries. It is argued, and I believe with conviction, that this would lead to a drastic reduction in costs and would make increased charges less severe than they have been in recent years. Secondly, I draw attention to the
1840
extent of the validity of certificates, as did the hon. Member for Harborough in moving this prayer. It is argued that this would considerably case administrative problems and reduce costs.
No reasonable person would seek to argue that increasing the fees for firearm and shotgun certificates will make it significantly harder for criminals to obtain firearms. Criminals with money and determination find little difficulty in obtaining the weapons, or anything else that they want, in pursuing their criminal activities. It is suspected by holders of firearm and shotgun certificates that the very substantial increases in fees is designed to contain and reduce the gun population.
Such a pricing policy, if it does not deter criminals, certainly deters working people with limited means from either taking up or continuing to follow their chosen hobby. It will certainly deter younger people from taking up the sport and joining clubs where they can shoot under supervision without harming themselves or other people.
I urge the Minister to give a clear assurance that fees will not be increased substantially at regular intervals and that she will seriously consider a revision of police costs, which, in my view and the view of others, are unreal and unfair. I urge my hon. Friend to give urgent attention to the matter of combined inquiries and extending the validity of certificates.
A book entitled"Firearms Control ", written some time ago by a constituent of mine, Mr. Colin Greenwood, states in the final chapter:
" The imposition of unduly restrictive conditions on the grant of a certificate appears to be increasing. Each of these conditions should be examined to see whether or not it contributes towards achieving the object of the controls."
If the condition makes no significant contribution towards this end, it cannot be justified, and it is likely to do no more than to antagonise and inconvenience the certificate holder for no purpose.
The amount of time spent on administering the controls could be substantially decreased in a number of ways without in any way losing such effectiveness as the controls may have. In the first instance it is necessary to keep in mind the object of the controls, and it is to be regretted that these are not clearly stated in the legislation ".

1841
I think that some redress can be effected by the Minister if she indicates that the time has come when the Home Office is prepared to consider urgently the suggestions which have been made. They are made in the hope that costs will be reduced, that increases will be much less frequent than they have been in the past and that they will be smaller in scale.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Hector Monro: I am glad to support my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in his prayer and to speak next following the constructive and helpful remarks of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden). We want to see sport and recreation developed, not hindered, and I find the attitude of the Home Office in relation to firearms extremely depressing. The Minister's only concern seems to be security and effecting through high charges a reduction in the number of firearm certificates and shotgun certificates.
I entirely accept that security is of great importance. Indeed, I think that we should make positive efforts to improve it, particularly in the home, and to make security generally more effective. In common with other hon. Members who, I am sure, will wish to speak tonight, I pay tribute to the work of the police in administering this legislation and arranging for the certificates. But it is right to look at the method of licensing with a view to making more economies. Can we be just as efficient and yet charge considerably less? Could we not streamline the administration?
If I am to have my own firearm certificate renewed, all that is needed is a rubber stamp and a signature on the corner. A new piece of paper does not have to be produced. Much the same applies to one's shotgun certificate. I should have thought that a couple of minutes' work would produce all that was required on one's shotgun certificate. As my hon. Friend said, why do I need two pieces of paper when one would do? There is great scope for economy in the whole operation of producing these certificates.
Certainly, there is a strong case for lengthening the currency of a certificate. In the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments last week dealing with the
1842
position in Scotland, it was hinted by the Under-Secretary of State that this might be done. We should consider lengthening the currency of a certificate to five or seven years or even longer, in that way substantially reducing the administrative costs.
I put it to the Under-Secretary that recreation is important. I am a member, as, I am sure, are a number of hon. Members here tonight, of some of the organisations to which I wish to refer and which join with us in criticising the order, such as the National Rifle Association, the National Smallbore Rifle Association, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, WAGBI, pistol clubs, rifle clubs and a whole host of individual marksmen who use their rifles for active participation in club events. All those people require certificates if they own their own rifles, but, as has been said, in 1968 the fee went up from five shillings to £2·50 and now in 1979 we are looking at an increase to £18·50, or £15 for a renewal.
I wish to highlight the extremely high cost of a variation, at £15. All these increases are far ahead of the rise in the cost of living. Many top-class rifle shots will change their weapons during the year—perhaps changing the calibre of the ammunition which they use—and all this comes under a variation at £15 a time. It is putting a tremendous burden on those who shoot for pleasure if they have to pay so much to enjoy their sport. I have so far been referring to rifle shooting, but the shotgun certificate charges also are affected, though at a slightly lower level.
We want to see people of all ages, including young people, enjoying the countryside and, with appropriate permission, shooting in the countryside. Rifle shooting, pistol shooting, clay pigeon shooting and vermin shooting are all good recreation. That is shooting that should be encourged. Only through the use of firearms will young people learn the code of safety that is crucial.
We are talking about healthy occupations. They are far removed from the underworld of stolen guns and hold-ups that seem to fill the mind of the Home Office. The hon. Lady must find the right balance between sport and recreation on one side and security and administrative cost on the other. The balance

1843
could be made much finer. It should be regulated not by increasing fees as is proposed but by making economies, either through the police or by streamlining the paper work that seems to take up so much time and to be so costly.
I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that it is terribly important that she takes the order away, reconsiders it and returns it to the House, if she has the opportunity, with the proposed increases much reduced.
10.51 p.m.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I briefly suport what has already been said in opposition to the order. I know that many other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not take more time than I need to make two or three points.
First, I declare an interest. For some years I have been a member of the council of the National Rifle Association. Bisley is in my constituency, it being the headquarters of national target shooting sports. Further, as I hope the hon. Lady is aware, I have a great many angry constituents. They are angry because they do not understand why it is thought that they, who have taken pains to apply for licences to own firearms or shotguns, should be classified as potential criminals. They take the view that the potential criminal would not draw attention to himself by telling the police that he wants to have a firearm or a shotgun. They consider the whole exercise to be pointless in many aspects.
My constituents are especially angry about the total lack of evidence that anybody has applied his mind to how the same end could be achieved more simply and cheaply. They have no evidence from the Home Office or the police that anyone has seriously studied the effect of extending the life of a shotgun or firearm certificate. It seems logical that that is one means of economy. They have no evidence that serious thought has been given to how insurance companies might play a part in increasing the security in which weapons are kept. Generally they see in the history of the whole business the worst sort of Civil Service closed mind.
These matters have gone on for a long time. The hon. Lady will know that my hon. Friends, those in another place and representatives of the sports
1844
concerned have trodden a steady path to the Home Office to try to get some appreciation of what is involved. They have always met a totally negative, unimaginative and deadpan response. This cannot continue any longer. We must have some sign from the Minister that the problem is understood, that something will be done and that long-suffering, law-abiding members of the public who want to have and enjoy firearms and shotguns for innocent sporting purposes are served by the Administration and not made to suffer by it. Part of the function of an Administration is to give the citizen what he wants and not merely to stand back and say"Pay up a bit more. We are too idle to think of an alternative."
10.54 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Kimball: I hope that when the hon. Lady replies she will do so in the same manner as her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments that sat last week. I detect in the Government a willingness to reconsider the whole problem of firearms and shotgun certificates.
There is a general desire in the House to do what the Minister has no power to do. The House as a whole feels, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said, that the period for which a certificate is issued should be extended. If the fees go up, the period after the issue should be extended from three to six or even 10 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough referred to the period for which a driving licence was issued. Unfortunately, the Minister does not have power under the Act to extend the period. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law) used his place in the ballot two years ago to introduce a Bill to amend the Firearms Act 1968 and allow the Home Office to extend the period for which shotgun or firearm certificate were issued. That was objected to. I believe that the Government have had a change of heart. This came out clearly in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments recently.
If we are to extend the period, we must revise the Firearms Act 1968. We are in a position to look at that Act and face up to a general revision. There are one or two points that should be included in

1845
such revision if the certificates are to be realistic. I refer especially to the shotgun certificate. Such a certificate should identify the weapons held. It does not do so now. It should specify the security arrangements required of the owner from a model list to be drawn up by the Home Office related to the different circumstances of residence, locality and probable frequency of use. The present practice varies in different parts of the country.
There should be no territorial limitations on a shotgun certificate. I accept that the territorial limitations applied to a firearm certificate are an important part of the enforcement procedure. There should be no limitation on the types and numbers of shotguns held. Safe keeping for a friend or relative would be a good reason for holding a shotgun certificate. An occasional invitation to shoot should be sufficient reason for holding a certificate. There should be no restrictions on the individual purchase or possession of ammunition. If we are to reduce the cost, we must extend the period.
In those eight points, there is an area of agreement which allows us to adjust the 1968 Act in a sensible way and in a spirit of compromise that everybody wants to see.
Bearing in mind the duty of the Home Office to protect the citizen, especially from weapons being stolen, I hope that in the next few years we shall see ourselves proceeding in this way and not have these acrimonious debates once a year whenever the fees are put up.
10.58 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I am not a shooting man. Obviously, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), who has a great knowledge of the subject, and the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) gave many of the facts to the House. I do not want to repeat them.
After the fees went up last year, I was chased in my constituency by a large number of people who liked to shoot. They asked me why I had not opposed the measure. I trotted out some answers that I suspect we may hear later this evening, such as the need to control firearms. I was soon put in my place. I therefore agreed to take a closer look into the situation. The more I looked at
1846
it, the more alarmed I became and the more I realised how right are those who have firearms and shotgun certificates to protest.
There can be no foundation for the huge increases in fees that have taken place over the past few years. I read the speech made last year by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he will catch your eye before the end of this debate. His speech contained facts and figures of which everyone should take note. He received no sensible answers.
We have heard this evening about the cost of collection. The hon. Member for Harborough said that it varied in the police forces throughout the country. I think he said that the cost in Hampshire was just over £10. That applies to my constituency.
The situation is getting out of hand. There is no justification at all for the Government asking for yet another increase this year. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Gainsborough, they should withdraw their proposal and consider revising the whole procedure as it discriminates against the legitimate holders of firearm and shotgun certificates.
I took the trouble a few months ago to visit one of the local clubs in the Isle of Wight, at Shanklin. I have had a letter from a Mr. Bloodworth—a very suitable name, perhaps, for someone dealing with firearms—in which he says:
" I feel I must write to you again about a further increase in firearms certificates which will put the cost up to £18.50 on the 1 May, which is an increase of 15.6 per cent. over last year's rise.
Are we to get justification for that, I wonder, tonight? I cannot think that we shall. I think that this is plainly a means test further to reduce the number of certificates held and will have no bearing on armed crimes.
Incidentally, I met the gentleman in question, with whose case I sympathise, at a meeting of the Shanklin riflle and pistol club, as he reminds me in his letter. I was given the chance to have a shot on the range and I am glad to say that I managed to hit the target. He goes on to ask in his letter for an"independent inquiry ". I know that it has been pressed in the House many times in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and I should like to support it tonight.

1847
It really ought to take place. My correspondent goes on to quote the fees, which have gone up, as has already been said, from 1920 to the present time. He finishes up by asking, in big capital letters,"Please help us ".
I intend to do just that tonight. I hope that the hon. Member for Harborough will press the matter to a Division. If he does, I shall support him and ask other hon. Members here to do the same.
11.2 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is orders of this kind which give Governments such a bad name, and particularly the Home Office. They keep coming back again and again, asking people to pay these outrageously discriminatory prices. I shall not weary the House with the statistics which have already been adduced in favour of our voting against this wretched order.
I am president of a rifle club. I know that from time to time people invite the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to come to their constituency. I hope that, if the Under-Secretary of State has not visited a rifle club, she will visit the Felbridge rifle club, in East Grinstead, where she will be made very welcome.
I want particularly to emphasise the effect of the order on clubs of this kind, which take great pride in their security arrangements and believe that it is a well-disciplined and well-regulated sport, encompassing a good cross-section of the community. They particularly pride themselves on being family clubs. This is typical of many rifle clubs. They are not just for elderly gentlemen, for the middle-aged, or for young bloods who want to let off steam. The clubs bring in the whole family. When they are faced, on top of the costs of maintaining the club, with these huge increases of the kind that we have heard tonight, it makes them wonder what the Government are about.
In addition to the discrimination between this sport and other activities, there is discrimination also, they feel, between the cost of a firearm certificate, whether for granting or renewing, and a shotgun certificate, whether for granting or renewing.
It is not for me to suggest that those who have shotgun certificates are likely to use them in any criminal way whatever.
1848
They pay quite a lot and they are responsible people. Those in rifle clubs such as mine see no reason why the cost of a shotgun certificate should be less than half the cost of a firearm certificate. As the chairman of the club put it in a letter to me,
" if £8·50 is an economic price for a shotgun certificate, it is an economic price for a firearms certificate ".
Some people may question that and say that before a firearm certificate is granted—especially to a member of a club—extra special precautions have to be taken. But, even so, surely it does not take double the time. There is a great sense of grievance here, and I very much hope that the spirit in which we have entered the debate will find an echo in the reply from the Minister.
11.4 p.m.
Mr. Wm. Ross: I very much regret that we are back this evening once more with the miserable spectacle of the Government seeking an increase in firearm fees. Since I came into this House I have spoken on every possible occasion against the orders which have been laid, and I take no real pleasure in having to do it once again this evening. The last two occasions were on 6 March 1978, when the Northern Ireland order arrived on the Floor of the House, and on 3 May 1978, when the orders for Scotland and for England and Wales were discussed in Committee.
The Northern Ireland order will be coming up again this year, so that I shall be having another go next Thursday. For that reason, I do not intend to detain the House very long. But I want to repeat what I said last year on the orders for Scotland and for England and Wales:
" I shall be very brief. I question the whole concept of firearms control as it exists in the United Kingdom and, indeed, in most of the Western world. I believe it is an almost total waste of time and effort by the police and the authorities. I believe that the whole system could be scrapped quite easily because it is utterly useless in trying to prevent firearms getting into the hands of criminals or terrorists.… In short, I believe that it is time that the whole subject was re-examined or rather, perhaps—"
—and since last year I have become more and more confirmed in this view—
" that a detailed examination was undertaken with an open mind for the first time."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on-Statutory Instruments, 3 May 1978; c. 12.]

1849
The House will realise that I go a good deal further than those Members who have spoken so far. Tinkering with the present system is not enough. The Government are defending a set of basic premises which have nothing to do with reality, and never have. The Government are trying to defend a position which is indefensible.
This Government and successive Governments have been very foolish not to explore the whole question of firearms control, not only in this part of the United Kingdom but throughout the nation. They should approach the matter with an open mind and have a far-reaching and detailed inquiry.
Criminals and terrorists have no trouble in obtaining guns. They are the one section of the community which is always able to find a firearm to use it for an illegal purpose and to murder someone. Time has moved on since fears existed which caused the first firearms legislation to be introduced. This legislation has been maintained over the years because of false and foolish attitudes which were adopted at that time.
It is time that we had sensible decisions in order to rid ourselves of the waste of police time and effort. Will the Minister set us down that road this evening and do something constructive about firearms control?
11.7 p.m.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Once a year I have the pleasure of leading a number of my colleagues from this House to battle on Bisley Common with Members of the other place. I am happy to say that a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House support us on such occasions. The least that I can do tonight is to express our gratitude for that annual hospitality by quoting a few lines from a letter from the secretary of the National Rifle Association, members of which are deeply concerned about the increase in fees for firearm certificates. I shall quote one short paragraph, which states:
" Let me remind you that the NRA was founded in 1860 and incorporated by Royal Charter in 1890: ' To promote and encourage Marksmanship throughout the Queen's dominions in the interests of Defence and the permanence of the Volunteer and Auxiliary Forces. Naval, Military and Air '. And it is
1850
on these grounds—in the interests of Defence—that my Association is registered as a Charity."
The secretary goes on to inquire how these objectives can be sustained if the Home Office is to adopt a policy, which it surely is, of increasing the fees for firearm certificates in such a way that the vast majority of members of his association—people who enjoy shooting as a hobby—will no longer be able to do so.
There can be no new arguments in this debate. We have been over this issue many times in the past few years. However, I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) about crime. If the control of firearms is in the interests of controlling crime, it is a Gilbert and Sullivan situation because it is the law-abiding people who do not get involved who will be penalised.
The Minister has been asked time and again to give statistics, and she has failed to do so. She knows very well that this legislation will not stop the criminal from possessing a firearm but will merely prevent those who wish to enjoy the sport as a hobby from doing so. Members of the National Rifle Association can rightly number among themselves those who are the most law-abiding citizens of the community.
Suggestions have been made for combining certificates and lengthening their period of validity. I do not know whether I carry my hon. Friends with me on this, but putting the possession of the weapons on to some sort of register is something that could and should be considered. In an electronic age, where we have surplus computer capacity, surely it is not beyond us to do something about the problem. I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friends who have rightly tabled this prayer. The number of hon. Members present for this debate shows the depth of feeling on both sides of the House on this important issue.
11.10 p.m.
Mr. Clement Freud: I agree with every hon. Member who has spoken that this is a thoroughly nasty little measure. It has been introduced on a Thursday night when, as the House well knows, the majority of hon. Members who represent rural constituencies normally go home to be among their constituents.

1851
I very much hope that the Minister will bear in mind that I am the eighth hon. Member to support the prayer of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). If democracy is listening to the voices of Members of the House of Commons, rather than depending on the votes of Members sitting in the Tea Room, I sincerely hope that the hon. Lady will bear in mind the concerted opposition to this measure.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith), who would like to invite the Minister to his rifle club. I can only say that, if the Minister came to the rifle club in my constituency, I would fear for her life. There would be no kindness, because my constituents are exceedingly angry. It is felt—and this is a pretty common feeling—that the Government are looking—[Interruption.] I hope that I am not disturbing the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). The feeling of my constituents is that the Government are looking at some section of society which they can clobber without losing votes, and that the shooting faction seems to the Government to be a convenient one for that purpose.
I would believe any protestations that we might hear later if similar increases were made in bingo licences and fishing—the sort of pursuits that are more normally practised by Labour Members—
Mr. Russell Kerr: I do not play bingo.
Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman has woken up. I hope that he will take a deep interest in what goes on. It is important on the grounds of security to bear in mind that the more people can learn about the use of firearms the safer, and not the less safe, will this country be.
We have been Gilbert and Sullivan. I should like to finish with a quote from one of Kipling's barrrack room ballads, in which the chorus goes:
" Oh, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' Tommy go away ';
But it's ' Thank you, Mister Atkins, ' when the band begins to play."
The more people can be encouraged legally to use firearms, the safer and not the less safe will this country be.
11.13 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I understand the concern that exists about the increased fee, and, although I represent an industrial town and not a rural constituency, I have had one letter from a constituent complaining about it. I understand the concern that is felt on both sides of the House.
I refute the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). If he listens, he will find that I am about to refer to bingo halls. The bingo licence was £250 in 1973 and was raised to £750 in 1978.
Mr. Freud: That is for the operators, not the practitioners.
Dr. Summerskill: Therefore, there is no question of shooters being picked out from other sections of the community for discriminatory action by the Government.
Mr. Freud: That really is the most unfair analogy, because, as the Minister well knows, the people who play bingo receive entirely the money which they put down in order to participate in the game. Therefore, the increase comes from the people who organise the bingo, who are usually on the Opposition Benches, rather than those who play it.
Dr. Summerskill: That is why I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman raised the question of bingo halls. But he did, so I thought I would simply mention that in passing.
I should like to take this opportunity to dispel some of the misunderstanding that seems to surround the interpretation of the Government's action. The order deals with one aspect of firearms control—the level of fees to be charged for certificates relating to the possession of firearms and shotguns and for the registration of people as firearms dealers. It sets out a new scale of fees payable from 1 May. It does not and cannot, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) appreciated, make other changes in the firearms law. In general, such changes would need primary legislation.
I have a feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr Madden) was suggesting that we should not have a fee at all. He seemed to dislike the whole idea of charges being made for this police activity. But Parliament made statutory

1853
provision for the fee for a firearms certificate in 1920, under the Firearms Act, and for a shotgun certificate in 1967. We are dealing with an order to change the fee.
I appreciate that increased charges are never welcome, and I can understand the concern of the shooting community over the regular and, I admit, substantial increases in these fees in recent years. But the reason is simple. There is no other reason; there is no subtle reason; there is no sadistic desire by the Government to put up the fee. The costs have risen, and someone must meet them. The controls needed for public safety must be paid for, and it is right that they are borne by those who use guns rather than by a subsidy from taxpayers and ratepayers at large.
Mr. Stephen Ross: If the cost is shown in the official statistics for Hampshire to be just over £10, why are my constituents charged £18·50? If it costs £50 in the Metropolitan area, all right: charge people there £50. But why cannot we get away with £10?
Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps I can pursue the argument, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
Before 1968 the fee for a firearm certificate was five shillings, and that for renewal of a certificate half-a-crown. The major portion of the costs of administering licensing and certification procedures then fell on the taxpayer and ratepayer, who provided a not inconsiderable subsidy.
But in 1968 Parliament decided that this must change and that, where a person wished to engage in an activity controlled in the public interest, he or she should be expected to pay the economic cost of issuing and renewing his or her licence or certificate. This principle was endorsed in section 5 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968, the relevant words of which are:
" With a view to securing from the fees, charges or other payments…a net return corresponding more nearly with the cost of the matters for which they are payable ".
That is the principle, and it has been the policy of successive Governments to apply it to fees and charges in general.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) argued that as that Act did not specifically mention firearms fees we were
1854
wrong to apply this underlying rule and to increase them in line with rising costs. The Act does not refer to firearms fees, because at the time it was passed—March 1968—the Firearms Bill was still before Parliament. In fact, the Firearms Act received Royal Assent in May 1968, two months after the Public Expenditure and Receipt Act had become law.
Section 43 of the Firearms Act 1968 empowers the Secretary of State by order to vary the fees. It would be illogical if in the exercise of that power the Secretary of State were to disregard the principle of full recovery of costs embodied in an Act of Parliament passed only a few weeks earlier.
I must emphasise that fees for firearm certificates and for registration as a firearms dealer are set at the minimum level required to recover as nearly as practicable the costs of administering the scheme, and no more. The shooter is treated no differently from any other licence or certificate holder whose activities are regulated in the public interest. Many of the arguments put forward by shooters amount to demands that the shooting community should be subsidised and should not be expected to pay the real cost of its certificates. Parliament and the Government have not accepted that.
Mr. Onslow: The Under-Secretary said that shooters are not treated differently, but she is overlooking the way in which driving licences have been extended greatly in time, which must have led to some economy. What consideration has been given to cutting down administrative work and saving money, which would obviate the need for an increase in firearms fees?
Dr. Summerskill: I shall come to that. It is not possible to make exact comparisons between fees for firearm certificates and those charged for various other types of licence and certificate, such as a car or dog licence. The activities are not analogous, the work involved in issuing the necessary authority is not exactly comparable, and the relevant legislation under which some activities are controlled makes no provision for any fee to be charged. In this instance we are dealing with a situation where there has been provision for a fee to be charged. In some of the examples quoted there is no provision for any fee to be charged.

1855
Nevertheless, many fees have been substantially increased in recent years. My Department is not particularly picking out shooters' licences. Costs have gone up, and police registration certificates for aliens and naturalisation certificates have, for example, gone up. It is not just this one item that has been picked out.
I should like to make it clear that there is absolutely no truth in the suggestion that the Government are deliberately escalating the cost of firearm certificates as a means of disarming the population. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby and others that there is no evidence that firearms used in violent crime are stolen from certificate holders. That is no argument for putting up the cost of a firearm licence, although hon. Members insist that it is part of the Government's motivation. It is not and never has been Government policy to prevent the possession of firearms by private individuals who have legitimate reasons for requiring them or to place unnecessary restrictions on the freedom of bona fide shooters to enjoy their sport.
I should like to examine the scale of fees. Under the new scale, renewal of a firearm certificate will cost £15. That certificate lasts for three years, making its cost £5 a year. Put another way, that is l0p a week, which is no more than the cost of a single round of ammunition. Shotgun certificates cost even less. An initial grant works out at less than 6p a week, and renewal at about 4p a week. That is again well below the cost of a single cartridge.
Mr. A. P. Costain: Can the Under-Secretary state why a person who has a firearms certificate should also need a shotgun certificate?
Dr. Summerksill: I shall come to that. I should like to deal with the increases themselves. I must make it clear that the revenue from these fees does not come to the Government. Police authorities collect the money and set it against overall police expenditure. At regular intervals we carry out reviews in which the police tell us the costs to them of dealing with applications for certificates and for registration as a firearms dealer. These returns are made by a representative sample of police forces in the country. The last such review was
1856
in 1977 and covered the period ending 31 March 1977. The figures revealed by the review are then examined and adjusted to take account of pay and price increases in the period since the facts were recorded or expected to take place in the period for which the order will remain in force.
The basis of the 1977 review was completely objective. A copy of our letter of guidance was placed in the Library last year and any hon. Member can see it. This guidance was designed to ensure three things: first, that all the forces taking part used broadly similar costing methods; secondly, that the details of cost submitted reflected only the cost of dealing with successful applications; thirdly, to ensure that the estimates included all properly attributable police costs, including police time and relevant overheads.
The estimates provided by the police forces taking part in the review were published. This material formed the basis for calculating the fees introduced on 1 April last year.
This year we have not considered it justifiable to put police forces to the very time-consuming trouble of making detailed returns. Instead, the scale of fees in the schedule to the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order 1979 has been worked out by taking into account increases in costs which are known to have occurred since last April. I need not remind the House that substantial and well-deserved pay increases were awarded to the police. The first stage of the award was paid in September 1978 and the second stage of these increases is due to be paid in September this year. I am sure that the increases are welcomed by the whole House.
In addition, the cost of civilian staff and administrative overheads have risen, although by a smaller amount. The figures derived from the 1977 survey have been reassessed to take account of these increases in pay and other costs. This showed that a further increase in the level of fees is necessary in the forthcoming financial year if the shortfall in the recovery of costs is not to rise to an unacceptable level. Costs have risen and the consequences must be faced. The amounts of the new fees have been determined solely by the need to recover the higher costs, and the increases are the

1857
minimum needed to achieve that. We have made every effort to keep the increases as low as possible, and they have been agreed with the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection.
It has been suggested that police costs in administering the Firearms Act are capable of being substantially reduced. I am very much in favour of keeping costs down wherever possible, but this must not be allowed to diminish the effectiveness of the present controls. There are no easy ways of reducing police costs in administering the certification procedures. Most forces employ a very small staff. The clerical and administration work at police headquarters accounts for only a minor part of the cost. The major element of the cost is accounted for by inquiries carried out by police officers in the locality to establish the suitability of the applicant and the arrangements made for ensuring the safe custody of firearms.
Some people complain that these inquiries are too detailed. The amount of time taken over such inquiries and the manpower resources involved will of course vary from one force to another. They will depend on different factors, but it is for the chief officer of police concerned to decide how that is done.
Two suggestions have been made by the hon. Member for Harborough and others concerning possible changes. The suggestion that increased costs might be offset by increasing the period of validity of firearms and shotgun certificates is under very careful consideration, but if a system of interim checks during the validity of a certificate were to be substituted the saving in overall costs would be negligible. However, we are looking into the matter in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers to see whether a suitable and workable solution can be found.
The second suggestion was that there would be a saving in police work if a person held both a firearm and a shotgun certificate and could renew both at the same time. We are looking at that to see whether it might be practicable and whether it might produce some saving in police costs without decreasing the effectiveness of the firearms control. But if we did either of those it would need new legislation and police agreement.
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (Procedure)):—
The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 26.

Division No. 105]

AYES

11.30 p.m.

Aitken, Jonathan

Gorst, John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Banks, Robert

Grieve, Percy

Morgan, Geraint

Bell, Ronald

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Biggs-Davison, John

Grylls, Michael

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

Nelson, Anthony

Bottomley, Peter

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Newton, Tony

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hampson, Dr Keith

Onslow, Cranley

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Hastings, Stephen

Osborn, John

Brotherton, Michael

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Page, John (Harrow West)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Henderson, Douglas

Pattie, Geoffrey

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hicks, Robert

Penhaligon, David

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Pink, R. Bonner

Clegg, Walter

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Cope, John

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Cormack, Patrick

James, David

Raison, Timothy

Costain, A. P.

Jessel, Toby

Rathbone, Tim

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Dean, Foul (N Somerset)

Kilfedder, James

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Drayson, Burnaby

Kimball, Marcus

Rhodes James, R.

Dunlop, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Durant, Tony

Lawrence, Ivan

Ridsdale, Julian

Dykes, Hugh

Lloyd, Ian

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Loveridge, John

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Emery, Peter

McCusker, H.

Sainsbury, Tim

Fairbairn, Nicholas

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Farr, John

Macmillan, Rt Hop M. (Farnham)

Shepherd, Colin

Fell, Anthony

Madden, Max

Silvester, Fred

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mates, Michael

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Fox, Marcus

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Sproat, lain

Freud, Clement

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Stainton, Keith

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Moate, Roger

Stanley, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Molyneaux, James

Steel, Rt Hon David

Goodhew, Victor

Montgomery, Fergus

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Tebbit, Norman

Wall, Patrick

TELLERS FOR THE AYES;

Temple-Morris, Peter

Walters, Dennis

Mr. Jerry Wiggin and

Townsend, Cyril D.

Wells, John

Mr. Michael Shersby.

Waddington, David

Winterton, Nicholas

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

NOES

Abse, Leo

English, Michael

Snape, Peter

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Bates, Alt

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Graham, Ted

Ward, Michael

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Watkinson, John

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Kerr, Russell

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Luard, Evan

Dormand, J. D.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

McCartney, Hugh

Mr. James Tina and

Duffy, A. E. P.

Noble, Mike

Mr. John Evans.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order 1979 (S. I., 1979, No. 86), dated 30 January 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7 February, be annulled.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1979, a copy of which was laid before this Hosue on 21 February, be approved.
  That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 February, be approved.

  ELECTRICITY
  That the draft North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Compensation for Smelter Deficits) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.

  PROCEDURE
  Ordered,
  That the Standing Order of 15 June 1976 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Procedure be amended, by leaving out Mr. Peter Hordern and inserting Mr. Fred Silvester.—[Mr. Bates.]

  DIVORCE LAWS
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  11.44 p.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: About half the children born today in the United States will, before they grow up, be fated to live in a one-parent unit. That calculation is on the optimistic assumption that the United States' divorce rate, which reveals that 35 per cent. of marriages contracted this year will end in divorce, does not increase still further.
  Is that tomorrow's destiny for Britain's children? Is the two-parent family on its way out? Will one marriage in a lifetime be regarded as abnormal? Unhappily, these are not alarmist questions to pose in Britain today. Our admonitory divorce statistics compel us to pose the questions.
  Divorce reached a record level in 1977 with a figure of 127,000, and the number of new petitions filed in 1977 was an increase of 16 per cent. on 1976. When the final figure is recorded, everything will point to there having been a further big increase in 1978. That figure will corroborate yet again that love is not necessarily happier the second time round, because second marriages have an even higher divorce rate than first marriages.
  In the United States the arrangements for a White House conference on the future of the family have broken down, substantially because of the tensions between those nostalgic for the hitherto conventional marriage unit and those who, perhaps pessimistically, perhaps realistically, insist that there must be profound societal changes—legal, economic and

  1861
  social—to meet what they regard as the inevitability of the new family unit, already witnessed by the fact that the United States' single parents are rearing 11,310,000 of the nation's children.
  We have not yet the dilemma gripping the United States of America, but we have no right to be complacent, for already one in 10 families here are one-parent families and, mostly because of the divorce of parents, single parents are bringing up at least 1¼ million children in Britain.
  Nothing is more naive than to attribute this position, as the ill-informed often do, to the Divorce Reform Act which the House passed a decade ago and of which, I acknowledge, I was one of the principal architects. Decrees absolute do not cause marriage breakdowns, any more than death certificates cause death. Too often it is forgotten that one of the main reasons why we altered our divorce laws was to assist the 200,000 children who, because of the archaic old divorce laws, were being brought up in an atmosphere of guilt and tension because the laws prevented tens of thousands of permanently cohabiting couples from being able to regularise their unions.
  It is also too often forgotten that the 1969 Act had two aims, not one. The first was to ensure that when, regrettably, a marriage had broken down, it should be ended with dignity and with the maximum fairness possible. The second was to buttress the stability of marriage, and with that object reconciliation procedures were introduced into the law.
  Unfortunately, these procedures have been a complete failure. Though the Act ended the hypocrisies of the old law and it is no longer a prerequisite to obtain a decree that a party has to scoop out the worst obscenities discoverable in a marriage and throw them across an open court, and although no one can now be chained to a dead marriage unto death, nevertheless the gain made in allowing some marriages to end in dignity should not mislead us.
  The judges have swung from making judgments on innocence and guilt to a disinterested morality, and rarely attempt to nudge the parties to conciliation. The Lord Chancellor has yielded to Treasury demands to cut legal aid, leaving parties
  1862
  to carry out do-it-yourself divorces by post. Solicitors have too often worked to rule, insisting upon demarcation lines that limit them to severing marriages, not healing them.
  Healthy divorces are as important to society as healthy marriages. If marriages end unnecessarily, or in a welter of recrimination, the divorce decree can be an enslavement, not a liberation. No divorce law is complete unless it seeks to prepare the parties for a changed life and for new responsibilities and if it does not help to overcome the feelings of bitterness, guilt and inadequacy which almost inevitably accompany the breakdown of marriage. Above all, a divorce law which, lacking time, patience or skill, gives a decree when the parties are for total reconciliation, or for some measure of reconciliation, serves the community ill.
  Are all these divorces inevitable? When wives or husbands protest against the adjudication of the court on the custody of children, the disposal of the matrimonial home, or the amount of maintenance, do they do so because the courts are unjust or because, too often, the parties were never helped to mourn through their grief at the death of their marriage? Denied the opportunity of a catharsis by a"quickie"divorce, is their protest an attempt to relieve their anguish? How often are the children torn in two, rent with conflicting loyalties and unnecessarily made the victims of the unworked-through hostilities of their parents?
  There is a growing restlessness in the community, and a belief that we can do better than we are doing is spreading rapidly. If the foundation of our society is the two-parent family, it is time for a more serious response, above all for the sake of the children, to be made to the challenge of marriage breakdown. The Finer report and the two reports published in the last month,"Marriage Matters"by the Home Office working party and"A Better Way Out"by the Law Society, all indicate how wide is the consensus that, apart from strengthening our reconciliation machinery, we desperately need a switch from our adversary style divorce procedures to a benign inquisitorial inquiry aimed at reducing the areas of conflict and assisting the parties

  1863
  to deal with the consequences of breakdown by obtaining mutual consents on the issues of custody, support, access to, and education of, the children, financial provision and the disposition of the matrimonial home.
  All, and particularly the solicitors of the Law Society, are stressing the need for a professional counselling service to be developed, to support the court's inquiry into the aftermath of divorce. It is not enough to leave this work to voluntary effort, like the gallant attempts made, so far without State aid by the National Council for the Divorced and Separated, of which I have the privilege to be president. It has established six divorce counselling services throughout the country and hopes shortly to open more.
  The emanicipation of women from the bed and kitchen stereotype and the decline of the authoritarian family, together with the growth of the democratic one, all bring great gains to a society able, consequently, to benefit much more from women's contributions. But with the enormous gains come new tensions and queries. Few doubt that one of the main causes of present instability in marriage comes from the difficulty of adjustment to the rights of women, irresistibly and rightly, gained in recent years.
  When I completed the Divorce Reform Act 1969, I may have had the illusion that that Act had settled the divorce laws for a generation. But we legislate today on an accelerating moving staircase. The campaign, understandably, being waged by the Campaign for Justice in Divorce reflects some of the new moods and asks whether a woman, when her children are grown up, can any longer expect maintenance or whether the wife of the newly created family unit must have priority.
  Certainly I ask whether we do not need a totally different set of principles governing our divorce laws in the case of childless marriages as distinct from those where there are children. There is a clear need for a review of our divorce laws. The Lord Chancellor has taken the view that such a review is premature and that more time is required before we came to new conclusions.
  I have always believed in the politics of prevention, and I loathe instant politics. Responses to pressures which have built up severely are often faulty and ill-
  1864
  thought-out. Therefore, I now ask the Solicitor-General to convey to the Lord Chancellor the fact that there is growing opinion in the country and in the House that he should refer the Divorce Reform Act to the Law Commission for a fresh review. The Law Commission under Leslie Scarman played a vital and constructive part in shaping the divorce laws. It should now, after a decade has passed, examine the present workings of the Act so that its blemishes are removed.
  In accordance with the tradition which it has established for itself, the Law Commission would undoubtedly collect the opinions not only of lawyers but of all in our society concerned to strengthen the stability of our family life and to ensure, above all, that the worst victims of marriage breakdown, the children, are foremost in our minds in any changes that it may propose.
  11.56 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman has the agreement of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) to intervene in his Adjournment debate?
  Mr. Abse: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, certainly.
  Mr. Rhodes James: I am most grateful. I wish to express my strong support for the general thrust of the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and to tell the House of my own profound concern about the status of our divorce law, and especially about the circumstances which now obtain for husbands. In my view, the law has now swung so far that the balance of advantage has tipped in favour of wives and against husbands in divorce cases.
  I fully share the hon. Gentleman's doubts, and I am increasingly convinced that only by the introduction of family courts and specialised courts will these desperately difficult matters be dealt with. These are not matters which greatly concern the House of Commons, Front Benchers or politicians generally, but to an increasing extent they seriously affect ordinary people.
  We owe a great debt to the hon. Member for Pontypool. On various

  1865
  subjects he has established himself as not only a sensible but a percipient and advanced exponent of important points which some of us should have realised earlier. We are very grateful to him. I cannot say this on behalf of the Conservative Party, but I am deeply grateful to him, and on this subject I simply say that the Solicitor-General should realise that we on these Opposition Benches will be extremely sympathetic to any proposal which may be made to make our divorce laws more humane and certainly more realistic in the circumstances which now obtain. On these matters we support the main points which the hon. Gentleman made.
  11.58 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I certainly echo what the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has just said, that we have reason to be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), and not least for initiating what I hope will be not only a debate in the House but a public debate on these questions.
  My hon. Friend made clear that he was not asking for immediate legislation. This is a subject bristling with issues which merit wide discussion and sometimes more factual research than we have at the moment. Some of the issues, as my hon. Friend said, extend beyond the law of divorce—issues about the role of marriage and of the family—and I believe that legislation is not to be recommended until we have achieved some consensus on these questions.
  But if we are to reach decisions within the measurable future the time to initiate the discussion is now, and I offer my congratulations to the family law subcommittee of the Law Society on the thought-provoking document to which my hon. Friend referred, with its thought-provoking title"A Better Way Out ". It embodies the experience of those who practise in this field, and if it evokes a response from others with a different point of view I am sure that it will lead to a valuable debate.
  My hon. Friend indicated something of the history of these matters. I accept that the increase in the divorce rate is not attributable to the 1969 Act. I hope he will agree with me that the increase
  1866
  should not be attributed to the special procedure for undefended divorces, which spared the parties the necessity of rehearsing their matrimonial tragedies in a public hearing and in the process saved something on the legal aid bill, which, as my hon. Friend knows, is now being devoted to a cause that is close to his heart.
  It is true that in 1966 the group presided over by the Bishop of Exeter published the report"Putting Asunder ", which recommended that the test for a divorce should be not the proof of a matrimonial offence but whether the marriage had broken down. It proposed, too, that the role of the court should be not to adjudicate between two opposing parties, encouraging them to regard the process as a contest with their interests implacably opposed, but to investigate for itself the facts and to decide what was best to be done. It was the difference between the accusatorial procedure, which is normal in our legal system, and the inquisitorial role, which is more usual in some other systems.
  There was some controversy whether it was right to make so abrupt a change. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Gardiner, the then Lord Chancellor, referred the matter to the Law Commission. In its report,"The Field of Choice ", it proposed a compromise. It proposed that the basis of divorce should be the breakdown of marriage but that that should require to be evidenced by a more clearly justiciable test.
  That was the basis of the 1969 Act. It was introduced as a Private Member's Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones.) We recollect the leading role which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool played in the debates that ensued. It is true that the 1969 Act has been re-enacted in a codifying statute, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, but it has been the basis of our divorce law for nine years. I think that it was right to wait and see how that legislation operated. We knew that there were those who, under the previous legislation, had been unable to obtain a divorce and who would seize the new opportunity. We knew that there would be a period while the bulge was working its way through. But the time has probably now approached when we can assess how the system is working. That

  1867
  gives rise to a number of questions, some of which have been ventilated by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Cambridge.
  Should divorce now be based on the simple criterion of whether a marriage has broken down? The Law Society document suggests that it should, but that that should still be required to be established by a single justiciable test. It proposes that the test should be whether the parties have been living apart for a year. I understand the argument for that course. Anything that leads to a post mortem on a dead marriage merely increases the bitterness. It compels the parties to relive their tragedies. It makes it less likely that they will sort out issues relating to the future of their children and family property without rancour.
  But there are those who believe that marriage as an institution would be devalued if divorce were available too readily. They say that it is one thing to recognise the unhappy fact that a marriage is dead and another to imply by legislation and practice that it should be hastily buried without any form of death certificate and without attempting the kiss of life. I am not making an assertion. I am merely raising the question where we should draw the line between making the process of divorce no more protracted or agonising then it need be on the one hand and on the other continuing adequately to recognise marriage as a status.
  A great deal turns on the way in which marriage is regarded in our community. My hon. Friend has quoted some disconcerting figures from the other side of the Atlantic, and some from this side from which we may take no comfort. On 6 March 1979 my noble Friend Lord Wells-Pestell referred to some statistics in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The indicated that the number of one-parent families had increased from 570,000 in 1970 to 750,000 in 1976. The number of one-parent families headed by a divorced mother had increased in that period from 120,000 to 230,000. It had almost doubled.
  It would be heartless not to recognise those figures and to legislate accordingly. A number of measures have been taken in the lifetime of the present Government to alleviate the problems. But I do not think
  1868
  that it is inconsistent with that to say that we should consider whether there are ways in which we can change that trend and encourage marriage as a stable relationship. It is arguable that, whatever discussions we have about reforming the law on divorce, we should at the same time be discussing what measures we can take to support existing marriages.
  In 1975 the National Marriage Guidance Council, the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and the Institute of Marital Studies proposed that there should be a study of the provisions for helping people with their marital problems. In consequence a working party was established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. In January of this year it published its report,"Marriage Matters ". I have seen the motion which my hon. Friend put down welcoming that report. It is a consultative document containing a number of important recommendations. It has been issued, with a joint recommendation by the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security, for comments and proposals.
  The second question which we should consider is what efforts, if any, should be made to effect a reconciliation, or, if that is impossible, to arrange for conciliation in the resolution of the other matters which inevitably arise when a marriage breaks up. My hon. Friend takes the view that the provisions in the 1969 Act are totally ineffective. I have heard the argument that when parties have reached the stage of instructing solicitors it is too late for a reconciliation. The Law Society, in its document, agreed that the provision was a total failure. Without going as far as that, I am aware that the effectiveness has been more limited than was originally hoped by those who argued for it.
  The Law Society document supported the view of the Finer committee in favour of a comprehensive welfare service attached to the court which would be built on the foundation of the present court welfare officers and of the Marriage Guidance Council. The Finer committee argued for two specific welfare functions. The first was that the court should be concerned with conciliation. This was seen not as the mending of broken

  1869
  marriages but as having the special meaning of assisting the parties to deal with the consequences of the breakdown of their marriage. This concept of a conciliatory approach to the dissolution of marriage was a particularly important insight on the part of the Finer committee. It argued that the second welfare element in the work of the family court should be the need to have an investigative reporting and supervisory service available to the court to provide the information which it needs on which to base its decisions.
  The working party on marriage guidance explained that how children coped with the break-up of their families depended largely on the relationship between their separated parents. It considered that although there was no immediate prospect of a family court of the kind which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, a court conciliation service could be developed to serve divorce and magistrates' domestic courts, and that it would be on lines similar to those recommended by the Finer committee.
  My hon. Friend is aware, I know, of the Bristol courts' family conciliation service, which was welcomed by the working party. This will enable us to assess how conciliation is likely to work. The service is linked with local solicitors, the divorce court and the magistrates' court. It is managed by a committee, chaired by a circuit judge, which comprises representatives of magistrates, county and magistrates' courts, the marriage councils, the Law Society, the Bar, the probation service and the local council of voluntary service, with co-opted members. The conciliators are all part-time volunteers. They consist of marriage councillors, former social workers, probation officers who have retired and mothers with young children. That scheme may be able to help us assess the best way in which we can approach the problem of conciliation and, where possible, reconciliation.
  The third question, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was whether we should alter the existing structure of the courts which hear these matters. We are aware of the problems that have arisen from time to time due to differences between the matrimonial law administered in the High Court and that in the magistrates' courts. A great deal has been done to close that gap by the Domestic Proceedings
  1870
  and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978, although that Act has not yet been implemented. The Finer committee argued for a family court. That idea has been endorsed by such authorities as Judge Jean Graham Hall in her proposal published by the National Council for One-Parent Families.
  The contribution of the Finer committee has been to clarify two major issues. First, it laid great stress on the family court as an impartial judicial institution, that is to say, a judicial institution which in dealing with family matters, does justice according to law. The object of achieving welfare should not be permitted to weaken or short-cut the usual safeguards of the judicial process.
  Secondly, the Finer committee did not envisage the family court as providing a comprehensive family welfare service. The committee was quite precise as to the limited welfare function of a family court and treated this function as being subservient to its judicial nature. Thus, it did not see the family courts, as such, as having a direct responsibility for reconciliation. It hoped that they would give attention to conciliation.
  The Law Society's document argues for a family court divided into two tiers, of which the first tier would deal with most matters and the second would deal with cases of particular difficulty. The first-tier court would consist of a legally qualified chairman, with a status equivalent to that of a circuit judge, and two other members.
  The Government, in response to the report of the Select Committee on violence in the family, said that they accepted in principle the concept of a family court. They went on to say, however, that there was little likelihood of such a court being established in the foreseeable future. The Select Committee accepted that resources were not available at this stage to establish family courts, although I see that the Law Society's sub-committee argues that it would not require substantial additional resources. But the sub-committee accepts that, for example, the bench which it recommends for a first-tier family court would be more expensive than a bench consisting of lay magistrates who now hear many of these cases. That, again, is a subject bristling with issues which clearly require discussion.

  1871
  I had hoped that we might have time in the course of tonight's debate to advert, for example, to the question of maintenance mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge. There are those who say that, in the absence of children, there is little room left for maintenance. Their reasoning is that if we succeed in making women's earnings potentially equal to those of men the argument for maintenance ceases, except in cases where one party is at a substantial disadvantage. That is one argument. The other is that frequently women's careers are interrupted while at the same time mens careers are proceeding.
  Unhappily, I do not think that we have time to take the debate very much further this evening. In the nature of things, none of us could do more than indicate some of the problems, but my noble Friend will certainly consider what has been said in this debate. It may be that some of these issues would be best referred to the Law Commission, where it indicates that an investigation can usefully be undertaken. We know from experience
  1872
  that when it undertakes an inquiry it is carried out with great care and thoroughness. I apprehend that it would warn my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor where it thinks that it lacks the time and the resources to carry out the necessary investigation.
  There may be some questions which would be inappropriate for it to investigate. One example is its own view that it cannot usefully add to the existing knowledge and ideas on the merits of a system of family courts. But I hope that we shall have the benefit of a public debate in some form on all these questions. The time for legislation is not yet, but I hope that when it arrives we shall be able to legislate to embody a broad consensus, not only as to the details but as to the meaning and function of marriage and of the family. If this debate serves to encourage that process, my hon. Friend's initiative will have been worth while.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE
  Prestel/Viewdata System
  Prestel/Viewdata System
  European Assembly (Elections)
  European Assembly (Elections)
  Pay
  Pay
  Official and Public Statements (Attribution)
  Official and Public Statements (Attribution)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Traffic Wardens (London)
  Traffic Wardens (London)
  Overseas Visitors (Refusal Rates)
  Overseas Visitors (Refusal Rates)
  Immigrant Populations (Ministerial Visits)
  Immigrant Populations (Ministerial Visits)
  Rape
  Rape
  European Assembly (Elections)
  European Assembly (Elections)
  Television Reception (New Cheltenham)
  Television Reception (New Cheltenham)
  Political Asylum
  Political Asylum
  Radio Stations (Signal Strength)
  Radio Stations (Signal Strength)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animals (Oil Cleansing)
  Animals (Oil Cleansing)
  Agricultural Land (Sulphur Deposits)
  Agricultural Land (Sulphur Deposits)
  Lime
  Lime
  Elm Trees
  Elm Trees
  Fish Stocks
  Fish Stocks
  Horse Sales
  Horse Sales
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Deputations
  Deputations
  Ethnic Minority Groups
  Ethnic Minority Groups
  University Technicians (Terms and Conditions)
  University Technicians (Terms and Conditions)
ENVIRONMENT
  Community Land Act
  Community Land Act
  Baddesley Clinton (Manor House)
  Baddesley Clinton (Manor House)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Diplomatic Relations
  Diplomatic Relations
  Uist Builders Limited
  Uist Builders Limited
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Palestine Police Service Pensioners
  Palestine Police Service Pensioners
  Companies (Government Shareholding)
  Companies (Government Shareholding)
TRANSPORT
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Driving Instructors
  Driving Instructors
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Dangerous Substances
  Dangerous Substances
  British Railways
  British Railways
  Lorry Weights
  Lorry Weights
ENERGY
  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor Turbines
  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor Turbines
TRADE
  Textile Agreement (China—EEC)
  Textile Agreement (China—EEC)
  Seal Skins (Imports)
  Seal Skins (Imports)
  South Africa
  South Africa
  European Community (Enlargement)
  European Community (Enlargement)
  Alumina
  Alumina
  Customs and Excise (Industrial Dispute)
  Customs and Excise (Industrial Dispute)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Child Allowance
  Child Allowance
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  Dollar-Sterling Exchange Rate
  Dollar-Sterling Exchange Rate
  Industrial Action (Financial Effects)
  Industrial Action (Financial Effects)
  Mileage Allowances (Taxation)
  Mileage Allowances (Taxation)
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Budget
  Budget
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Income Tax and National Insurance
  Income Tax and National Insurance
  Isle of Man (Financial Contribution)
  Isle of Man (Financial Contribution)
  Widows and One-parent Families
  Widows and One-parent Families
  Inflation
  Inflation
  North Sea Oil (Tax Revenue)
  North Sea Oil (Tax Revenue)
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Engagements)
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Engagements)
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  Government Finance (Borrowing Procedures)
  Government Finance (Borrowing Procedures)
  Employment Prospects
  Employment Prospects
  Cider (Tax Yield)
  Cider (Tax Yield)
  Divorced Women (Mortgage Relief)
  Divorced Women (Mortgage Relief)
  Tax Amnesty (Fleet Street Workers)
  Tax Amnesty (Fleet Street Workers)
  Tax-free Daily Allowances
  Tax-free Daily Allowances
  International Monetary System
  International Monetary System
  Wage Settlements
  Wage Settlements
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  European Community Budget (Personal Contributions)
  European Community Budget (Personal Contributions)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  Burnley (Geriatric Care)
  Burnley (Geriatric Care)
  Health and Safety (X-Ray Departments)
  Health and Safety (X-Ray Departments)
  Medicines Advertising (EEC Directive)
  Medicines Advertising (EEC Directive)
  Myoelectric Limbs
  Myoelectric Limbs
  Dentures
  Dentures
  Research (Financial Allocation)
  Research (Financial Allocation)
  Benefits (Advertising)
  Benefits (Advertising)
  Limbless Children
  Limbless Children
  Reciprocal Agreements
  Reciprocal Agreements
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Pensionable Age
  Pensionable Age
  Physically and Mentally Handicapped Services (Expenditure)
  Physically and Mentally Handicapped Services (Expenditure)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
  NAMIBIA
  NAMIBIA
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)
  INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE CHILD
  INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE CHILD
  WELSH ASSEMBLY
  WELSH ASSEMBLY
  DERBY
  DERBY
  STANDING COMMISSION ON PAY COMPARABILITY
  STANDING COMMISSION ON PAY COMPARABILITY
  FLEET STREET (VISIT)
  FLEET STREET (VISIT)
  ANIMAL WELFARE
  ANIMAL WELFARE
INDUSTRY
  Teesside
  Teesside
  Microprocessor Applications Project (Grants)
  Microprocessor Applications Project (Grants)
  Industry Act 1972 (Grants)
  Industry Act 1972 (Grants)
  Appropriation Accounts (Abandoned Claims)
  Appropriation Accounts (Abandoned Claims)
  National Giro
  National Giro
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Sector Working Parties
  Sector Working Parties
  Itabira Iron Ore Company
  Itabira Iron Ore Company
  Merseyside Special Development Area
  Merseyside Special Development Area
  DOCUMENTS (PUBLIC SCRUTINY)
  DOCUMENTS (PUBLIC SCRUTINY)
  MANORIAL DOCUMENTS
  MANORIAL DOCUMENTS
  LEGAL AID (DIVORCE)
  LEGAL AID (DIVORCE)
  LAND REGISTRATION
  LAND REGISTRATION
  THOMAS KEATING (PROSECUTION COSTS)
  THOMAS KEATING (PROSECUTION COSTS)
SCOTLAND
  Pine Beauty Moth
  Pine Beauty Moth
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Community (Budget)
  European Community (Budget)
  European Community (Finance Council)
  European Community (Finance Council)
  Tax Amnesty (Fleet Street Workers)
  Tax Amnesty (Fleet Street Workers)
  House of Lords (Members' Fares and Allowances)
  House of Lords (Members' Fares and Allowances)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  VAT (Art Dealers)
  VAT (Art Dealers)
  Inland Revenue Offices (Birmingham)
  Inland Revenue Offices (Birmingham)
DEFENCE
  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital, Woolwich
  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital, Woolwich
  Equipment (Cancellations)
  Equipment (Cancellations)
  Non-British Subjects (Commissions)
  Non-British Subjects (Commissions)
  Baggage Scales
  Baggage Scales
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment Protection Act
  Employment Protection Act
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Race Relations
  Race Relations
  Escalators (Young Children)
  Escalators (Young Children)
  Fishing Industry (Decasualisation)
  Fishing Industry (Decasualisation)
  Industrial Diseases (Quarrying)
  Industrial Diseases (Quarrying)
  Pay Increases (Job Loss)
  Pay Increases (Job Loss)
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
  Inflation
  Inflation
WALES
  A5 (Pentrefrelas—Llangollen)
  A5 (Pentrefrelas—Llangollen)
  Tan-yr-Unto Corner, Ruthin
  Tan-yr-Unto Corner, Ruthin
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Industrial Diseases (Quarrying)
  Industrial Diseases (Quarrying)
  Rates
  Rates
  Air Wales
  Air Wales
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Elderly and Handicapped Persons
  Elderly and Handicapped Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Rents (Housing Executive)
  Rents (Housing Executive)
  Strathearn Audio Ltd.
  Strathearn Audio Ltd.
  Homosexuality
  Homosexuality
  De Lorean Company
  De Lorean Company
  Electricity Service
  Electricity Service
  Foyle Area (Pensions) (Amendment) Regulations
  Foyle Area (Pensions) (Amendment) Regulations
  Coleraine Hospital
  Coleraine Hospital
  Foyle Fisheries Commission
  Foyle Fisheries Commission
  Gas Pipeline (Construction)
  Gas Pipeline (Construction)
  Road Improvement Works
  Road Improvement Works
  Elections (Alleged Corrupt Practices)
  Elections (Alleged Corrupt Practices)

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

SOUTH AFRICA: BRITISH AMBASSADOR'S SPEECH
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the speech made by Sir David Scott, British Ambassador to South Africa, in Port Elizabeth on 21st February 1979, represents their own policy towards trade with South Africa.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Yes. As Sir David Scott made clear, the United Kingdom and South Africa are of considerable economic importance to each other, but he also drew attention to the dangers of over-dependence on any one market, and referred to the growing volume of trade with the rest of Africa. As the Ambassador said, some 10 per cent. of our direct investment overseas is in South Africa and he said that it might be logical for us to try to reduce our commitment.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that when I tabled this Question originally the full text was not available and I fully accept his interpretation of this speech? But would he not agree that there is some anomaly in the Government's ban on the sale of arms to South Africa and the apparent encouragement of trade which enables the South African Government to purchase arms elsewhere? Has he observed the history of sporting contacts with South Africa, where for 50 years in the friendly contacts between this country and South Africa separateness and aparthied have only increased, and that
1262
only when international action was taken did this decrease—
Several noble Lords: Speech! Order!
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: Can my noble friend reconcile the speech of our Ambassador to South Africa—
Several noble Lords: Out of order —reading!
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking a question quite legitimately.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: May I ask my noble friend whether he can reconcile the speech of our Ambassador to South Africa with that made in London in January by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who said that it is the Government's policy to reduce our economic links with South Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's repetitive use of the word "reconcile", which is entirely the preferred policy of Her Majesty's Government, in South Africa as elsewhere. There is no difference of intention and meaning between my right honourable friend's speech the other day, in which he indicated our very strong economic links with South Africa, and also Sir David Scott's same reference, to which he attached the proper suggestion that in view of the possible instability of South Africa because of its aparthied régime it would be well for this country to consider how best and to what extent to reduce its over-dependence on its economic links with that country. As I said in this House the other day, the extent of our links with South Africa is a power behind the influence which we are gradually exerting on the régime there, to improve its policies towards its black population.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, did our Ambassador point out how dangerous it is—and one only has to look at the situation in Iran—to put all one's eggs in one basket? Did he not further correctly remark that our trade with South Africa had slipped to fifteenth position in the British export league table, so that it is now behind our trade with Nigeria? Does this not indicate the

1263
risks to our trade with the rest of the world of undue dependence on that with South Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is true that, relatively, our trade with South Africa has slipped down in order of magnitude. Nevertheless, it is still very considerable and, as I pointed out the other day, in content it is of immense importance as to our imports of vital raw materials to this country and indeed to the Western democratic world. I think the House would wish to be reminded of the general figures of trade in Africa as a whole so that the Government's thinking is better understood—and it is not, of course, entirely the thinking of the Government alone.
British exports to South Africa in 1978 were £667 million sterling; British imports were £767 million sterling: that is, an adverse balance against us of some £100 million sterling. British exports to black Africa in 1978 were £2,047 million; British imports from black Africa in 1978 were £1,239 million, a favourable balance to this country of about £800 million.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, is it not clear that it is somewhat ungracious to attack a civil servant in this Chamber where he cannot defend himself? If the noble Lord had chosen to attack the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary, we might have supported him.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think Sir David Scott, as his name might imply, is well able to sustain the attacks even of my noble friend.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the case of Iran. Is not the real lesson of Iran that we should be very careful to guard against a change of Government in South Africa which would deprive us of supplies vastly more vital to our economy than any that came from Iran?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we must be equally careful that the prevention of a proper change of Government and of policy in countries like
1264
South Africa does not in itself in the future tend to deprive us of vital raw materials.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to those of us who know the difficulty of making speeches as an Ambassador in a foreign country when in the home country doubt is thrown on the compatibility of what one has said with statements of one's political masters in this country? Is the Minister aware of the particular pleasure it is to hear him say what he has said about Sir David Scott, who perhaps has done more for this country in that particular place than anyone else in the world?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend, who preceded Sir David Scott in the highest possible position on behalf of this country in South Africa, and whose words I very much appreciate, will, I know, agree with me that what we have tried to do is to emphasise the urgent need for a swift and orderly change of policy in regard to apartheid in South Africa, which in itself would make it much easier for us to continue our very strong and growing economic links with that country.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is it not a fact that in all these discussions of figures and comparisons of trade it is dangerous not to realise that the figures—for instance, those which have just been quoted—refer only to visible trade? We in this country in dealing with total trade always mention our invisible trade, but in respect of all the figures quoted invisible trade with South Africa was not mentioned. The total of the visible and invisible together exceeds by a good deal the figures the Minister has quoted.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will certainly analyse these figures in the light of what the noble Lord has suggested, and with the leave of the House and, in response to a Question in the usual manner, I will seek to give further information. But I do not think that the general picture will be very different from that which I have tried to describe to the House this afternoon.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that British trade and investment have contributed to the

1265
situation which now exists wherein the per capita income of blacks in South Africa is between two and six times the per capita income of blacks in other so-called free countries?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that may well be so, and we all rejoice in that and pay due tribute to those in South Africa of all nationalities who have contributed to that. But that is no substitute for other satisfactions the lack of which instigate action, not only in South Africa but in other parts of the world. It is not enough to secure economic justice. There must be social and what I would call subjective satisfaction to attend it.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, when discussing trade with South Africa will the Minister bear in mind the great importance not only of raw materials that come from South Africa but of raw materials that come to this country around the Cape?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, I think that normally raw materials from Southern Africa would come to this country around the Cape, would they not?

THE CLOSED SHOP: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION
3.19 p.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 extend conscientious objection within closed shops, now limited to religious grounds, to wider grounds as recognised in the Military Service Acts of the Second World War, provided that the objector contributes to a humanitarian cause the amount his fellow workers contribute to a trade union.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: No, my Lords.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I believe in the closed shop as the best means of industrial
1266
negotiations, but that I also believe in freedom of conscience? Is this not the first time that conscience has been limited to religious belief? I am a humanist, but I hope I have a conscience. Does not the requirement to pay a sum equivalent to a trade union subscription to a charity remove the danger of mere escapism?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I respect, as indeed does every Member of your Lordships' House, the views of my noble friend Lord Brockway. As the House will know, in the recent joint statement of the Government and the TUC unions are advised to bear firmly in mind that the closed shop need not be a rigid arrangement. Arrangements should provide for conscientious objectors and can provide for certain categories of workers to be excluded from closed shop provisions. Indeed, I should like to add that the question of paying a sum to charity could be within the terms of such an agreement.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that many of us very much welcome the fact that, in the guidance given in the recent statement by the TUC and the Government, the reasons for the exclusion of conscientious objectors from the closed shop provisions are not confined to religious grounds, and their exclusion is not made conditional on contributions being made to charities? Is he further aware that we welcome, in particular, the prospect thus opened up of a measure of all-party agreement at last on this vexed question?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the question of conscientious objection is rather difficult to define but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is quite easy to define religious views. The noble Lord is suggesting that there should be some sort of regulation or classification. That is not easy to define. But, under the agreement between the TUC and the Government, it is possible for cases to be dealt with during the negotiation of the agreement. The Government take the view that other grounds could be considered, but it is impossible to specify them.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, while I admit that there are difficulties about defining conscientious belief, since

1267
it was possible to overcome those difficulties and to provide protection for all conscientious objectors from having to do National Service against their conscience in time of war, are the Government saying that it is both impossible and not right to do the same as regards a man's or woman's employment in time of peace?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Lord, there is a big difference between war and peace.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, there should be more freedom in time of peace.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, there is a big difference between war and peace because it must be remembered that the decision to allow for conscientious objection to military service was made as part of the decision to make such service compulsory by law. Anyone who failed to convince the tribunals specially established for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the conscientious objector, was liable to a prison sentence. Therefore, the two situations are very different. I am sure that all noble Lords will recognise that all the moral, humanitarian and political considerations which may apply to refusing to fight in the war, are not appropriate for a decision on whether or not to join a union or, indeed, any particular firm.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is not the problem that there is a certain fall-out from the closed shop position whereby, if a union is not prepared to accept the advice of the TUC code, the individual member of the union who does not wish to accept the union line may be victimised by losing his union membership and thereby losing his job? Is not that the serious matter to which noble Lords opposite have not yet addressed their minds?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, first, negotiations are not one-sided: they are between management and unions, and some managements would prefer to deal with a closed shop. As regards an individual faced with the situation of possibly losing his job or his
1268
union membership, there are avenues for him to appeal. He may do so via the TUC's Special Committee which has been set up, and also every individual has his legal rights of appeal.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us why the Government are so frightened of dealing with this closed shop situation?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the Government are not frightened, but they are very conscious of the complexity and difficulty of such a situation. It is far better to deal with the matter with a proper negotiating attitude than to rush in like a lot of bald-headed bulls in a china shop.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, is the noble Lord calling me a bald-headed bull?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, on the contrary; I think I myself have less hair than the noble Lord.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, in practice, there is a considerable amount of flexibility at negotiating level between management and trade unions in connection with this matter, and that all genuine cases are dealt with on a fair and equitable basis?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, there are many cases of genuine agreements where flexibility is enjoyed. It is unfortunate that only as regards the rigid cases is there a great deal of publicity. The general feeling is that reason is prevailing and it is the Government's hope, and I trust the hope of all of us, that under the new arrangements there will be even greater consideration than in the past.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I accept the Minister's statement of difference between military service and the closed shop, does not the character of conscience remain the same in both cases? Is he aware that I defended many men as conscientious objectors and gained exemption for them on political grounds? Conscience can be a matter of politics just as much as it can be of religion.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I respect my noble friend's record in this matter, but I must once again say that it is a very difficult matter and we cannot draw a comparison between war situations and peaceful situations. They are not the same. There is a right of conscience. However, I would add that although we talk about conscientious objection to joining a union, there are many people who would willingly take an increase fought for by a union but who would not be prepared to face the responsibility of union membership.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I should like to press the noble Lord a little further. If he accepts his noble friend's point that political belief as well as religious belief can be a matter of conscience, is he not aware—I am sure that he must be—that some unions, although not all, have among their objectives open support for one political party? If one does not happen to believe in that political party it really is a matter of conscience not to be forced, in order to earn one's living, to join a union committed to the support of a party one is opposing.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the noble Lord has, of course, heard of contracting-out and he is also aware of the fact that another political party receives massive financial support from management.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: That, my Lords, is not the point.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I have the feeling that noble Lords would like to progress because we have two Statements to deal with.

ARTS COUNCIL EXHIBITION: WITHDRAWN PICTURES
3.28 p.m.
The Earl of GOSFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that two works
1270
were withdrawn from the Exhibition "Lives" at the Hayward Gallery and whether they will take steps to prevent a repetition of this form of censorship.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I am aware that two items originally selected for this exhibition were not in fact displayed because the Arts Council was advised that to do so might render it liable to legal proceedings. I cannot regard it as censorship for the Arts Council to choose not to display some of its own property in one of its own galleries.
The Earl of GOSFORD: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that those two pictures have already been publicly exhibited, one of them in an Arts Council show early last summer at the Serpentine Gallery? While accepting the fact that the noble Lord has no jurisdiction over the Arts Council, will he bring his considerable influence to bear by asking it to elaborate on the extraordinary statement that it has made?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I do not think that it is very extraordinary. As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, one of the pictures at any rate was exhibited at the Serpentine in an earlier exhibition, but without the captions which were subsequently added to it—by agreement, it is fair to say, with the organiser of the exhibition. It was the captions which were thought to be legally dangerous.
As regards the second part of this question, I am more accustomed to questions insisting that I should intervene to suppress pictures or events that certain noble Lords have not liked, than to questions insisting that such items should be shown whether or not they like them. There are four columns in Hansard of 24th March 1977 and five in that of 17th July of the same year where the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, made robust attacks on the Government for being too permissive. I think that the final answer is, and must remain, that although it would be wrong for the Government to intervene by way of censorship, it cannot be wrong for the

1271
promoting body—in this case the Arts Council—to exercise commonsense supervision over events it pays for with public money. The action was a perfectly proper one and within the Council's proper responsibilities.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the Minister clarify one point? Is it the case that the Arts Council itself bought these pictures for £800, kept them for two months and then banned them from the exhibition without any discussion? Does not that have a very serious effect on the reputation of the artists? Will the pictures be returned to them?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I cannot vouch for the amount of money paid, but certainly the Arts Council employs two or three contemporary artists each year to buy contemporary pictures. These two pictures were so bought and were exhibited without the captions. Objection was taken to the captions. There is no reason why they should not be exhibited again without the captions.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, if the Arts Council got back its £800, I think it would have done a very good deal.

MALTA AND DEFENCE OF THE MEDITERRANEAN
3.32 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the presence of Soviet warships, including aircraft carriers, in the Mediterranean would justify review of the decision to abandon our association with Malta.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government decided in the 1974 Defence Review, following consultations with our NATO allies, that the United Kingdom's defence effort should be concentrated as a first priority upon those areas in which we could
1272
contribute most effectively to the security of the United Kingdom and the NATO Alliance. The decision not to seek extension of the agreement under which British Forces are based in Malta reflected this reallocation of effort. The present level of Soviet naval forces in the Mediterranean does not call that decision into question.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the decision, which was taken quite some time ago, was taken in quite different circumstances from those of today? The Russians are now in the Mediterranean; on the northern side of Africa we have Colonel Gaddafi of Libya who is hostile; and we have Mintoff on the other side of the Mediterranean who is resentful. Are we to understand that in the prevailing circumstances we shall abandon any possibility of maintaining the security of the West in the Mediterranean?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, to quote my Answer given a few seconds ago:
"The present level of Soviet naval forces in the Mediterranean does not call that decision into question".
I would remind my noble friend that the Government of Malta has declared that after 31st March this year these facilities will be available neither to the Warsaw Pact countries nor to NATO. In the meantime, negotiations between Malta and the Community continue, especially in regard to textiles and similar matters. I see no reason to doubt that Malta's connection with Europe will not continue and, indeed, increase. It is for future circumstances and also for the Maltese Government and its people to decide what the military and other arrangements, if any, are to be with Europe and NATO.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, having had some experience of negotiating about bases in Malta, and having a certain amount of sympathy with those who would not seek to restart such negotiations, will the Government and the noble Lord give an undertaking that NATO and Her Majesty's Government will not be prepared to see the facilities in Malta fall into unfriendly hands, or potentially unfriendly hands?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is not the first time that I have shared the noble Lord's sympathies, especially in regard to certain negotiations. As to the very important point he made about our continuing interest in there being proper non-alignment in Malta—and, indeed, in the Mediterranean, if that is possible (a policy which the Maltese Government has said is its official policy)—certainly we shall be constantly in touch with that Government with a view to ensuring that any change in the situation does not adversely affect the security of the West and of this country.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I find his Answer—I am not blaming him for it—not only disappointing but highly dangerous? Does he imagine that the Soviets will ask for Mintoff's permission to obtain facilities which they may desire in Malta? They will take them when they want them. In view of the position in Cyprus and the somewhat uncertain position in Turkey, would it not be better for NATO to give this matter some consideration? Will my noble friend suggest that NATO might look at the subject again?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sorry to be both disappointing and dangerous at the same time. I never find my noble friend disappointing, but sometimes I do find him dangerous. As to the very serious point that he has raised, he has, of course, referred to the wider considerations for NATO—the shield of democracy in the West—of certain recent events in the Near and Middle East. There is no doubt that we shall need to examine and, indeed, we are examining very carefully—we are assessing once more—precisely what we and our partners in the West should do in relation to these events, and that certainly includes the Mediterranean.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, all the same, will my noble friend not reconsider the point pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell? Will the Government bear in mind that in regard to any area where the Western Powers move out, the Eastern Powers seem to move in? The naval mission in India at present is a Russian one; the Russians have a naval base in India. Aden, which we have left, is now the principal Russian base in the
1274
Indian Ocean. The Russians have had bases in the Red Sea. Will the noble Lord not consider that it would be as well for us somehow to keep a hold on this and not simply to rely on a vague undertaking by Mr. Mintoff that he does not want to belong to either side?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I do not think that we ever find Mr. Mintoff vague; he certainly speaks for his people. In that sense we must defer to his and his Government's decisions, and seek to maintain a considerable friendship with Malta, a George Cross island. There are links between us of a psychological as well as an economic nature, and we must seek to build on them. However, I certainly do not underestimate what the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, have said, in that it is necessary—in fact, it is proceeding—for this country and its friends and allies to assess the position which has developed in the last year or so in the areas we have discussed today.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement being made in another place by the Prime Minister on devolution. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who will repeat a Statement on the tragic death of Her Majesty's Ambassador at the Hague.

DEVOLUTION: PROPOSED FURTHER ACTION
3.40 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the further action which the Government propose to take following the results of the referendums on devolution which were held in Scotland and Wales on 1st March.
The Statement is as follows:
"The House is aware that it is now almost 10 years since the Royal Commission on the Constitution was

1275
appointed at a time when there was much public dissatisfaction with the workings of government in Scotland and Wales.
"For a decade there has been intense debate about possible changes in the system of Government, not only in this House, where all parties have put forward their own proposals for improvement, but also in Scotland and Wales. Parliament itself has been engaged for almost two years in considering detailed legislation which included the proposal for advisory referendums to enable the people of Scotland and Wales to vote on whether they wished the Acts to come into force.
"The results of those votes fell short of the conditions laid down by Parliament. So today the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales are laying draft orders to repeal the Acts, as they are required to do by Section 85(2) of the Scotland Act and Section 80(2) of the Wales Act. The effect of these orders would be to repeal both Acts in their entirety. That is a fundamental decision and Parliament must have a full and early opportunity to debate and decide the issue. This is the Government's intention.
"If the House were to decide to repeal these Acts that will certainly not be the end of the matter. The debate will continue, especially in Scotland, where a majority of the votes cast was for the Act to come into force. Such a volume of opinion cannot sensibly be disregarded. The Government have now fulfilled their obligation to lay the repeal orders. We intend to proceed to the next stage, namely, to ask the House to debate and decide on the orders. But we also propose that before the House makes such an important decision there should be a short intermediate stage. As the House knows, the Government are themselves firmly committed to a policy of devolution. We shall therefore use this short interval to make formal approaches to all the other parties in the House urgently to discuss on a bilateral basis, taking into account the result of the Scottish referendum, whether a measure of agreement might not be found to provide for the better government of Scotland. We will be
1276
ready to consider carefully modifications which might now be proposed to the present Act and ready to consider no less carefully any other proposals that might emerge. The Government's intention is that such discussions should be brought to a conclusion one way or the other by the end of April at the latest.
"As for Wales, the same uncertainties are not present. There was a heavy majority vote against the Wales Act and the Government assume that Parliament will wish to repeal the Act. Nevertheless, agreement might be possible on further administrative changes which would improve the quality of government in the Principality. We shall therefore approach other parties to consider whether we can secure agreement on further devolutionary changes that would lead to a settlement in Wales within the same time limit of the end of April.
"The Government's conclusion is that the situation in Scotland makes it imperative that before any irrevocable step is taken by this House there should be one further attempt by the parties to get the matter right in a way that would not disregard the voting in the Scottish referendum and would strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.43 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I hope that he was gratified by the response which he has had to the Statement. Were your Lordships' House not so polite we should all have been rolling in the aisles. My Lords, of course this Statement has got nothing whatever to do with devolution; this is just an explanation of how an unpopular Government seek to stay in power, by delaying tactics and by subterfuge, for a few weeks longer. I do not really know who the noble Lord is fooling. He is not fooling me, and I doubt very much whether he is fooling anybody in your Lordships' House, least of all those who sit behind him.
As for all-party talks, the Government have refused my party's suggestions over the last 2½ years for all-party talks, and

1277
now, at the fag end of a Parliament, when the Government's plan for devolution has been rejected, they suddenly turn the somersault and expect us to take them seriously. The right thing for the Government to do, though it appears that they are not going to do it, is to stop all the wheeler-dealing, dissolve Parliament, and let the people of this country choose a new Government with a fresh mandate.
3.45 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, it may well be that we should have a General Election as soon as possible, and that has been our view in this party since October. As to the Statement itself, we welcome the proposal for all-party talks. There is so much dissatisfaction in both Houses, in Scotland itself, and in this country, with the Scotland Act as it now stands that, in our view, all-party talks are quite essential whether there is a General Election or not. Before or after the General Election, and preferably before, there must be all-party talks to try to get the system of devolution into far better shape than it would otherwise be. We in this party will certainly want to play a constructive part in such talks, and we feel that the sooner they take place the better. I would hope that the Conservative Party would also see its way to cooperate before rather than after the Election.
3.47 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I have noted carefully what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said. I do not think he has really treated this subject seriously. The very fact that the Liberal Party, and not the Opposition, has shown positive leadership, is an indication. After all, there are many matters affecting Scotland which are important in the sense of local government and regional matters, and noble Lords know very well that an all-party talk would be a fruitful way of trying to deal with some positive problems which still affect these great regions. Therefore, I hope that the Tory Party, despite what their spokesman has said, will really think of this carefully, otherwise we shall be regarded as flippant politicians.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, it seems to me that the referenda were
1278
specifically designed to ask an opinion of a specific electorate on a particular Act. The Statement recognises that this has been given, and it is the Act that is at fault rather than the idea of devolution. Could the noble Lord the Leader of the House say why, in this case, the all-party discussions, which I think we all welcome, should not be held after the Act has been repealed?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that the timetable is right. I would wish that there would be a positive response now in view of what I have said, and I hope that it will be taken up in the other place. I think that there is a general desire to look at this important matter. After all, many regional matters arise. I think of Wales, in particular, where, to give one example, I was involved in devolving some of our agricultural matters from the Ministry of Agriculture. This is the sort of thing that has to be considered. This is important for government, so I welcome what the noble Lord has said.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how such talks would deal with those, among whose number I include myself, who regard the referendum as being quite an unsuitable way of dealing with the matter at all, depending, as it did, on the list of voters in Scotland many of whom were not Scots at all?
Lord PEART: My Lords, it is not a question now about whether we should be ruled by a referendum, or anything like that. We believe now that inevitably, because of what has happened, the results, and having now to lay the orders, it would be right and proper to have talks, and all-party talks.

CHILD CARE BILL [H.L.]
3.49 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the care of children by local authorities or voluntary organisations and certain other enactments relating to the care of children. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

1279
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

FOSTER CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to foster children as they have effect in England and Wales. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill through all its remaining stages this day.—(Lord Peart. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) (Scotland) Bill through all its remaining stages this day.—(Lord Peart. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a— (Lord McCluskey.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
Read 3a.
Clause 2 [Vulnerable wild creatures]:
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak at the same time to the consequential Amendment to the Schedule; namely, Amendment No. 5. While I was in favour of the Amendment to the defence in the proviso of Section 1 of the 1975 Act moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, on Report, subsequent reflection has led me to the view that his Amendment would not produce an acceptable result. First of all, the noble Lord's Amendment removes the need imposed by existing defence to consider the necessity for and hence the reasonableness of the accused's action. The noble Lord's Amendment does not mention the accused's action at all but would require him to establish there was no other reasonable course of action which he could have taken. Apart from ignoring the question whether or not the accused's action was justified, the form of words substituted would involve the accused in having to exclude so many possibilities that it might be impossible to use the defence successfully even in a case where the accused's action was reasonably justified.
On the assumption that it is correct to provide a defence in respect of serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property, which in the case

1281
of a farmer may seriously affect his livelihood, it would seem right to ensure that the accused has a defence if he can establish to the satisfaction of the court that the action he took was necessary for that purpose. The existing defence does that. The defence in its existing form, moreover, is a standard form of defence and is well precedented in other Acts; for example, it is to be found in the Protection of Birds Act 1954, the Deer Act 1963, the Badgers Act 1973 and the Deer Bill, which left this House as recently as 13th February. I therefore ask the House to agree to this Amendment and thus allow the proviso to Section 1 of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 to remain in its present form.
Lord CRAIGTON: I must put on the record, my Lords, the incredible experience we have had with this Amendment. I moved an Amendment in which I genuinely believe and which had been suggested to me by Friends of the Earth. At the last moment the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who is always so helpful, said, "If you will add just one word to the Amendment—the word, 'reasonable'—I believe I can accept it." Accordingly, at the last moment I moved a manuscript Amendment to add the word "reasonable", and the noble Baroness accepted it. Now she says she does not accept it. I accept what she says very willingly—I never liked the Bill very much in any case—and of course I agree with her.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, it is fair to say, as my noble friend just said, that the Government's attitude as personified by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has throughout the Bill been one of neutrality, not armed but decidedly helpful neutrality, and it would seem that on this occasion helpfulness has perhaps gone a little too far, which is why we have this slight impasse at the moment.
I made faint disapproving noises when this Amendment came up on Report, but I was in favour then, as I am now, of anything for a quiet life and I did not want the noble Baroness to teeter off the fence in the wrong direction. Perhaps it is a question now of whether she has actually fallen in the right direction or whether she had a slight push; I would not expect her to answer that. I am now
1282
satisfied that she has accepted the right advice of her Department and I hope your Lordships will agree that the situation is now back to square one, which is exactly where it should be.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the way in which they have received the Amendment. This has been an extraordinary Bill in that it has virtually been rewritten on the Floor of the House. I hope that with the modest Amendments we have before us today we really shall have got the job right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

AMBASSADOR TO THE NETHERLANDS: ASSASSINATION
3.57 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will, with permission, repeat a Statement now being made in the other place on the assassination of Sir Richard Sykes. The Statement reads as follows:
"Honourable Members will have been deeply shocked to hear this morning of the death of our Ambassador to the Netherlands, Sir Richard Sykes, and a member of his domestic staff, Mr. Karel Straub, a Dutch citizen. Sir Richard Sykes was shot while leaving his residence shortly after 9 o'clock this morning and four bullets were fired at the car at short range. According to an eye witness, the shots were fired by two men who have not yet been traced and no organisation has yet claimed responsibility for the incident. We are in close contact with the Dutch Government and with other European Governments.
"I know the entire House will be appalled by this premeditated act of violence and will join with me in expressing our sincere condolences to Lady Sykes and her family and to the family of Mr. Straub.
Sir Richard was an outstanding representative and his death is a great loss to this country, of which he was a distinguished servant; to the Diplomatic Service, of which he was a greatly liked and respected member;

1283
and, above all, to his wife and family, to whom we will all wish to extend our deepest sympathy".
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, in common probably with a number of your Lordships, I had known Sir Richard Sykes for a number of years, and it was a very great shock to hear the news this morning. He was not just a distinguished member of the Foreign Service, though he was certainly that; he was, too, a distinguished soldier during the war, but he was also one of the nicest and best friends anybody could have. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, in sending our sympathy to Lady Sykes and her family, and of course to the family of Mr. Straub.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, once again we must condemn an apparently senseless assassination and mourn the death of a brilliant and devoted public servant, to whose widow and family all our sympathy must naturally go out. What can be done to prevent possible future such outrages will, I have no doubt, be done; and while all necessary precautions will of course be taken, I am afraid that no security can be absolute. The sad fact is that a really fanatical and determined murderer will very often be able to kill, so our long-term hope, I suggest, can only be that the present wave of mad terrorism will subside when it becomes clear that no objective of the terrorist is in practice achieved by useless individual acts of violence.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the House will unanimously join the two noble Lords and myself in the expressions of sympathy which have already been extended. In particular I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said about the enormity of the problem of achieving absolute security. The situation in this respect is being improved in the light of experience and following innovation, but we must all be most careful as to the possibilities of senseless acts of violence being perpetrated in the future by organisations and individuals over which and whom it is impossible to have total supervision and to exert total prevention.
1284
I was particularly moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had to say about Sir Richard himself; I agree with the noble Lord. In peace as in war Sir Richard served this country with distinction and courage, and his death was in the line of duty, as one might expect. I, too, can claim friendship with Richard Sykes, and I know that what noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said about him is certainly true. He was a man who combined integrity and intellect to a remarkable degree.

CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Consideration of Amendments resumed.
Clause 7 [Minor amendments of the principal Act]:
4.1 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 27, leave out ("section 2(2)") and insert ("sections 2(2) and 8(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I shall, with your Lordships' permission, also speak to the consequential Amendment, No. 6. I am afraid that when I was preparing the new Clause 7 (containing a list of minor amendments to the principal Act) it escaped my notice that Section 8(1) was virtually identical to Section 2(2). Therefore, it is necessary to have exactly the same words in the Amendment Bill in order to marry up in the same way as the two sections marry up in the principal Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3 I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 4. In revising the wording I omitted to make the correct presentation to the Public Bill Office in your Lordships' House, and consequently in two places I included the word "and" twice where it should appear only once. I know from bitter experience that it is for

1285
exactly this kind of reason that Private Bills fail in another place, and I certainly do not want to go through the rather lengthy re-drafting again in a subsequent Session, and so I hope that your Lordships will agree to both Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 29, leave out ("and").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 as amended]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 28, leave out ("no other reasonable course of action was open to him to prevent") and insert ("his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Amendment to Schedule 2 to the Bill is a parallel Amendment consequential on the omission of subsection (2) of Clause 2, and in effect it restores the Keeling schedule to its original wording. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Baroness whether I am correct in assuming that the words,
"his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing"
are not printed in bold type because they in fact restore the original words and that there are no new words, which would be printed in bold type were they added to the Bill by the Keeling schedule.
Baroness STEDMAN: That is my understanding of the position, my Lords, and I hope that both the noble Lord and myself are right about this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 11, line 8, leave out from ("reference") to end of line 9 and insert ("to a dead creature shall be construed as including a reference to any part of, or anything derived from, such a creature.")
1286
The noble Lord said: My Lords, spoke to this Amendment when moving Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.6 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, as is customary in your Lordships' House, I should like to thank all the many people who have helped me with the Bill, both in the Chamber and outside. I have already referred to the noble Baroness and her most helpful officials, and I am very grateful to them. My noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, on the Front Bench, has on this occasion been somewhat silent, but he has been of enormous help outside the Chamber, and I am most grateful to him. I am also extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Craigton who has at times made useful comments, has been persuaded where persuasion was necessary, and, I should say in all fairness, equally has persuaded me where persuasion was necessary.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his kind words about me, and to reiterate my gratitude to the noble Baroness the Minister, though I am becoming rather weary of directing all these praises to her; I feel that we are almost canonising her. As my noble Leader mentioned "the latter stages of a dying Government", I am not sure that in such circumstances we should canonise people, though perhaps it is the appropriate time. I also wish to congratulate my noble friend upon inheriting the mantle of our late departed friend Lord Cranbrook and upon doing that so well.
While on my feet I also wish to ask the recently canonised noble Baroness to confirm what she told me outside the Chamber: namely, that certain bodies in this country, because the Bill is so technical, are worried that it might not be enforced. Therefore, it has been suggested that various other measures should be written into the Bill to give powers of enforcement and prosecution to certain people

1287
or bodies. The noble Baroness has satisfied me on this point, and I now invite her to do so publicly to the House and to say that there are already sufficient powers for the public to take an interest in the Bill. Unless the public take an interest in these matters, no laws relating to them will be enforceable. It is no good speaking only of police or wardens, and I should like confirmation regarding the public's entitlement. With those words I again thank the noble Baroness and my noble friend.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in taking the noble Lord's last point first, I can certainly confirm that there are adequate powers to do all that we want to do in terms of policing the Bill (when it becomes an Act) and all the other Acts concerned with conservation and wild creatures. We see no problems arising in that regard. In this country we are lucky in that we have so great a number of voluntary organisations which are not only extremely enthusiastic but also extremely knowledgeable and are willing to give their services in helping to police these matters. There is certainly no lack of powers with which to carry out the duties and the responsibilities which we have imposed upon people through the Bill.
I also wish to thank both noble Lords for their comments, which apply not so much to me but to my officials for the help that they have provided. I am sure that the officials found the task as daunting as did the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, when we started virtually at square one and worked right through the matter again. I hope that the Government will remain in office long enough for the Bill to have a fair wind in the other place, so that the noble Lord does not face the prospect of having to go through the whole procedure again in another Parliament.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NATIONAL HERITAGE FUND (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third
1288
time. I am not quite certain whether it would be better to speak at this stage or on the Question, that the Bill do now pass? I had originally understood that there might be an Amendment, but none has been put on the Order Paper, and I therefore think that it would be best if I said what I have to say now. I apologise for detaining your Lordships yet again on this Bill—my third speech on the subject in 18 months—particularly as it may not reach the Statute Book in this Parliament. How I envy the wild plants and wild creatures who have now been conserved with the sunshine of the Government's approval, which has not been given to my Bill!
The nub of the Bill, frankly, is a twofold aim—to remove the National Heritage Fund from Treasury control and to place it under independent trustees who can act quickly in an emergency and at a time when it would be impolitic for a Government to do so. I first introduced this Bill in 1977, in the month of June, and I withdrew it in the face of a very chilly Government response, intending to reintroduce it and ask for a Select Committee to consider the matter. Meanwhile, a Select Committee in another place jumped in and itself chose to examine the National Heritage Fund. It recommended precisely the main points in my Bill, together with certain other excellent suggestions which fall somewhat outside the scope of legislation. This was followed by an Early-Day Motion in another place, which was signed by 120 Members of all parties. These events set the alarm bells ringing, a faint tinkle reached the Government's ear, and they decided that they might perhaps have to take some action.
The moment therefore seemed ripe to revive my own Bill and test the temperature. I still find there is no particular enthusiasm. I may say that I have had warm support from other quarters, and particularly from the Press. Indeed, I have seen no unfavourable comment on the contents of my Bill. The Times in fact published a third leader warmly commending it. Unfortunately, that was the day that The Times died. I trust there was no link between those events, such as cause and effect. I delayed the Committee stage from then until February of this year, hoping that in the intervening months the Government might make up

1289
their mind whether they intended to adopt my Bill, as they could have done, or produce their own Bill.
All we have now is a White Paper. I know that there are no votes in fostering the national heritage, but, none the less, that does not absolve a Government from their duty. Faced with the Select Committee's report, and having rebuffed the stated opinions in your Lordships' House on my Bill on two occasions, the Government have had to do something. Events have shoved them rather unceremoniously into hasty action, and without much conviction or enthusiasm they have produced a White Paper. Before I say anything else about the White Paper, I should like to comment on and commend one particular point, which is the acceptance of the Commons Select Committee's suggestion that, in future, any purchases by the National Heritage Fund should be identified as such. I should like to add one further hope, and that is that the trustees, in their discretion, should consider identifying some of the fund's acquisitions as being the national war memorial of Dr. Dalton's original and very imaginative, but frustrated, intention. That was the finest part of his original suggestion, and, alas!, it has taken more than 30 years to bring it anywhere near fruition.
To turn back to the White Paper as a whole, we are now well into March, and we have no Government Bill as an alternative to mine. The White Paper is mainly a repetition of known facts plus a red herring about the "in lieu" proposals, on which I do not myself intend to comment. I think the noble Lord who is to reply will agree that he has had a had Press, and has very little support for his proposals. There is also—and I wish to be fair to the White Paper—a complete reversal of the Government's previous attitude to the main principles of my Bill, which they have now accepted without giving any justification for their total change of view. The Government have turned a complete and grudging, if somewhat slow, somersault, and have reneged on all the arguments loyally deployed by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on the Second Reading of my Bill in June 1977.
So there we are: we have a White Paper and no Government Bill. When will the
1290
Bill be introduced? All we know is that, in the words of the Minister,
"Officials are meeting more than once a week to draft it".
There is enthusiasm for you, my Lords! At that rate, when shall we get the Bill? Will it be before the end of June, before the Election, or even before the Election if it is postponed until October? I doubt it. Also, that statement is rather difficult to reconcile with another sentence which the Minister employed. I do not think he quite realised the import of what he was saying when he added:
"After full consultation, we shall have the opportunity to see what the Bill produces".
That rather gives the impression that he would not be aware of the contents. I am sure he did not really intend that.
My Lords, we have had no help whatsoever from the Government on this Bill, and I very much regret that. I should have been very happy if they had taken over my Bill and got it towards the Statute Book, because then we should have had some action earlier. It would seem that there will be no debate on the White Paper, and I think this will be the last opportunity to express our views. We have few differences between my Bill and the main principles of the White Paper, but I shall outline one or two minor differences.
Briefly, I and those who think like me are against appointing the trustees from designated areas to represent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as is suggested in the White Paper. Before you know where you are, you will have the statutory woman and the statutory trade unionist, and if you are to have a small body then I believe that simply will not work. Again, we think the trustees should be appointed by the Prime Minister and not by the Secretaries of State. That would give them the far higher status that this task would deserve. I think that the trustees should have power to acquire and hold properties. If they can acquire monies, as set out in the White Paper, why not properties? I do not agree with the White Paper's limitations on the trustees' freedom and authority. Some restraint is necessary, but the proposals in the White Paper are excessive.
So there we are, my Lords. It is disappointing to me. The chances of progress in this Parliament are very slender indeed. To my noble friends on the Front Bench

1291
I would say that if, after the Election, they find themselves on the other side of this Chamber, I shall give them three months' grace. Then, if they do not act, I shall introduce my Bill again. To the noble Lords who have supported me, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Cottisloe, I offer my warm thanks and would say only this: We shall get our Bill eventually. I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Reigate.)
4.18 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Reigate will give me, not three months', but three minutes' grace on this occasion, to congratulate him on the persistence with which he has pursued this issue—and a very important issue it is—and also on the stoicism with which he has borne the considerable disappointment of it not being likely to get on to the Statute Book this time round. But I can say to my noble friend that I believe that, whichever Government are in power, his work and the work of others who are deeply concerned here is now irrevocable. I am sure that something will happen; and of course we would hope that it would be sooner rather than later.
The late Lord Attlee, when he was Prime Minister, I think, said that one of the many ironies about your Lordships' House was that it was the only place in the British Parliament where a Communist found himself sitting. I think he would also have enjoyed the historical irony that the war memorial pursued so sedulously by Dr. Dalton should find its resurrection, so to speak, at the hands of a Tory Back-Bencher of impeccable credentials like my noble friend Lord Reigate. I think the whole House would recognise the work that he has done on this and the merits of his Bill, and all that we would say is that we are extremely sympathetic to it and hope to make a Government and to put either his Bill or something close to it into action without too much delay.
4.20 p.m.
Earl HAIG: My Lords, I greatly welcome the National Heritage Bill and
1292
the Government White Paper, both of which are strong indication that steps are being considered to combat the erosion of the national heritage. I speak to some extent as spokesman for the National Gallery of Scotland who, in keeping with their native character, are urging a note of caution. Although welcoming the White Paper, the trustees are anxious that the present procedures whereby pre-eminent works of art are given to the nation in lieu of taxes should not be taken off the Statute Book until those responsible for operating the procedures are convinced that a satisfactory alternative has been evolved. They believe that the "in lieu" procedure should continue to work until such time as new machinery, which is practical and fast-moving, is ready to operate.
Perhaps there are one or two points that I might add. The procedures involved in a private treaty sale are, in my experience, not uncumbersome. In order to enable the new machinery to work efficiently we should not in the early stages lumber it with all the work that is involved in the acceptance of, the pricing of and the finding of homes for, preeminent works of art. There is a danger that the new trustees would be over-faced—and over-facing, particularly where artistic matters are concerned, which need fresh minds, can lead to bad judgment. Over-facing with inadequate staff would lead to slow procedures which would discourage the vendors from selling to national institutions rather than through the sales rooms.
Up to now, a great deal of work has gone on behind the scenes, and with amazing speed works of art have been evaluated from the pre-eminence point of view, depending on the demand for them from any particular gallery. At one time, a work may be pre-eminent in the eyes of London and not pre-eminent in the eyes of Edinburgh. It would be unwise to put these complicated researches all at once into the hands of a new body like the National Heritage Fund—and certainly not until it has been armed with an efficient staff and possibly with subcommittees to support it. As it is, what an appalling amount of ground the trustees will have!—covering painting, sculpture, militaria, land, houses. The mind boggles. "A jack of all trades is a master of none", as the saying goes. We all have

1293
known fellow-trustees who waste valuable time pontificating on subjects that they know little about.
In welcoming the proposal to appoint seven trustees, I stress the need for careful selection of candidates and for the trustees to be chosen not so much on grounds of a wide knowledge, although a general interest is essential, but for a profound knowledge in one of the aspects—fine art, architecture or money—described in this Bill. My own experience as a trustee stems from my time on the board of the National Galleries of Scotland under the chairmanship of the late Lord Crawford. To a large extent, the task of recommending trustees was his. He made his recommendations with great care. Thanks to him, important gaps in the collection were filled with the aid of moneys derived from the "in lieu" system. For example, Quentin Massey's "Portrait of a Notary", Elsheimer's "I1 Contento" and, since then, Guardi's "View of Venice". Today, we have a most comprehensive collection. It is true that we have no Michael Angelo and there are still important gaps to be filled. We have no Stubbs. So the National Heritage Fund will have a part to play.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his speech about this Bill and about the drafting of the Bill eventually to be presented to Parliament, said that we are going to have complete consultation now. It is not for me to determine which Bill gives way to which on this particular racecourse. There is no evidence yet that the Government Bill is to be a starter. Whatever its chances may be, the noble Lord must recognise the need for holding discussions between interested parties now. Discussions should include the museum authorities, the Standing Commission and the National Trust. With regard to land, the Government would be wise to consult with bodies like the National Trust, the Historic Houses Association, the Historic Buildings Council and with some of the many organisations concerned with the land, like the Forestry Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. It may be that at some stage the Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds may be involved.
So many aspects need to be considered, and not least the question of chattels in
1294
smaller houses, chattels which are in danger of being sold to raise money which is needed because of heavy taxation and the cost of living. I must declare an interest as the owner of an historic house which is too small to be opened to the public and to live in at the same time. For owners like me, with few liquid resources, there is no alternative but to sell the contents. If things go on as they have lately, we will end up with houses with bare walls and no furniture. This is one example among the many wide-ranging problems with which the National Heritage Fund will have to deal. There is no point in trying to field national treasures without first trying to stop some of the causes of their disappearance. Otherwise, it is like bolting the stable door after the horse has escaped.
One possibility recommended by the National Trust for Scotland would be for the National Heritage Fund to have the power to give grants to a maintenance fund set up by owners when dedicating their houses and chattels to avoid capital transfer tax. Many owners deterred from dedicating their property because of lack of money would be helped by grants towards their maintenance funds. A final salient point which I should like to make is that, in my view, the National Heritage Fund should enable the leaving of works of art in private hands. This matter was touched upon in the White Paper. It may be that the National Heritage Fund, after accepting a work of art in lieu of tax or through private sale, should be allowed to recommend it remaining in the place to which it belongs. In the passage that the noble Lord knows so that I will not read it, the Government imply that it may be possible to examine the problem of extending indemnity to cover loans for pictures which are remaining in houses.
I would encourage this proposal. There will perhaps be risks and, certainly, a need for security and careful custodianship. On the other side, the advantages would be that concentrations of works would not go on filling up galleries in the big city centres; instead they would be distributed throughout the country. Visitors to stately homes, large and small, would benefit and would go home refreshed and exhalted, and their children better educated. Through this part of their work, the National Heritage Fund would feel that the great works of the past

1295
are not just being preserved but are being shown in situations which set them off to their best advantage. They would be stopping the trend towards bare walls of country houses and contributing to the enlightenment of the people of this country who would be able to absorb works which were life-enhancing and ennobling to their minds, spirits and hearts.
4.30 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I absolve the noble Earl, Lord Haig, from having made a Second Reading speech at this stage, which is not appropriate, but I know that he has been snowed up in Scotland and was not able to get here for the Second Reading. As I explained at Report stage, the Government will shortly be introducing a Bill to implement proposals in its White Paper, A National Heritage Fund. This will be a wide-ranging measure to reflect the wide-ranging nature of the Government's proposals. In this situation a Private Bill is out of place and the Government would certainly not want it on the Statute Book. We should not support such a Bill in the House of Commons, when we are about to give Parliament our own proposals. The Government and the noble Lord are journeying in the same direction; but we shall, as is customary in a journey of this importance, take our own train.
The noble Lord told us at Report stage that he is not one to take umbrage. This is a subjective comment which I shall not challenge, but his general attitude certainly seemed to me to be verging on the "umbrageiferous", if that be the right word. I certainly do not feel that the Government's attitude deserves any complaint. This is a most important issue, involving large sums of money—indeed, large sums of new money—for the arts and for the heritage. We in the Government, far from scraping our feet—if that is the right word.
The Earl of GOWRIE: Dragging!
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Dragging our feet! We have studied assiduously the report of the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure of the other place, and have responded with a White Paper setting out our intentions. The
1296
noble Lord will have noted that our proposals include the most important recommendation of the sub-committee: that is the setting up of a special heritage fund with independent trustees.
The chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee, Mr. Arthur Jones, MP, wrote to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in warm terms, thanking him for meeting so many of the recommendations made by his committee. I hope noble Lords will not accuse me in turn of taking umbrage if I note that the speeches of noble Lords on Report stage of this Bill hardly reflected this attitude.
In particular, I should like to say a word about the "in lieu" business to which the noble Lord, Lord Cottisloe, referred in our last debate, and the noble Earl, Lord Haig, has mentioned today. The comments have gone wide of the mark. I feel very strongly that much of the concern over these proposals is based on a complete misunderstanding. There is no question of abandoning these provisions. The recommendation of the Select Committee was that it should be taken out of the hands of the Treasury. The Treasury has agreed to that. As the White Paper says, we have concluded that it would be more satisfactory if these arrangements were replaced by an expanded system of private treaty sales. We have given firm undertakings that the individual vendor will he no worse off financially than he would have been under the existing arrangements. New arrangements will be introduced to put prospective vendors in touch with institutions which might be interested in acquiring their property, and the acquiring institution will not have to contribute more to the acquisition than at present.
Given the strength of these undertakings, I cannot see what all the fuss is about. The only just complaint that the noble Lord has against the Government is that we have taken some time, and are still taking some time, to work out the right way to deal with this very complicated issue. We believe that we can devise a satisfactory scheme which will fulfil these undertakings; but we recognise that, for it to work well in practice, it must be acceptable to all those who might wish to make use of these provisions, and we are accordingly undertaking wide-ranging consultations. We have already had more

1297
than one discussion with museum directors. The Department of the Environment has had a meeting with the National Trust. We are continuing to discuss the matter with these people as we take advice from them and reconsider the detail of how best to achieve what we are all trying to achieve.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said one thing which I think is true: quoting Mr. Attlee or somebody, this I think is irrevocable. Our timetable is to have the White Paper, when we put it into the form of a Bill, operating by 1980, and so a start has to be made now. I estimate, without making a promise, that we shall have a draft Bill some time after Easter, not I think in June but by the end of May. If we do that, even if it is only a First Reading, that is there for all time and that is what we are very anxious to achieve, because we all realise that there may be not a different Government but a different Minister for the Arts later on.
It is just worth making this point: the noble Earl, Lord Haig, said that we must have a satisfactory alternative for the "in lieu" procedure. That is what the delay is about. That is what we are going to achieve with the help of the various people with whom we are discussing the matter.
4.37 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, may I first of all thank my noble friends who have supported me, particularly my noble friend Lord Haig, who has fought his way through snow and ice bearing the device of support for the National Heritage Fund Bill which I very much welcome. I hope that the Government will take due note of all his remarks on the subject of the "in lieu" provisions. I have not dealt with it myself; it is extraneous to the Bill and, I would have thought, frankly, would have been dealt with in a separate document rather than a White Paper which purported to be dealing with the report of the Select Committee and the alternative Bill.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Gowrie for his very helpful remarks. I am tempted to say that I look forward to when he introduces his Bill quite soon—the sooner the better. As for the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I must congratulate him. I think that
1298
today's is the longest contribution that he has made to the debates on this Bill since it started, and I am extremely glad that I have at long last almost provoked him into showing a little anger, perhaps even a little umbrage. The adjective of umbrage is "umbrageous" not "umbrageiferous", as he seemed to think at one stage.
He remarked that Mr. Arthur Jones, who was the chairman of the Select Committee, thanked the Prime Minister for meeting most of the proposals of the Select Committee. He omitted to mention that Mr. Jones himself produced a Bill called the National Heritage Fund Bill, which is why my Bill, rather quaintly, having been originally called the National Land Fund Bill is now called the National Heritage Fund (No. 2) Bill. Mr. Jones's Bill received a First Reading but the Second Reading was blocked in the Commons. I should like to know at which stage Mr. Jones, faced with the opposition of the Government, decided to withdraw his Bill. I did not withdraw my Bill, and I have no regrets whatsoever. We have caused the Minister to get to his feet more than once, and also we have produced from him almost a date when we shall see the Government's Bill. If he had taken that more co-operative attitude earlier on in these proceedings, it might have saved a little time.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed and sent to the Commons.

VACCINE DAMAGE PAYMENTS BILL
4.38 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, as I said on Second Reading, we welcome this Bill. I rise now only because of some information which came to me today, and I should like to mention again one point that I raised on Second Reading; that is the starting date of eligibility for the

1299
payment. I received only today information from my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Newton (the Member for Braintree) about another case still alive after a vaccination in 1946. The family is called Goody. The case was raised in another place by the late Mr. Tom Driberg in 1947. This family have had 30 years of unimaginable hardship and suffering. Could not the Government find some way to help this family and the other few families who are ineligible because of the starting date of this Bill? Surely in this Welfare State of ours some way can be found for equality of payment for those who have suffered equal and even longer hardship. We are grateful to the Government for this measure and to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his excellent exposition of the Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I believe it was the noble Earl who raised this question on a previous occasion, and I pointed out to him that in my Second Reading speech I made it perfectly clear that these payments would relate to people who had suffered vaccine damage from the time when the National Health Service came into being on 5th July 1948. However, I think I also said on that occasion that we have gone into this matter very carefully. Like everything else, it has to have a starting point and, rightly or wrongly, the Government are of the opinion that the starting point should be when the Government had responsibility for the newly—constructed National Health Service on the 5th July 1948. I think it is very unlikely—I raised this matter with my right honourable friend—that the starting date will be made before then. I think it is unlikely at this stage that anybody who suffered vaccine damage before that will be included.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

KIRIBATI BILL [H.L.]
4.42 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not rise to renew controversy: indeed, I hope to do exactly the opposite, but I have had a letter from the distinguished constitutionalist who was the adviser to the Gilbert Islands Government. That letter seems to me to require some remarks today. He states that the people of the Gilbert Islands have been very much hurt by the absence of trust in their Government and their people shown by the safeguards which have been suggested in this House under the entrenched clauses of this Bill.
So far as the noble Lord, Lord Hale, myself and others are concerned, when we have urged that there should be safeguards to the entrenched clauses, we have been speaking historically, because there are so many instances where entrenched clauses and even Bills of Rights in the Constitution have not subsequently been observed. The last thing that was in our minds was any absence of trust in the present Government of the Gilbert Islands or in their peoples. This criticism might also apply to the safeguards which were introduced by the Government. Those safeguards were proposed in order that the Gilbert Islands might begin their independence without the difficulties of antagonism with the Banaban people; and I very much hope that the Government and peoples of the Gilbert Islands will now realise that none of us wish to express distrust of their administration of their people.
We wish the new Gilbert Islands success in their exciting endeavour of independence and I want to express solidarity with them in two respects. I do not know any government in the world, unless it is the Government of Tanzania, where Ministers so identify themselves with the people as they do in the Gilbert Islands. The Chief Minister has said he wants no trappings of office, and the adviser to the Government in his letter to me remarks how he met the Chief Minister going to buy a loaf of bread on an old bicycle, shoeless and without a shirt on. Perhaps that was natural, in the heat of the island, but I know of no Government in the world where the Ministers so identify themselves with their people as those who will now be advancing towards independence in the Gilbert Islands.
The second reason for our solidarity with them is their gesture for peace. They

1301
are entirely abolishing their army; they are committed to disbanding the Gilbertese defence force which has previously existed. In a small group of atolls in the Pacific, that seems a sensible as well as an idealistic policy to follow. I hope that their example in this respect will be followed by the newly independent islands of the world. I know of only one instance where it has been carried out before, and that is in Costa Rica in Central America. I want to say in these concluding words that we not only wish the Government of independent Kiribati success in this difficult task but we wish to express our identity with them in seeking social justice in their own country and peace in the Pacific.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has spoken I feel it is incumbent on me from these Benches merely to say two very brief words. First, I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said—shoes, shirts and a defence force do not bring happiness to people—and, secondly, I very much hope from these Benches that the people of the Gilbert Islands will on their independence achieve that happiness and prosperity which is due to them.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, before the Motion is formally moved, may I too say how much I appreciate the tone and substance of what my noble friend has said today and also of what the noble Baroness has contributed on this occasion.
Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
4.50 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The reference is to Bill (60) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Amendment is printed in italics.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
  Amendment of provisions relating to earnings after retirement age
  .—(1) In section 30 of the principal Act (supplementary provisions about retirement pensions) the following subsection is inserted at the end—
  "(6) The Secretary of State may by order—

  (a) substitute for the period of 5 years mentioned in section 27(5) of this Act and subsection (1) above a shorter period; and

  (b) substitute for the ages of 65 and 70 mentioned in sections 26(1) and (3), 36(5), 37(6) and 79(2)(a) of this Act and subsection (3) above such lower ages as are appropriate in consequence of any provision made by virtue of paragraph (a) above.".

  (2) In section 167 of the principal Act (Parliamentary control of orders and regulations)—
  (a) in subsection (1) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph (b)—
  "(c) no order shall be made under section 30(6),"; and
  (b) in subsection (3) after the words "section 17(3)" there is inserted "30(6),".
  (3) In Part II of Schedule 15 to the principal Act (regulations not requiring prior submission to National Insurance Advisory Committee) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 17—
  "17A. Regulations contained in a statutory instrument which states that it contains only provisions in consequence of an order under section 30(6) of this Act.".
  (4) Section 30 of the principal Act shall cease to have effect on 5th April 1984 and all references to that section in that Act or in any other enactment shall then likewise cease to have effect."
  The Commons agree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment thereto:
  Line 27, leave out subsection(4).
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 3. I do not think it is incumbent upon me to take a great deal of your Lordships' time over this Commons Amendment. We discussed this Amendment at some length in a discussion which lasted for 55 minutes, and which occupied 18 full columns of Hansard. But perhaps I ought to make clear the effect of the Government Amendment carried in another place, proposing that subsection (4) of this new clause should be left out.

  1303
  With subsection (4) removed, the clause reverts to the form it was in when I introduced it at the Committee stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. As I explained to your Lordships at that time, the clause will enable the Secretary of State for Social Services, by Affirmative Order. to reduce the ages at which the earnings rule ceases to apply to retirement pensioners—currently, 70 in the case of men and 65 in the case of women. This would enable us gradually to phase out the earnings rule as a step towards abolishing it completely. But, as I made clear to your Lordships in introducing the new clause, the Government were simply taking power to make changes. The question of using that power would need to be considered in the light of the economic situation at the time, in relation to the many other claims on public expenditure and to the Government's expenditure priorities.
  Subsection (4), which is the matter now before your Lordships, was introduced at the Report stage of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, and it provides, in effect, for the earnings rule to be finally abolished by 5th April 1984. I do not know whether there was any great significance in the famous 1984. It is important that I should explain clearly why the Government have sought to remove subsection (4). As I have made quite clear to your Lordships, and as has been made clear in another place, the Government are committed to abolishing the earnings rule for retirement pensioners. In this, I think I can say without fear of contradiction that there is nothing between the Government and the Opposition. I suppose that the only qualification is "when resources allow", which we feel is an important one, and it was this consideration which led the Government to remove subsection (4).
  The Government do not think it right to introduce into the Bill a provision which would commit the Government—whichever Government was in power in 1984—to the additional expenditure which would be involved in abolishing the earnings rule without regard to the resources which might be available at that time, or to the other priorities that the Government of that time would have. But it is only right that that Government should be able to determine their own priorities,
  1304
  and that they should not be committed in advance, if I may say so with the greatest respect, to divert resources to the abolition of the earnings rule, if it were considered that there were more important calls upon those resources.
  The removal of subsection (4) would not limit a future Government's action in any way. We have already provided in the clause a power to ease the way to abolition of the earnings rule. If resources were available, there would be nothing to prevent a future Government from finally getting rid of the earnings rule by April 1984, if they wished to do so. A future Government would be very much aware of the views which have been strongly expressed in your Lordships' House, and in another place, that the rule should be phased out completely over the next five years, and they could be expected to take account of those views when considering what their priorities should be. But the Government feel that at least the decision—and any such decision—must be made by the Government of the time and not by this Government.
  I know that the Opposition take the view that the Government's estimates of abolition— which we say would cost between £64 million and £124 million, depending on how many people continued to forgo their pension after pension age—are far too high. This point was made more than once, quite properly, by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne. I explained in some detail at the Report stage of the Bill why the Government cannot accept that view, and I do not propose to repeat today what I said then. The Government remain convinced that the cost of abolition would be very high, and in reading the report of the proceedings in another place when this matter was considered there on 19th March, I was interested to see that the noble Baroness's right honourable friend in that place accepted that the cost could be as high as £40 million.
  I have no doubt that in future years the cost of abolishing the rule will be different from the estimates to which I have referred, and different from the estimates made by noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber. But whether the cost will be higher or lower, I cannot say, and I do not think that any of us can at this stage. This will be a matter for

  1305
  the Government of the day to determine, but, as I said earlier, the whole question of priorities, so far as that Government are concerned, will remain. We should not tie their hands in that way; and that is precisely what subsection (4) of the new clause would do. Therefore, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
  Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, at this late stage, I do not wish to rehearse again all the arguments that we have had on this matter. Clearly, both sides of the House, and the Liberals, agreed that we should abolish the earnings rule for retirement pensioners. It is to us very disappointing indeed that, when this matter was debated in another place, it was lost by so small a margin of four votes only. It is particularly disappointing that that important Division should have taken place at the fag end of a dying Parliament, on a matter of some considerable importance to a lot of people.
  It is also very difficult for us on this side to avoid the conclusion that, at any rate in another place, the Government deliberately misled my right honourable friend and his colleagues over the Amendment that they were going to put down in your Lordships' House. Clearly, they believed that it would meet the point and include a date for the abolition of the earnings rule, but as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has made quite clear, although the Amendment admits in principle that the earnings rule should be phased out, it does not put a date on it. May I tell the noble Lord that the significance of the date of 1984 was that the earnings rule would be phased out within the lifetime of a Parliament, which is generally reckoned to be about five years. That is why that date was put in, and there was no other significance at all.
  As I said, we find this a disappointing matter. However, I should like to reiterate that when we form the next Government this is a matter to which we shall return. I also reiterate the pledge of my right honourable friend that we shall phase out the rule within the lifetime of the Parliament.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.0 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The need for the Bill arises because most of the courts in Scotland, including the Court of Session, the High Court of Justiciary and the Sheriff Courts are seriously crippled by a strike involving many of their staff. This strike is part of a national campaign of industrial action being taken by two Civil Service Unions: the Civil and Public Services Association, the CPSA, and the Society of Civil and Public Servants, the SCPS, in furtherance of a pay dispute with the Government. These unions have specially selected the Scottish courts for a total withdrawal of labour, and in the event some 84 per cent. of the staff of the Supreme Courts and some 83 per cent. of the staff of the Sheriff Courts are on strike.
Negotiations on civil service pay are carried out at national level. The Government have given assurances that the pay research settlements negotiated with the unions—and I should say that there are seven other unions not on strike—will be implemented, that the settlement will be staged, though the staging will be subject to negotiation, and that any dispute on the amount of pay research based settlements will be arbitrable under the terms of the Civil Service Arbitration Agreement, though the settlements will be subject to staging. Negotiations on pay, with a view to a settlement before 1st April, are proceeding.
We regard this strike as quite unjustified, beginning, as it did, six weeks before the settlement date and when negotiations were going on, as indeed they still are. The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Employment met senior representatives of both unions involved no later than last week, on Tuesday, 13th March, and pointed out to them the problems the strike was causing and tried to persuade them to call if off. This they were not prepared to do, and the strike continues. I am sure we all regard the courts, and open access to them, as a fundamental part of our democracy, and it is intolerable that, for most of Scotland, the courts—and that includes the Supreme

1307
Courts—are virtually at a standstill and have been so for the last four weeks. At a debate on the position in the Scottish courts in another place on Tuesday, 13th March, there was agreement all round that the situation was deplorable and that legislation was required to ameliorate the position as much as possible.
Not all the courts have stopped entirely and the judiciary, in some cases with the help of staff who are not on strike, have been doing what they can to keep the courts in operation, and we are very grateful to the judges and staff concerned for their efforts and determination to keep the administration of justice in being. About 12 of the smaller Sheriff Courts are functioning normally. These are, in the main, single Sheriff Courts with a small administrative staff where sufficient staff have decided to remain on duty. In other courts, certain classes of business are being undertaken, again because sufficient staff is available to enable this business to be dealt with. All courts are dealing with very urgent matters—for example, interim interdicts and committals of persons charged with serious offences. In no case has a person been denied the opportunity to apply for bail. The High Court still sits to deal with bail appeals. But let there be no mistake. The courts, particularly the major and busier courts, are seriously crippled, and even with the determination of the judges to take on what is possible, nothing like the general run of work can be carried on where the majority of staff are absent. And that, unfortunately, is the position.
My right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have been keeping a close watch on the situation and the problems that have arisen. They have been much helped in their task by points raised by the Lord President of the Court of Session, by honourable Members in another place and many others. As a result, certain needs have been identified and are incorporated in the Bill now before your Lordships' House. Our aim has been to keep the legislation as short and simple as possible, an aim which I am sure will have the approval of all noble Lords.
In deciding what legislation is required, we have tried to maintain the balance
1308
between the needs of the community in the field of law and order and the rights of the individual. I believe the Bill achieves the necessary balance. The Bill is of a temporary nature, as is to be expected of emergency legislation, and I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that it will not cure every problem created by the strike. Most strikes cause inconvenience and even hardship to innocent parties, and this strike is no exception. I would emphasise, too, that the Bill in itself will not return the courts to normality. Only a return to work by all the staff can achieve that.
The aim of the Bill is, first, to extend certain legal time limits; secondly, to deal with the question of the 110-day rule; thirdly, to enable crimes to continue to be prosecuted; fourthly, to allow the courts to extend the range of business they can undertake, where that is possible; and, fifthly, to cope with a problem affecting the Keeper of the Registers in Scotland.
With your Lordships' permission, I shall briefly describe the main provisions of the Bill. Clause I establishes the temporary nature of the legislation. It provides that the Bill will cease to be in force one month after the date prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State. It also provides that the period from 23rd February, when the strike began, to the date to be prescribed by the Secretary of State will be the "emergency period" for the purpose of the Bill. In other words, the Bill will be retrospective to 23rd February. If I may amplify that a little, the strike started on 23rd February 1979. Under the Bill, the emergency period starts on and includes 23rd February 1979, and comprises and includes two separate periods of time. They are, in chronological order, first, the period of the strike itself; and, secondly, the period that elapses between the end of the strike and the date prescribed under Clause 1(1). There is also a third period: a period of one calendar month starting on the prescribed date.
I cannot predict how long the strike will last. The degree of dislocation in the business of the courts will depend in large measure upon the duration of the strike. The Secretary of State will make his judgment when the strike ends as to how long or how short the interval needs

1309
to be between the ending of the strike and the start of the final month which follows the emergency period. It is hoped that that interval between the end of the strike and the prescribed date will be short; but I shall not attempt any guess as to how long it might be, as the factors which will determine its length are not known, or knowable, at this stage.
The Act has to have effect for the whole of the emergency period because it is, of course, quite possible that, in some cases, the time limits to which Clause 2 relate have already arrived. That is to say, the last date for raising an action or taking some essential step in relation to some legal proceedings may have been 23rd February 1979, or any date since then. Clause 1(2) therefore makes the Bill retrospective. That is essential, though regrettable. I should add that the same circumstances which make retrospection necessary would make it necessary to proceed with this Bill even if the strike were to end today. This is because only by primary legislation can certain rights lost as a result of the operation of a time bar be restored. The full resumption of work would not restore rights already lost.
Clause 2 provides that, where something requires to be done in relation to any legal proceedings and is governed by a time limit or period of time, it may be done at any time up to one month after the expiry of the emergency period. This provision will ensure that no person will, because of the strike, lose any rights to do anything in legal proceedings. Perhaps the most important right preserved by this clause is the right to raise an action of damages for personal injuries within the three-year period. This will enable such an action to be raised within one month of the end of the emergency where the three-year period expired during the emergency. To put it another way, Clause 2 has the effect that any time bar which would, in the ordinary operation of the law, affect legal proceedings, shall not have its normal effect. The clause therefore suspends the operation of any such time bar or limit until the end of the month which follows the emergency period. Thus, for example, if an action for personal injuries were due to be raised by, say. 10th March 1979 at the latest, the pursuer would be able to raise his action at any time before the end of
1310
the month referred to in Clause 1. So, in the case of time limits occurring while the strike itself lasts, the additional time will in no case be less than one month plus the time before the prescribed date arrives. This clause will therefore reassure the many people who have expressed concern that rights might be lost because they could not be exercised during the strike.
The extension of time limits will also apply to criminal proceedings and will ensure that where the time within which criminal proceedings must be taken expires during the emergency period, the proceedings may be raised within one month from the end of the emergency period. Certain other procedural periods of time laid down in rules of court will be suitably extended, as will the right to appeal against the decision of a licensing board.
I turn now to Clause 3 and the 110-day rule. As I have already mentioned we have tried in the Bill to maintain the balance between the public interest and the rights of the individual, and in this clause the public interest predominates. The purpose of the clause is to suspend the running of the 110-day period within which the trial of an accused person who has been fully committed, must be concluded. The clause provides that in computing the 110-day period no account shall be taken of any period during which an accused person is in prison and which occurs during the emergency period. No person who is judged to be a danger to the public (and unfortunately there are some) is being released. I can assure your Lordships that no person is being unnecessarily detained in custody—if possible they are released, but all will be brought to trial if the evidence warrants trial. I would also assure your Lordships that we shall continue to watch cases involving the extension of the 110 days with very great care.
Clause 4 makes it clear that criminal proceedings may be started and continued during the emergency by allowing the accused and witnesses to be cited to a criminal diet even though any ordinary sitting of the court has been suspended because of the strike. This will also enable court business to resume with the minimum of delay as soon as the courts return to normal. The clause also ensures that criminal cases do not fall because they

1311
are not called in court on the date which has been fixed for them during the emergency period. Any new date will be initimated to the accused person not less than seven days before it arrives.
The purpose of Clause 5 is to enable work to be carried on in the courts during the emergency period. Subsection (1) empowers a judge, including a sheriff, first to do anything during the emergency period in relation to legal proceedings which could be done by the clerk of court, sheriff clerk or other officer of court; and secondly, in any particular case, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to authorise any person to do anything in relation to that case which could be done by the clerk of court, the sheriff clerk or other officer of court.
There was considerable discussion of this clause in another place and I should perhaps explain a little more fully what this subsection is intended to do. The provision removes any doubt there might otherwise be about the validity of judges and sheriffs doing things, or authorising some other person to do things, which customarily or by statute are normally done by the clerk of court or sheriff clerk. For example, in a number of statutes duties are placed upon the clerk of court or sheriff clerk and judges and sheriffs are now, in relation to the business they are undertaking, carrying out duties which might be construed as being proper to clerks; the clause both empowers and validates such action. It also empowers a judge, in any particular case, to authorise a person to do such work but only with the consent of the Secretary of State. The necessity for the judge to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State was inserted by amendment in another place to make it clear that it was the Secretary of State who should decide when such a step should be taken.
If the strike continues for a substantial period then, though Ministers would much regret the necessity to do so, we cannot rule out the possibility that offers of outside help that have already been made may have to be accepted. This will be very necessary if the public interest requires that the range of business being carried out by the courts must be extended. The decision as to whether and in what circumstances the Secretary of State
1312
would be prepared to give his consent would be a question of policy for him to decide. There is no question of the judges, individually or collectively, being required to take a decision of this kind.
Clause 5(2) empowers a court to accept as valid a copy of an original document which has been lodged in court, and provides that any such copy shall be taken to be a true copy unless the contrary is proved. Many documents in cases are unobtainable because of the strike but copies of these will usually be held by the parties. If the parties are agreeable to using these copies so that progress in the case can be made, then this subsection allows a court to accept a copy in lieu of the original document. The purpose of subsection (3) is to ensure that if in the keeping of any record of the proceedings mistakes are made by a judge or other person doing anything by virtue of subsection (1), such mistakes do not invalidate those proceedings. Turning to Clause 6, the purpose of this clause is to permit the registration of deeds by the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland where this is being effectively prevented because deeds are not able to be stamped owing to the industrial action being taken in the stamp office in Edinburgh.
My Lords, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we have aimed to keep this Bill short and simple. It has a very limited purpose and it will not bring the courts back to full activity. I much regret, as do my ministerial colleagues, the necessity to introduce it at all, but it will help to deal with certain problems and, we sincerely hope, enable the courts to extend the limited range of business at present being undertaken. I commend the Bill to your Lordships, and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—.[Lord McCluskey.]
5.17 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for having explained this emergency Bill to us, and I say at the outset that we on these Benches welcome the action which the Bill represents. Indeed, we believe that the Bill is much overdue and that it is now urgently needed. Therefore we will help towards it being ready for Royal Assent this evening after having gone

1313
through all its remaining stages in this House. We certainly intend to co-operate.
It is an emergency measure and we think that it should have been introduced at an earlier stage in this deplorable strike. The Government are open to severe criticism for not having taken action until this late hour. We deplore the reasons which have made the Bill necessary because it appears that the strike has been selectively arranged by two Civil Service unions. It has almost paralysed the Scottish courts and it has been aimed with that in view. It is deliberate and, I suggest, inexcusable because it is causing injury and distress and loss in a haphazard way to individuals who happen to have cases waiting to be dealt with, or already being dealt with in the courts. To that extent the rights of those individuals are being damaged and eroded because cases are not being heard. Where time limits apply—and the noble and learned Lord referred to some of them—valuable time has been lost.
The Bill is especially needed because of the 110 day rule in Scotland. Briefly, that means that there is a period of 110 days in which a charge must be pressed or the accused person can go free. It is therefore a matter of public concern that persons charged with very serious crimes should not escape prosecution. Also, in the other direction, there is concern that because the system of justice has been bought almost to a halt, people should not be detained unnecessarily long while there is much delay in proceedings.
The Bill is a short one and it is rough and ready in its application. It falls inprecisely and unevenly in its treatment of certain persons variously affected by the standstill in a court or by inability to proceed in a court ab initio. It is imperfect and open to criticism. Those points have had attention drawn to them already, but it is acceptable because it is an emergency measure and the Bill is temporary in its nature. For we must recognise that if we pass this Bill, as I hope we shall, today, we are suspending the Scottish equivalent of habeas corpus.
The noble and learned Lord has himself said what I believe to be the situation, that it is impossible to tell how long this strike will continue. The other place took this Bill on Tuesday and also allowed
1314
all its stages to be passed in one day. They spent seven hours on the Bill; they examined it as closely as they could in that time and amendments were made to the Bill. One effect of that examination and of the amendments was to bring out clearly the Secretary of State's responsibilities at all stages, and I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord underlining that point in his opening speech. It is difficult to place decisions on judges where any connection with the politics of a strike is involved. But it has been brought out in the debates in another place that the Secretary of State will retain his responsibility for all policy decisions.
My honourable friends in the Commons for Scottish constituencies examined the Bill as thoroughly as they could at short notice, and I suggest that they are to be congratulated on bringing out the points which needed to be discussed. I do not intend to go through those points again today, and I would suggest to your Lordships that we do not attempt further amendment today. Of course, if there is some point, perhaps a major defect in the Bill or some necessary addition, which has come to notice in the last 36 hours —because it is only 36 hours since the Bill was in the other Chamber—then we should discuss it and, if necessary, a manuscript Amendment could be made. When the Second Reading is concluded the Government can tell us the latest position on this. But I repeat that unless something has cropped up which needs to be done in the last few hours, we should not attempt to amend the Bill.
In agreeing with the noble and learned Lord that the Bill should be passed through all its stages quickly today and be ready for Royal Assent this evening, I must make clear my judgment and that of my honourable and noble friends that the Government should have acted much sooner. I do not criticise the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, personally; he is not involved in this because it is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. It must be said that the Secretary of State has been dilatory in facing up to a decision that clearly had to be taken, and which he has now taken almost two months to the day since this strike began. In Scotland the Secretary of State is the Minister responsible for

1315
most matters relating to the judiciary and to the courts, having many of the functions which in England and Wales belong to the Lord Chancellor. Parliament has had very little time to examine and pronounce upon the Bill, which must be passed without delay. We shall watch very carefully the effects of the Bill in Scotland during the next few days and weeks, and will bring to the attention of Ministers, and if necessary your Lordships, any matters that arise about its application.
5.25 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I rather expected to hear in the course of the debate on this Bill some remarks about the conduct of the civil servants concerned. I thought it was appropriate for me to intervene for a few moments to put another point of view on a situation which we all deeply regret. My noble and learned friend described the conduct of the civil servants concerned as unjustified. The noble Lord who has just spoken said it is a deplorable strike. Condemnation is freely thrown around when some people go on strike, but condemnation is sometimes surprisingly muted when other people go out on strike, the mineworkers, for instance.
In another place yesterday this Bill was described by one honourable member as a blacklegging Bill. One of the associations concerned in the dispute has a strike sheet in lurid form which they send round to all their members, including, of course, those on strike, and the headline in the latest issue to reach me says "Scabs Charter for Scots Judges". These are emotive words in trade union disputes. Words of this kind are really the very stuff of strike campaigns. I dislike them. I do not like this kind of stimulation of militant emotion on matters which should be capable of more rational treatment. Whether they are terms used by the striking unions or terms of condemnation used in your Lordships' House they are more calculated to inflame opinion than they are to advance the merits or justice of the matter. There are two organisations involved in this dispute, and I must say that after 40 years of the closest contact in and with the Civil Service I am astonished that what has happened has happened. I could never have
1316
believed that this situation would be reached in the Civil Service. I think we might ask ourselves why it has come about.
This Bill is clearly necessary at this moment. It was probably desirable at an earlier stage; I do not dispute that. It is an emergency Bill to deal with an emergency, and I give it my full approval. I see no escape from it. There are occasions in the course of industrial disputes when authorities and management may hesitate to take action to offset some of the consequences of the strike, but where the liberty of the subject is involved, where the administration of justice is concerned with the rights of the individual citizen to fair treatment at the hands of the law, then I think the Government are fully justified in safeguarding the rights and liberties of the subject and are fully entitled to do what they can, even to the extent of asking for a temporary change in the law, to see that people are not held for unduly long periods or suffer injustice.
While this Bill is regrettably necessary, I am not, however, for blaming everything on the staff. We maintain that the right to withdraw one's labour is a condition of being free men and women. How often have we heard the enunciation of that principle. Yet, when workers exercise that right they are frequently accused of being irresponsible or told that the withdrawal of labour is deplorable or unjustified. Granted that public opinion is entitled to give a verdict on any dispute that is a matter of public concern; but it is always difficult to fix responsibility. The words "justice", "justification" and "responsibility" are key words in all activities of this kind. Very often they are construed to mean what the users of those words want them to mean.
Where does responsibility lie in the present case? Does it lie with those who are on strike or with those who have created the conditions in which the strike has taken place? How do we apportion responsibility in these circumstances? Alternatively, is it all one-sided? Do we blame the Government, or do we condemn the civil servants? In condemning the civil servants one must bear in mind that one of the two organisations involved in the dispute—the Society of Civil and Public Servants—represents the executive classes and middle ranges of management

1317
in the Civil Service. They are perhaps the most responsible body of civil servants that one could find. The other organisation is the CPSA which represents the great mass of clerical officers, clerical assistances, typists and grades of that kind.
How come that so many civil servants previously of peaceful conduct, who have jettisoned the strike weapon as part of the equipment of negotiation and of industrial relations in the public service, are now in the mood which leads them to withdraw their labour in some key sectors of public administration? As my noble and learned friend has said, this situation has brought about the disruption of the Scottish Courts, and to overcome those difficulties we must consider the Bill.
My noble and learned friend introduced the Bill in temperate terms and I have no criticism, in general, of what he said. But, there is one point as regards this matter which I think I should correct. The Secretary of State for Scotland when introducing the Bill in another place on 20th March at column 1317 of the Official Report, said:
"As I said during the debate last Tuesday, strikes that start six weeks before the settlement date and where there is a process of negotiations going on cannot be justified".
Those are the exact words that my noble and learned friend used this afternoon. I must correct them both. The strike did not take place six weeks before the settlement date; it began six weeks before the operative date of a new settlement. There is a big distinction between the two. The operative date of a new agreement is 1st April 1979. Negotiations had not really begun within three weeks of the operative date of a new agreement.
In the United States when contracts come to an end it is customary for the unions and management to begin negotiations on a new contract well in advance of the expiry of the current one. Because of the nature of the information which the Civil Service Pay Research Unit has been accumulating over recent months, it was undesirable that negotiations should begin too long before the operative date, in order that the latest information and its careful examination could be undertaken before the negotiations actually began. However, I must stress the fact that 1st April is not the settlement date, but
1318
the operative date. Indeed, the Government themselves have decided that negotiations shall begin before the date which the Secretary of State said was the settlement date. One can never be sure in conducting negotiations of this kind whether, if one overruns the operative date, retrospection will be effectively safeguarded. Is it dated back? Those are the troubles which can occur if negotiations are too prolonged after the operative date has passed.
There is nothing in any agreement on Civil Service pay within my knowledge which says that negotiations shall not begin until the operative date of the next stage in the review of salaries. As it is, we are told that the negotiations have begun already. This strike would not have taken place if Her Majesty's Government, a few weeks ago, had been firm about their intentions on the use of, and the negotiations upon, the report of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit. What the Staff Side of the Civil Service Whitley Council were asking for was a restoration of negotiations on the fair comparability principle.
I was chairman of the Civil Service Staff Side in 1955 when, arising from the Priestley Commission's report, we introduced the principle of fair comparability. The Civil Service Pay Research Unit was set up to collect, distil and apply to the Civil Service scene information regarding comparable rates of pay outside the public sector. The operation of that principle was suspended by the present Government in a situation which I am not criticising. However, it was suspended and the Civil Service Pay Research Unit was disbanded or suspended and it was only over a year ago that the Government decided to resuscitate the Civil Service Pay Research Unit under an independent chairman—my noble friend Lord Shepherd—and to bring the result of the renewed consideration of fair comparability into the discussions this year. Here we are: that is the point that we have reached. The Civil Service has been looking, as other sections of the public service have been looking, for fair comparability.
We have passed out of the Welfare State: we are now in the comparability State. We are all being related to somebody else. This is a vast and complex

1319
field of relativities and comparabilities which is a veritable minefield for any Government that try to find a rational way through this jungle. The Comparability Commission which is being appointed is to deal with the claims of the local authority workers. For the first time it has been brought formally into a fair comparability review. The Civil Service already has its review. The teachers come next: a fair comparability exercise has been undertaken by both sides of the Burnham machinery.
What do the Government do? Apparently they offer them 8 per cent., or a reference perhaps to the Comparability Commission. Where are we all going? The nurses have not had their claim settled; no one has been settled in the public sector, except those who came first to establish their claim to the application of the principle of comparability: the defence forces, the police and the firemen. The firemen had to strike for it and the police had to threaten to strike for it. I do not know what the defence forces threatened to do, except leave.
Now we have the Civil Service, the nurses and the health employees. This is becoming one of the major issues of industrial peace in this country. The public sector is now so large and so important and is involved in such vital operations in the apparatus of the State and of the welfare of people, that if we cannot reach a settlement in this area, we are in for a very rough time indeed. I believe that in this situation could lie the seeds of administrative anarchy.
The restiveness of the Civil Service astonishes me. I confess that, like the Prime Minister, I failed to realise the full significance of what was welling up in the public sector at the turn of the year, which we have seen in some forms which are not only deplorable but even detestable. Pay in the public sector has fallen behind and we have had this trail of trouble and ill-will, and what is more, the revolt of the rank and file against their leaders. I stressed before, that in many instances the leaders have been taken charge of by the rank and file.
All our experiences over the past two months raise wide issues of industrial relations, principles of fixing public sector pay, social contentment, administrative
1320
efficiency and many other considerations which go pretty wide. Therefore, this dangerously poised position between selective strike action and more widespread disruption must be dispelled very quickly. It can be dispelled next week if the Government continue the negotiations, which have scarcely begun. No money has been mentioned; nothing has been put on the table. If preparatory postures are negotiations, then perhaps we have had them or are having them. But so far there have been no negotiations. They must begin next week.
I hope that next week the Government will be able to assure the staff side of the Whitley Council that they will hold firmly to a reasonable application of the principle of fair comparability, realising our present difficulties. There is surely a reasonable bargain to be struck, having regard to all the circumstances. Indeed, I doubt whether we need look at this problem in terms of the staff side of the Whitley Council being unreasonable and bloody-minded; I do not think they will be.
However, the crux of the matter, affecting this Bill, will come upon us next week. I sincerely hope that the Government will have the will to resolve this dispute and get everyone in the Civil Service back to work, and so take the heat out of the situation. It is a very grave matter indeed. There are other organisations which so far have not participated in this industrial acton, but which are leading a very troubled life indeed at present. I am deeply concerned that unless we are very careful the Civil Service National Whitley Council will be destroyed as a result of some unions fighting for it and other unions not fighting for it. The unions who have fought for it will say to the others, "You will not tell us what we shall agree to. We have had our people out on strike for two months. We have maintained them while they are on strike. Careers have been ruined. People have been suspended. Much money has been spent maintaining these people". They will say to the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and the Inland Revenue Staff Federation—of which I used to be General Secretary and at which my noble friend Lord Plant was my successor—"Who are you to tell us?" Those two organisations will be in a position where the militancy of the two bigger unions will prejudice the harmony

1321
of negotiations on the staff side. Surely we shall not have disruption in the Civil Service and the wrecking of the Whitley Council machinery as well?—because if we do, the end of this day will be a very sad one for those who have worked for 50 years to uphold the principle of reasonable, rational negotiation between the official and the staff sides in the public sector, who have a record of productive and constructive negotiation and consultation which is the envy of the world. Unless we are very careful, we are within 50 hours of destroying it.
5.47 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, your Lordships will surely be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for touching upon those aspects of this dispute to which the Bill relates which have perhaps not been sufficiently regarded until now either in the other place or at large in the country. I only regret that I have not the expertise, if it were necessary, to follow the noble Lord further into these aspects. Understandably enough, there is widespread and profound concern throughout Scotland over the circumstances which have given rise to the need for this Bill. That concern derives not least of course from the circumstance that in Scotland we are traditionally proud of our legal system and our courts of justice.
Most of the questions which occurred to me as arising out of the actual provisions of the Bill were sufficiently answered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in his presentation of the Bill and, as always, I am sure that your Lordships were grateful for its clarity and its qualities.
There are only two matters on which I wish to touch before I sit down. First, I wonder whether the responsible Ministers have been sufficiently alert to their responsibilities in this area. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, agreed with him—I cannot understand why the Government have been so slow to bring this measure forward. Therefore, I wonder whether Ministers were sufficiently alert to their responsibilities; because, of course, they are very clear, particularly in the Sheriff Court but equally perhaps in the Court of Session.
1322
They have clear responsibilities for the efficient administration and organisation of the courts. In view of what happened a few years ago, I should have thought that they might have been more alert to the situation because, of course, there was then a strike among the civil servants. It is perhaps significant and merits reflection that at that time the courts in Scotland were hardly affected at all. It was a very short strike—a token strike —and I think lasted just one day. However, even then it was unthinkable that the staff, particularly of the Court of Session, would ever have gone on strike.
What has happened to make 80 per cent. of these loyal public servants—when I knew them, very conservative public servants—change their attitude and come out on strike, so that the machinery of justice, of which we have been so proud, comes, practically speaking, to a standstill? I wonder, as I say, whether the responsible Ministers have been sufficiently alert to the needs of the situation. Perhaps it should be explained why, since the courts are of course concerned with the fundamental rights of the citizen, it was thought unnecessary to bring the Bill forward until now.
The only other point I wish to make is that I wonder what thought the responsible Ministers have been giving to the appalling chaos and confusion which I imagine will have to be dealt with if this strike goes on for much longer. Have the Government made their contingency plans? I do not ask them necessarily to tell us what they are, though we should no doubt be grateful if they felt able to do so. But I wonder whether they have them, because it will indeed be a big administrative problem to clear up. I know that many of the loyal sheriff clerks and clerks in the Court of Session are greatly perturbed as to how it may be possible to deal with this when the strike is over. The longer the strike lasts the worse the chaos and confusion will be, and we must keep in mind that this chaos and confusion, relates among other things to some of our fundamental human rights as citizens.
5.52 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, when I passed through Edinburgh on Tuesday on my way to the airfield through the snow, my railway line having been blocked by a collapsed tunnel, I saw

1323
strikers' pickets at the rear entrance to the Sick Children's Hospital. I had such a surge of emotion that I said to myself that if the opportunity presented itself I should take part in this debate. So it is with that sense of immense regret and the deepest dismay that one acknowledges that a situation calling for legislation of the nature of this Bill has arisen in my native Scotland, of all places.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his sympathetic, knowledgeable, and wide-ranging speech said, "How has it come about? Where are we all going to?" I share his dismay that it has happened at all. But to me it is only symptomatic of the gradual decline of our national moral fibre. I have viewed the steady deterioration in respect for law and order over the last few years in this country with such despondency that I feel we are already on the slippery slope that leads to civil commotion, disorder and possible violence.
We have now had a good look at the unacceptable face of present-day Socialism, and I do not like the look of it, no matter how honeyed are the Socialists' phrases, such as "industrial action" and "withdrawal of labour"—not strike; no, nothing violent—and so on. I therefore welcome this Bill and will delay its progress no longer. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, it should have been initiated some time ago. The fact is that the pursuit of the dictatorship of the proletariat is becoming a threat to the wealth, the peace and the tranquility of the realm, for which those of us who attend Prayers daily pray. I support the Bill.
5.55 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, there are several points to which I ought to reply. First, there is the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and just now by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, to the effect that the legislation should have been introduced earlier. This is emergency legislation. Emergency legislation should not be a first reaction to a situation, however difficult the situation may be; it should be a last resort.
Secondly, the character of this legislation necessarily involves that judges may,
1324
in certain circumstances, do work which under normal circumstances would be done by the persons now on strike. The House will appreciate that judges are reluctant, and have been reluctant, to be hastened into taking over the work of persons on strike, because that might lead the judiciary to be accused by those on strike—and one heard the intemperate language quoted from one newspaper by my noble friend Lord Houghton—of entering on one side of a dispute which has certain political overtones.
Further, and this is not an idle matter, there is also the danger—and this is well recognised by the judges and ourselves—that if they undertake work which the strikers would normally have done, then that work might subsequently be blacked, as it were. A case tainted, as they see it, by work of this kind during the emergency period would then be subsequently blacked. This would create dramatically serious problems in relation to the law of contempt of court.
There is a third reason why we should not have been hurried into this legislation. The matter of course is urgent. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, would support me in saying that a considerable amount of work required to be done to get this legislation into the best possible shape. We do not like doing it, and this House does not like doing it: that is to say, taking legislation and passing it through in one day. Because however hard we may work, and however well we may think about these matters, it is desirable that if possible there should be a period for mature reflection to make a reassessment in the light of the arguments, and therefore we are reluctant to introduce legislation which is not able to be subjected to that kind of mature criticism.
It is important, therefore, that when we introduce it we ourselves behind the scenes in Government, as it were, should have spent as much time as we properly could in making sure that that legislation did not suffer from defects of a kind that could be avoided. I can assure the House that I took part in a number of discussions and that a vast amount of work was done before this legislation was introduced, and I believe that this has contributed to what some noble Lords have described as a delay. I hope that those who have listened to this debate, or will read of it,

1325
will not accept the criticism that the Government unduly delayed. In my judgment the Government did what was proper, and introduced the legislation at the proper time in the light of the circumstances I have referred to.
In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about amendment, I can inform the House that no remediable defect has come to our attention since this Bill first saw the light of day or indeed since its main provisions were first outlined on Tuesday, 13th March. Accordingly, the Government have no amendment to propose. I should certainly be grateful to the House not only for the support already expressed for the Bill in principle but for the fact that no Amendments are proposed here which would cause the Bill to have to go back to another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, dwelt upon a rather wider question: the question of responsibility for the situation in which we now find ourselves. It was not my intention to go into that in any detail, and I do not propose to do so now. Lord Houghton spelt out in clear terms that those now on strike and taking this action feel they have a grievance, and he made clear what that grievance is said to be. But does he say, and do those on strike say, that everyone who has or feels he has a grievance is entitled to go on strike while negotiations continue, so inflicting permanent and irretrievable damage on members of the public with whom they have no quarrel? If one asks—I think this was foreshadowed by something Lord Campbell said—what is the character of this strike and who suffers, then the character of this strike is that no one who is now striking will suffer any loss because arrangements have been made within the union that those who are out on strike will receive full pay from union funds and contributions from other members of the Civil Service, so they suffer no loss. Who, then, suffers loss? Is it the Government? It is not the Government—the other side of the dispute—who suffer loss. Those who suffer loss are the private citizens and, in a real sense, the whole body politic, which is something entirely different from the Government.
The character of that damage—I can mention only a few cases—is that necessarily, because of the operation in Scotland
1326
of the 110-day rule, some of the people now detained in prison charged with serious crimes (some of whom, looking at the matter in the light of past events, may be declared innocent at their trials) will spend perhaps many extra weeks in prison. That is something we can never give back to them, so this damage is permanent and irretrievable, and that is a direct consequence of this strike action about which we can do nothing.
There are other less serious cases, but to the people involved they are serious cases. For a person whose divorce should have been finalised at the end of February or during March and who had arranged to marry—there may be children who would be affected by the change in status—that cannot now be done. Where there are wills to be confirmed and estates to be distributed, these matters cause real hardship in individual cases. I urge the strikers to recognise that what these people—these professional people —are doing is inflicting permanent and, in some cases, serious damage on people who have no part in this dispute and can do nothing to settle it.
These are important matters and we can understand that people have grievances. After all, the nurses have grievances, and Lord Houghton mentioned the nurses, but they do not go on strike. Sometimes one has to say, "I shall have to live with my grievance and find some other way of putting it right". The vital point is that the negotiations are continuing and all matters involved in the settlement are the subject of negotiation. It is, I repeat, deplorable that this strike, inflicting this type of damage, should continue in these circumstances.
I should reply to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, said in the second point he raised—I have dealt with the first; namely, about the chaos and confusion which will arise, and there will be, as he said (and he has immense experience of these matters) serious administrative problems. I have to say about that at the moment that we cannot yet assess what they will be; as he rightly acknowledged, much will depend on the duration of the strike. Furthermore, it would not be for the Government to lay down hard and fast rules about what is to be done.

1327
The Government require to consult the judges, the sheriffs principal, the sheriff clerks themselves—they will have to deal with the problem as much as anyone in the end—the procurators fiscal, the police and the professional bodies representing lawyers in Scotland. Those discussions will then determine what requires to be done. That is the only answer I can properly give at this stage to that perfectly proper question which the noble and learned Lord asked. I do not think I can sensibly add to what I said in my opening speech and I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, something which the noble and learned Lord said tempts me to quote some lines from Burns:
"Let us pray that come it may,
And come it will for a' that,
That man tae man the world o'er,
Shall brithers be for a' that".
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been dispensed with, pursuant to Resolution, Bill read 3a, and passed.

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1979
6.5 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham)The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham) rose to move, That the draft Order laid before the House on 19th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue in operation for a further period of 12 months the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. The Act will lapse, unless renewed, on 24th March.
Before dealing with the case for renewal, I should like to look first at the contribution made to our deliberations by my noble friend Lord Shackleton in his report on the operation of the Act. All of us who are concerned in any way with this legislation must be very grateful indeed to the noble Lord for the clarity with which he has analysed its workings. He has given us, if I may say so, the definitive work on the Prevention of
1328
Terrorism Act. My noble friend had thorough discussions with those responsible for operating the Act, both in the police service and in the Government Departments concerned. He carried out a large number of visits to police forces throughout the United Kingdom to discuss with those on the ground the important work they did in connection with the Act and to see for himself the procedures as they operated and the conditions of detention.
The result is a detailed review of each of the powers in the Act and its operation. But his lucid report has enlarged not only our understanding of how the legislation works but also our appreciation of its effects on the liberties of the subject. It is here that my noble friend has made a particularly constructive contribution. Instead of indulging in the sterile polemics which all too frequently are the only product of discussions about terrorism, he has made some practical suggestions about how to alleviate some of the Act's adverse effects while preserving powers essential to the prevention of terrorism.
My noble friend's recommendations fall broadly into two categories: first, there are those which bear on the consequences of decisions made under the Act and of the procedures associated with it, and second, there are the powers themselves. In the first category, my noble friend has made recommendations on the provision of financial assistance to those affected by exclusion; on the need for a review of exclusion orders; on the improvement of detention conditions and procedures; and on statistics. In the second category, there are two main recommendations: on the one hand, in relation to the powers of detention at ports and, on the other, in relation to Section 11 of the Act; namely, the offence of withholding information about acts of terrorism. I will deal with each of these recommendations in turn.
My noble friend has recognised that the Act may have far-reaching effects. Exclusion may result in the break up of a family and in the loss, for the excluded person, of his livelihood. Two of my noble friend's recommendations were aimed at alleviating some of this hardship: first that there should be a review of exclusion order cases, and second, that financial assistance should be considered for relatives and friends of

1329
excluded persons for the purpose of making visits.
I accept that after the passage of time there may no longer be good reason to continue to exclude a person. He may have given up his involvement in terrorism and it is right that we should look again at the decision to exclude. My right honourable friend and I have accordingly given this matter careful thought. We have decided that three years is a sufficiently long period for a person who has genuinely given up a former terrorist involvement to demonstrate that he has done so. What we propose, therefore, is that after three years each excluded person will be asked whether he wants to have his exclusion reviewed, and if he does, to provide certain information about his occupation, residence, and so on during the period since his exclusion. We shall also ask the police to assess whether the exclusion of the person continues to be justified. My right honourable friend will then consider the case and decide whether or not to revoke the order.
We shall make an announcement giving full details of the scheme when it begins, and we shall make sure that the people excluded after that time are told about these arrangements at the time of exclusion. If we do not have the excluded person's current address when his case comes up for review, we must rely on him to approach us.
I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a fair and sensible scheme. Your Lordships will already have realised that as more than three years have passed since the first exclusion order was made, the review will begin with a backlog of cases. So it will not be possible straight away to review every case as soon as it is three years old, but we shall make three years our aim, and shall try to clear the backlog as quickly as possible.
Turning to my noble friend's recommendation about financial assistance, I must admit to some doubts. I cannot accept that exclusion necessarily results in hardship for the friends of excluded persons, and I do not think that financial assistance for them can really be contemplated. I recognise, however, that the family of an excluded person can suffer hardship, but I do not think that the provision of financial assistance towards the cost of making visits would do
1330
much to alleviate that hardship. Indeed, there is a danger that by giving such assistance we might encourage members of the family to act as couriers. What may be of more practical value is to offer the family some financial help towards their removal costs to enable them to join the excluded person in his new home. We are looking into this to see whether it is feasible.
My noble friend also looked at ways in which the effects of detention under the Act might be ameliorated, and he made three recommendations with this in mind. He made the valid point that police cells are not normally used, or indeed designed, to house suspects for periods as long as seven days; and my right honourable friend and I accept his recommendation that more thought should be given to matters such as diet, exercise, and comfort.
My noble friend also recommended that there should be greater uniformity of practice in notifying detained people of their rights. He describes in his report how, during his visits to police forces throughout the country, he noticed variations in the way in which people were informed of their rights. As he pointed out, one of the Administrative Directions to the Judges' Rules states that,
"people in custody should not only be informed orally of the rights and facilities available to them, but in addition, notices describing them should be displayed at convenient and conspicuous places at police stations, and, the attention of persons in custody should be drawn to these notices".
I have no reason to believe that these procedures are not followed, but I accept my noble friend's point that the way in which detained people are notified of their rights should, if possible, be the same at each police station. We are considering the best and most convenient way of doing this, and my right honourable friend hopes soon to be able to issue advice on this matter to Chief Officers of Police.
In addition, my noble friend recommended that steps should be taken to ensure that the fullest possible records of interviews with people detained under the Act are kept. As he pointed out, this is important for at least two basic reasons: a full record would help to protect the police against allegations that their questioning was in any way unfair, and it would also reassure the person detained

1331
that if he were to make a complaint, all the information would be available. We have therefore accepted this recommendation as well. My right honourable friend proposes to issue guidance to Chief Officers on the best way of implementing these three recommendations, which we believe will lessen some of the adverse effects of detention under the Act.
My noble friend considered in some detail the powers which the police have at ports to examine and detain travellers. They may detain a person at a port for up to seven days on their own authority, and that period may be further extended on the authority of the Secretary of State. There has been criticism of the fact that a person may be detained by the police for as long as seven days without the reasons for detention being examined by any independent authority, and my noble friend made two recommendations aimed at meeting this concern. He recommended that the total period of detention permissible at a port should not exceed seven days, and that the police at a port should have power to detain on their own authority for only 48 hours, the authority of the Secretary of State being required for a further period of detention of up to five days. My right honourable friend and I have accepted these recommendations, and my right honourable friend has made an order—the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) Amendment Order 1979—implementing them. He has also set in hand arrangements for implementing my noble friend's recommendations about the way in which statistics about the use made of the Act are compiled and presented. My right honourable friend has arranged for the publication of the relevant statistics at quarterly intervals.
I come now to the one recommendation which my noble friend made which my right honourable friend and I find we cannot accept. This is his recommendation that Section 11 of the Act, which makes it an offence to withhold information about acts of terrorism, should be dropped. Noble Lords may remember that this section was introduced in 1976 as a result of an Amendment put down in another place. The Government did not initially believe that it was necessary, but were persuaded by the arguments put forward at that time. We have
1332
therefore taken careful account of these arguments when considering my noble friend's recommendation. One of the things which seems to have influenced him in making this recommendation was the fact that this section has been little used in Great Britain, but this is one of the reasons why, after careful thought, we have decided not to advise the dropping of Section 11. We think that more time is needed to see how effective it really is. We have also sought advice from the police. They believe that Section 11 is useful, and it will not have escaped the attention of noble Lords that a number of people have been charged under this section in connection with the recent bomb attacks. My right honourable friend has accordingly decided that Section 11 should be retained for the time being, but that, if the Act is renewed, the question should be re-examined next year.
I come now to the Act itself, and the question of whether it should be renewed. Before deciding on this, your Lordships will, I know, wish to have the customary report on the use which has been made of the Act. Between 29th November 1974, and 28th February this year, 3,862 people in Great Britain were detained under the Act—2,685 at ports or airports, and 1,177 elsewhere. In this period, my right honourable friend and his predecessor approved extensions of detention beyond 48 hours with respect to 379 persons detained inland, and made 166 exclusion orders. One hundred and twenty-three people were removed under this legislation to Northern Ireland, and 27 to the Republic of Ireland. Six persons were already outside Great Britain when the orders were made. Twenty-six people made representations under the legislation against their exclusion orders. Seven persons had their orders revoked as a result of these representations, and five for other reasons.
Before concluding my report on the use made of the Act, I turn briefly to the question of criminal charges. Up to the end of February 1979, 58 people detained under the Act were charged with offences or conspiracy to commit offences under the Act, and a further 203 were charged with other offences. In addition, eight persons were charged with offences under the Act after being detained under other powers. I should, however, introduce a note of caution here. Some critics have

1333
pointed to the relatively low number of charges as evidence of the fact that the Act is not effective. But this ignores the point that the Act is primarily a preventive measure, and that, where the police have evidence of the commission of a substantive offence, they would normally use other powers available to them to arrest and detain the suspect. It cannot be said too often that the powers contained in this Act are exceptional, and that we should not allow ourselves to be lulled into accepting them as a permanent part of the criminal law. That is why it is entirely right, in my submission, that we should be required every year to think very carefully about whether these powers should be renewed. I certainly hope that in the not too distant future we shall be able to dispense with them, but that time is not yet.
Noble Lords will recall the incidents of last December and this January. Little imagination is needed to realise the terrible devastation which could have been caused, particularly by the bombs planted on Canvey Island and at Greenwich. On those occasions, fortunately, no one was killed or seriously injured; but we cannot rely upon such good fortune to protect us from the activities of that minority which appears to think that the answer to the problems of Northern Ireland lies in the killing and maiming of innocent people. We must make it quite clear that the Government will never give in to blackmail. The most effective way of doing this is to ensure that the police, on whom we rely for protection, are given the powers which they need to detect and apprehend those responsible for these attacks. This is an appropriate point, perhaps, for me to place on record our warmest thanks to the police for the selfless determination and skill with which they combat the threat of terrorism in this country, and also the bravery and proficiency of the bomb disposal officers, members of the Fire Service and all others involved in combatting or dealing with the effects of terrorism.
My Lords, there are some who have criticised this Act on the grounds that it infringes civil liberties. That is a valid point, and it is one which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has always accepted. However, it is his duty, and ours, if I may say so, to seek to achieve a balance between the need to preserve civil
1334
liberties and the need to protect the lives and property of the overwhelming mass of the law-abiding citizens of this country. Indeed, I would remind noble Lords that in preventing terrorism we help to preserve the basic civil liberties themselves, to which my noble friend referred in the concluding paragraph of his report. Those are the rights to stay alive and to go about one's business without fear. I believe that the implementation of my noble friend's recommendations will make a useful contribution towards the protection of civil liberties, and I believe that the renewal of this Act will make an equally useful contribution towards the protection of the public. I would therefore ask noble Lords to support me in the Motion for renewal. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 19th February, be approved.—(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
6.24 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, just before the noble Lord rose to move this Motion the House had been dealing with all the stages of an emergency Bill. I had forgotten that in November 1974 your Lordships, having debated a Green Bill on the Thursday, were here at five past nine on the Friday morning in order to pass on to the Statute Book the original 1974 Act; and this was done amid the revulsion that attended the bombings in the public-houses in Birmingham and similar evil horrors that the Provisional IRA had committed. One thing has not changed from that day to this, and that is that in all quarters of the House, whatever the views of noble Lords may be on other things, we do not doubt that we have to have adequate powers to deal with terrorists who behave like that, and who behave in the way that we have seen them behave since.
It is difficult, of course, when this matter comes up year by year, to say anything very original, but there is one thing that has to be done on each occasion. We will have to surround it with all our usual phrases—and there are some extra things to say this year—but there is one thing that has to be done, and that is that we have to judge, as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, has just said, whether we should extend these powers for a further

1335
year. The reason for that, of course, is that even in 1974 there was no disguising the fact that the powers in the Act as we now have it, and as it was then, encroach very substantially upon important personal liberties; and, so, every time we extend it we have to look to see whether there is a true justification for doing so, either in the existing form or with modifications—and the justification is the one issue, really, that is paramount before this House this evening. It has been explained to us by the noble Lord today, and of course it was explained yesterday in another place by his right honourable friend; and for both those careful expositions we are all very grateful.
The order has survived a searching scrutiny, taking many hours yesterday in another place, much of which was rightly dealing with points arising on individual cases, where honourable and right honourable Members had had constituency problems which they had had to deal with, and where, of course, a number of honourable Members from Northern Ireland also had a good deal of great relevance to say. I am extremely pleased to see my noble friend Lord Brooke-borough in his place to contribute from that quarter here, although the rest of us may have had, perhaps, less daily contact which may inevitably occur and which have to be carefully examined—and I know they are carefully examined—there is the point that the noble Lord has just made, that the other personal liberty is also at stake: the liberty not to be shot dead or blown up by some callous and wholly inhuman terrorist with distorted values, if you can call them values at all.
My Lords, to whatever depths those against whom we struggle may sink—and one would think it would be difficult to sink much lower than they do—the one thing that, as responsible legislators, we must be very careful of is this: We must assume and maintain only the minimum powers that are needed to fight back against them. So, if there are improvements to be made in the machinery that we have devised, then there is no time like the present to examine them and to put them into effect; and I was very pleased to hear what the noble Lord said (which, of course, was an echo of what was said yesterday) about the improve-
1336
ments that are being made—and there in his place is the noble Lord to whom we are all indebted, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whose careful inquiry has led to the identification of these points and the ability to put them right so quickly.
Of course I join, as I am sure the whole House joins, in the thanks to him for taking a good deal of time and trouble, and using, I would think, a good deal of imagination, and certainly a great deal of assiduity and energy, in finding out what it was that was wrong and making practical suggestions about how to put it right. He had to accept as part of his terms of reference the need for this legislation. We do not have to do so in this House; because the day after tomorrow it runs out, as the noble Lord has told us, unless we agree. But, of course, in practice on a matter like this your Lordships can only judge upon the basis of what well-informed people tell us. On this occasion, what they all say is unanimous. The noble Lord's right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in another place said yesterday that these powers are still essential for the task for which they were introduced. He says so; he says that the police say so; and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that the Royal Ulster Constabulary say so. I think the police force in this country say so—but that was last year; and I notice that my honourable friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds who is up to date with the news from the police, yesterday said that the police in both parts of the United Kingdom still say so. I was interested to see—and perhaps it is a little wry comment—that even the Provisional IRA have acknowledged that these powers are indeed frustrating their aims in this country. That, surely, is tribute enough.
Then, my Lords, one might say that perhaps it has been successful, that all is now well and we can relax our guard. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has reminded us of Greenwich and Canvey Island. Without being in any way alarmist, and without knowing whether or not it is at all true, there have been threats in the multiple elections that we have coming up this year—whether the IRA have picked it up from the terrorists in Rhodesia or vice versa, I do not know—

1337
that we shall be subjected to disruptions in that event. On the "tape" outside, there is a suggestion—and again I have no idea of its authenticity—that the disgraceful and lamentable killing of our Ambassador at The Hague may have some connection with the Provisional IRA, even upon the basis that it is now so difficult for them to operate in this country that they have had to attack British targets abroad. That is no comfort to the wretched family of Sir Richard Sykes, but it may show that the provisions that we are discussing are still all too necessary for us to have as part of our internal machinery —if, of course, there is anything whatever in this suggestion.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has recommended the changes to which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, has referred. I am agreeably surprised that, for all the care in his scrutiny, he found so few matters on which to recommend changes. In that event, it must be all the more worthwhile to take advantage of the opportunity to take up all the suggestions that he makes except for the one about Section 11 of the Act. He did not know—and I am sorry that for the moment he has had to leave the Chamber—and he cannot have known, that not only had the Royal Ulster Constabulary used the powers in Section 11, I think, over a period of time; but he certainly could not have known that some of the people arrested as a result of recent bombs and who live in or around Braintree, have been charged under this very section. This has happened since his report was published. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, having now returned to his seat, perhaps I may repeat that since he recommended that Section 11 should have been dispensed with there have been the events which have led to people being charged in Essex under this section. One would think, therefore, that its usefulness for at least another year has been reinforced.
My Lords, I would support the Government in what they have decided to do here, particularly as the whole of this procedure is being kept under review all the time. I would not go so far as to say with its author, the honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury, that this should be a permanent part of our criminal law. I agree entirely that it should be reviewed again and its usefulness
1338
reconsidered. But, for the moment, it would seem that is still serving a useful purpose and I support what the Government say about that. I would also support—and I think that this is all one needs to say about this at the moment—the rapid acceptance of the Bennett recommendations about various events that have come to light in the interrogation procedures. This seems to me to be exactly the right reaction that we should give to a report of this sort. Beyond that, one cannot possibly go in advance of any investigation as to conceivable offences that might have been committed and which have been investigated in that way. I welcome the quick response that the Government have made to these suggestions and I welcome also the inquiry which is being made into the allegations recently put forward by Dr. Irwin.
My Lords, there is only one thing I should like to ask the noble Lord. It arises from paragraphs 146 and 148, towards the end of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. It is really the relationship between the procedures when people are detained under these powers and are interrogated and the similar procedures under the Judges' Rules which would apply when a charge is anticipated under the ordinary criminal law. I can quite see that the Judges' Rules are of no direct relevance when there is not going to be a charge laid, because there is no question of the admissibility of any statement since there would be no court appearance and no judge to rule it inadmissible. I am not entirely sure, as I read this passage in the noble Lord's report, and I am wondering whether he is saying there has been any departure from what would be the Judges' Rules procedure either as to records of interviews or access to solicitors; and, if so, whether this is something which ought to he remedied. I suspect that he is not; and that he is merely saying that, although the Judges' Rules do not strictly apply, they are being complied with and should be complied with.
So far as access to solicitors is concerned—and I have looked up the book, not being a criminal lawyer myself—I note that there is a period of time where a suspect is not allowed access to his solicitor if it would hinder or interfere with the course of the investigation. I suppose that must be only for a certain length of

1339
time. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boston, can confirm that I am right in thinking that these procedures are being followed as if the Judges' Rules apply; and that it is only that the noble Lord is recommending a few particular adaptations to a case where there will be no trouble but merely, perhaps, an exclusion order, if that is approved.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Viscount leaves that point, I think that he ought not to assume that he is right in drawing the conclusion that he has drawn as to what I actually meant.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, that is an interesting comment. Therefore, there may be more point than I thought in the question that I put to the noble Lord, Lord Boston. If it can be cleared up at some time, I think it right that it should be cleared up; because the Judges' Rules were invented for a purpose, and the purpose was a civilised one and one relating to fairness. If there is something that underlies the noble Lord's remarks in these paragraphs, I would hope that it would be explored.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Viscount. I do not want to take part in the debate. Quoting from the introduction to the report, on the subject of police powers and procedure I say:
"The more I searched for certainty of fact and unanimity of opinion as to what powers do or ought to exist, the more elusive these things became".
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the mystery does not become clearer as the noble Lord intervenes. Possibly, the noble Lord, Lord Boston, would like to look into this and let me know. I would suggest that the mere absence of a possible charge and trial ought not to make a fundamental difference to the methods under which suspects are interrogated and otherwise dealt with. This is, indeed, part of the spirit of Lord Shackleton's suggestions. If there is something that could be explored, I shall leave it to the noble Lord and I shall not pursue it this evening. Having said that, I accept that we have
1340
to renew this order for another year and that the noble Lord has made out his case. He has certainly convinced me, and I would be prepared to advise those on this side of the House that until 1980 we must continue to have these powers.
6.40 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, these periodic proceedings for the extension of the Prevention of Terrorism Act inevitably cause heart-searching problems for people of liberal minds. There is the obvious conflict which I do not need to stress between the threat to civil liberties which is posed by this Act and is posed increasingly as it tends to drift through constant renewal into a state of semi-permanence, and the equally obvious threat that is posed to our liberties by the appalling and outrageous acts of the terrorists.
In that situation, it is not very helpful to approach this whole problem in terms of deep-seated political principle; the matter has to be approached in practical terms. Each provision has to be looked at to see to what extent it is effective. In so far as it is effective, I believe that it should be supported; in so far as it proves to be either ineffective or excessive, it should be opposed. The great virtue of the wholly admirable report by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was that it provided such a very clear picture of the actual working of each section of this Act in turn. It did so in such a way as certainly to convince the Liberal Party in both Houses of Parliament that there is a formidable case for supporting the approval of the continuation order which is before your Lordships today.
At the same time, there are obviously matters which arise out of that report and the working of the Act to which consideration will have to be given in the very near future: the whole question, for example, of the power to proscribe certain organisations. I strongly suspect that has proved to be no more than a cosmetic power; I doubt if it has achieved anything of any practical value. It has perhaps served to increase to some extent the morale of the population who are at risk from the terrorists and that of course is in itself a worthwhile object but perhaps one that ought not to be exaggerated.

1341
As to the powers of exclusion, I note with approval that the Minister and his right honourable friend have agreed that there should be periodic reviews of such exclusion orders as have been made. There is inevitably a demand that there should be some form of judicial review or appeal procedure where exclusion orders are being made. Noble Lords will have read with great interest what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about that matter. I believe that he is absolutely right: exclusion orders have to be recognised for what they are, as executive acts. As with deportation orders in certain spheres, any attempt to impose a form of judicial review on top of what is and must be an executive, administrative act is bound to fail.
The third area with which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, dealt was the operation of Section 11. I respectfully support what he had to say, and I differ from the view which the Government have decided to take. This view was expressed by myself and my colleagues when the Act first came into force. It seems to us that there was something unrealistic, particularly in the circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland, in making it a criminal offence for a person to fail to disclose information about his neighbours' activities. We doubt whether that is an effective provision, and we certainly press the noble Lord for information as to its effectiveness when this matter comes next to be considered.
As to the powers of detention, there is no doubt on the figures that they have been to some extent effective and any effectiveness, bearing in mind the appalling consequences that might follow from one of these acts of terrorism, does—and I say it with some reluctance—justify the sweeping powers of detention that are given under this Act. They are sweeping without being novel. We tend to talk as though it is quite impossible under our ordinary law for people to be detained in custody before they are charged for a period of three, four, five or six days. It has frequently happened in numerous cases in the ordinary criminal law. It is not the novel power that it is sometimes said it is.
One sympathises with the agitation which has taken place that people who are detained under Section 12 should
1342
have immediate access to legal representation. One's instincts say that this is obviously desirable; it is obviously fair and it is obviously just. Yet, again, I cannot help thinking that the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on this matter are justified. Not to put too fine a point on it, there is no doubt that there are now a very small number of lawyers who are practising who are prepared to become politically committed alongside their clients, and one is obviously worried as to the dangers that might arise from allowing people who have been detained under Section 12 immediate contact with lawyers who might be prepared to take action out of sympathy for the cause for which those who are detained stand.
The proposal as to Section 13, the ports control, that time limits for detention should be modified, has been accepted by the Government, and we welcome that. Perhaps in a sense it was hardly necessary to refer to the separate sections of the principal Act today because the only choice before us today is whether to renew the Act; there is no choice as to amending any particular provisions within it. On balance, I am in no doubt that we have no alternative but to renew the Act as a whole. I hope that there will not be a similar order brought forward next year but that the Government will instead do what they did in 1976, which was to reintroduce the Act as a substantive Bill so that full and detailed consideration can be given to every part of it. Some of the amendments may then be brought forward which have been postulated in Lord Shackleton's report to which I referred today.
6.49 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to support the Government in the extension of this Act. Before I go into it, I should like to join in the tributes which have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his report. His experience in Northern Ireland goes back nearly 40 years, and nobody in this House has more practical experience and more sympathy with the problems in Northern Ireland than the noble Lord. It gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to him, his report and those who wrote it. It is so clearly written that nobody could misunderstand it.

1343
I should like to discuss this Act in the context of Northern Ireland and especially in the context of the Bennett Report and the now notorious television programme which was used to do "one-upmanship" on the Northern Ireland Office presented by London Weekend Television. With all the fuss that has been caused by the apparent attempt to discredit a doctor, a lot of points have been lost in the smoke. I think that it is necessary to state absolutely clearly, as my noble friend Lord Colville did, that the emergency which existed at the time this House passed the original Act is still in existence today. In Northern Ireland we are still virtually at war with the terrorists. I do not want to detain the House tonight by paying a long tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to the Armed Forces and the UDR, but I cannot let it go because parts of the Bennett Report have in fact appeared to criticise the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I do not believe personally that any other force could have stood for 10 years with such a blameless record as they have.
At this moment not only the security forces and the police but also the ordinary citizens of Northern Ireland have been deprived of civil rights for 10 years. It is their civil rights—and even their right to life—which are being denied to them by the terrorists. It seems to me that, in the public discussion that has been going on, that fact has been forgotten; that it is the rights of the ordinary person in Northern Ireland and to a lesser extent, thank goodness! in this country, which have to be protected. If I draw your Lordships' attention to one or two events which have happened only in the last few days, it is because I feel very strongly about them.
Let us take the case of one man, Sergeant McConkey, who is aged 28; he comes from a place a short distance away from me and I know the family extremely well. He is now lying in hospital with no legs, one arm off and nearly blind. That surely is a deprivation of civil rights. Last week a little girl aged 9 was shot and wounded on her way to school, and only a few days ago some civilians were wounded and two soldiers were murdered in an indiscriminate attack by mortars in Newtown Hamilton.
1344
I feel very strongly that when we discuss these matters with reference to the Bennett Report and to the suggestions, as yet unproved, that the interrogators of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been assaulting prisoners, we should consider the assaults on Sergeant McConkey and on all those soliders, and compare their injuries with the bruises which terrorists may have suffered as a result of interrogation. We must get the context right.
But, having said that we must get the context right and must look after the ordinary citizens and the security forces, of course we have a secondary duty. That is to see that no illegitimate force is used by the authorities on somebody under interrogation. A proper balance really must be kept, however, and in the discussion about the Bennett Report, and indeed almost one could say in the Bennett Report itself, I feel that this balance has not in fact been kept. In our efforts to prevent power being used by the interrogators to assault or in any way affect the civil rights of suspects, we must not make arrangements which will blunt the instrument of interrogation. If the conviction rate goes down, the murder rate goes up—I have seen this in my own country—and you end up with sectarian murder in the place of justice. That is the issue. Sectarian murder at the moment is not a major issue but if we blunt the instrument of interrogation we shall definitely run back into that situation.
Interrogation is not a matter—and people are inclined to forget this—of beating a confession out of someone. With all the experience we have, that is counter-productive. But neither is it a question of a cosy tea-time chat or a well-conducted seminar. Even a child who has pinched a lump of sugar does not find the interview with its mother or father prior to confession a very pleasant thing. Certainly interrogation in a serious crime must create a much greater tension than exists in the questioning of children. It is a question of psychological pressure to elicit information. People are talking about confessions as if they were the only thing that is wanted from these suspects. The fact is that these IRA operators are all well known and they are all known to be involved: what is missing is the evidence to convict. At the present moment, it is just as important to get information about the whole of the

1345
terrorist organisation as it is to get a confession. So I am quite confident that the question of assault can be fairly dealt with, but in doing so we must not blunt the instrument.
There are two recommendations in the Bennett Report which, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others who are directly involved, will in fact blunt that instrument. The first is the recommendation that nothing should be done to cause physical exhaustion to the suspect. To enforce that literally is impossible, because what is the definition of "physical exhaustion"? I do not know whether or not the Government have accepted that recommendation, but to do so would nullify the advantage which this Act gives in allowing seven days' interrogation.
I know that my noble friend Lord Colville does not agree with me, but believe that an even worse recommendation—which has been accepted—is that every 48 hours a suspect can have a comforting visit from a solicitor. My Lords, the solicitors involved in these cases are for the most part experts, politically involved, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, in the aims of the IRA. Can there be anything more comforting than to have every 48 hours—just when the tension is perhaps about to produce the information that is required—a visit from a solicitor who is an expert in these matters? It seems to me ironic that police in this country can still use that seven days' detention without any hindrance while the police in Northern Ireland, where the revolution is still very much alive, are denied that.
Lastly, in the Bennett Report, there is a recommendation to install television in interrogation rooms. Unless we go the whole hog on the installation of television and install it not only in interrogation rooms but also in the cells of the suspects we shall fail to get the advantage which we should get—which is to see to it that false accusations about the police are stopped. It is in the cells after interrogation that the suspects in fact inflict a lot of the damage upon themselves; and then we have these rumours. I think the installation of television should go even as far as the lavatories, because if they find a television set in their cell they will inflict the damage somewhere else. I should like to have an assurance from the Government on that particular situation.
1346
It has been said time and time again that in this particular battle we are fighting for the minds of people. I was interested to see that the Irish Ambassador in Washington drew attention to this matter. His remarks were not very widely reported in the British Press but what he said was that immense damage would be done by the misrepresentation of the Bennett Report in America and that it would increase the flow of funds from America to the IRA. About a week ago I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, the question of the public reputation of this country in America, with regard to Northern Ireland. All the reports that I get are that we stand very low; and, indeed, the other day we saw Senator Kennedy making remarks which I do not think were appropriate. I think that the situation in America is extremely serious. We have very bad publicity there on these issues of H Block and interrogation.
Even before the Bennett Report was published, the attack on our institutions had already begun. The now notorious London Weekend Television programme was shown. It is such a biased programme because it is only when a programme is biased that it sells well. It has sold to something like 160 stations throughout the world. Nothing could be better, if you want to make money out of a television programme, than to make sure that it is sold throughout the world, and you will get it sold in such places only if it is biased against the institution.
I know that the Secretary of State agrees that this programme was a highly articulate, efficient and skilful piece of IRA propaganda. In the first instance, it was calculated to discredit the police, and, in the second, to discredit the Army. In the section of that film which dealt with the Army, there was no mention at any time of the casualties that the Army have suffered—290 killed and some 3,000 wounded. There was no mention at all of any of that. So far as the public is concerned, anybody seeing that film in a country outside this will have no knowledge of the hundreds of hours a week that the Army have to spend in protecting the lives and civil rights of ordinary citizens.
Lastly, the film attacked the courts. How much easier it would have been for that attack to succeed had we in this

1347
House not persuaded the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the courts of Northern Ireland should rest in his able hands. It would have been an ideal opportunity for them if the courts now rested in the Northern Ireland Office, and I feel so glad that the noble and learned Lord saw fit to accept the responsibility.
I do not want to inhibit the media from discussing topics. Indeed, this is a very relevant topic for them to discuss. But the television service is a kind of semi-monopoly, and in those conditions it should observe some balance, particularly when the Constitution of the country is under attack. It was, to me, a most peculiar situation, that a highly talented journalist of known Republican-Marxist views— she has declared it absolutely publicly—should have been entrusted with the task of organising a report which involved the inclusion of a section of recent Ulster history.
Those who did not see the programme should note that the history started in 1968 and went up to 1972—Bloody Sunday—but it went no further. We did not have the La Mon disaster, when the IRA incinerated a whole restaurant full of people. We did not see the killing of two youths the other day, on their way to a dance, who were blown to pieces by the IRA. No, my Lords, we could not have that. First, it would not help to sell the programme; and, secondly, it would justify the powers for which the Government are asking today.
But taking the Bennett Report and this film together, I feel that the Secretary of State—and he is a man I much admire for his handling of these affairs—must have realised in advance that this assault was about to come. In the Northern Ireland Office, they have a very close feel and knowledge about what is going on, what television programme is coming up and what is the content of that programme; and it was, and is, in my view, the Government's duty to put the case for the security forces. This ought to have been done, and done in advance of the attack by this television programme.
I wonder—and I have considerable experience from being in charge of the Department of Information in the Govern-
1348
ment of my noble friend Lord Moyola in 1971—whether there is a case for reviewing the set-up of information, and for having what I would describe as a director of truth, because what we must have is a positive policy of telling the truth; not a policy of denying lies, which is what we are doing. If we always deny lies, we can never catch up, because once the lies are ahead the truth never overcomes the lies. There has been much experience gathered in the last few years about the psychology of anti-terrorist warfare, and I wonder whether there is a case for appointing somebody, such as Dr. Clutter-buck or Professor Wilkinson, to advise the Government on a long-term basis about getting ahead of the game and telling the truth.
I end with a quotation from Milton, who said:
"He who seeks to overcome by force alone hath overcome but half his foe".
Nothing is truer than that, so far as our information service is concerned. I support the Government.
7.6 p.m.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, having listened to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, I feel that I must rise very briefly to say a word in support of what he said about the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and against the propaganda to which that force is now liable to be subjected, in so far as that has a bearing on this order.
It is now a little over nine years since my colleagues and I reported to the then Northern Ireland Government on the police force in Northern Ireland, but I have an abiding memory of a force which was not only individually courageous, but was corporately highly disciplined, forbearing and even-handed in its dealings with the public. I cannot believe that that general impression—that truth, as I saw it then—has altered over the years between, despite the many things that have happened of a terrible nature in Northern Ireland.
I find it perhaps more alarming than intolerable that the high reputation of that splendid force, the RUC, should be tarnished in the public mind by the actions of what must have been a very few officers in that force, and without, no doubt, the knowledge of the great majority of men

1349
and women in the RUC. I can only say that this has a very strong bearing on this order, because it must be of absolutely fundamental importance that nothing should be done to undermine the morale of the RUC, on whom the people of Northern Ireland so greatly depend, and I naturally support the renewal of this order.
7.8 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, may I first say how grateful I am to those noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Motion for this order, albeit with the reservations which we all share. Perhaps I may also join with all those noble Lords who have spoken, in warmly thanking my noble friend Lord Shackleton once again for the tremendous amount of work which he did, indeed, put into drawing up his report. I am sure that we are all immensely grateful to him. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, referred to our Ambassador in the Hague. So far as that situation is concerned, there is nothing that I can add to what my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts said this afternoon, but I am quite sure that we all share in what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, in our wish to have our feelings of sympathy and distress sent to the family.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I certainly join with them in the tribute that has been paid. As the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, indicated, they really are in the front line of these activities and they deserve our strongest praise and commendation for the work that they do. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for what he said about the Motion. Before I come to a rather more detailed point, may I say, so far as his suggestion is concerned, that if your Lordships pass this Motion tonight the Government might consider next year reintroducing the Act as a Bill. I shall certainly see that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is conveyed to my right honourable friend so that we can bear it in mind when we are giving further consideration to these matters.
A further point which has been raised relates to the Judges' Rules and also to
1350
the Bennett Report. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to take two or three minutes to deal, at least in part, with this point. Concern was expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, about the recommendations relating to access to solicitors which were made in the Bennett Report, published last Friday. The question of access is very important. First, may I say that I am able to make it quite clear that the Judges' Rules, the administrative directions to the Police and Section 62 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 all apply to people detained under the prevention of terrorism legislation in exactly the same way as to people who are detained under other powers.
There are two particular points to note about these provisions, and they are these. First, none of them recognises any right for a solicitor to be present when a person in custody is questioned. The right which is recognised is the right to contact or to consult. Secondly, the rights to which I have referred are all subject, in effect, to important provisos. These provisos recognise that there may be a good reason in a particular case for holding a person incommunicado. For example, the police may have arrested one member of a gang and fear that premature disclosure of the arrest may lead to the escape of his associates, the destruction of evidence or attempts to interfere with witnesses. This was a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, alluded in his remarks.
The provisos are not to be applied indiscriminately, but they are essential in particular cases where the kind of circumstances to which I have referred may apply. Clearly the Judges' Rules envisage that the fact of arrest should not operate as a matter of routine to prevent someone obtaining legal advice, if he wishes to do so. Equally, Section 62 envisages that an arrested person shall be able to let a relative or friend or a solicitor know of the fact of his arrest and his whereabouts. As noble Lords know, the general question of access to legal advice is central to the work of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure who are, I understand, commissioning research on these very matters as well as considering the issues of principle involved here. The question of access to solicitors does not stand

1351
alone. It needs to be seen in the wider context of the right of silence, the status of the Judges' Rules, the control of police questioning and so on. Evidence which has been submitted to the Commission from various quarters, including the Home Office, attests to the widely divergent views which are held on these questions. On the substance, therefore, I think that we must leave it to the Commission itself to evaluate the evidence before them and to make what recommendations they judge to be appropriate at the end of the day.
The only other thing that I should like to add in relation to the Bennett Committee to which the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, also referred is that it was set up following the allegations of ill-treatment which were made by Amnesty International about interrogations in Northern Ireland of terrorist suspects. No such allegations have been made about the questioning of suspects in Great Britain. The recommendations of the Bennett Report are directed solely at interrogations of persons suspected of scheduled offences—that is to say, the wide range of serious offences contained in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. As we know, the special provisions of that Act do not apply in Great Britain, so I do not see any immediate need, so far as Great Britain is concerned, to import the extra safeguards which the Bennett Committee have recommended for the different situation which exists in Northern Ireland. The implementation of the Bennett Report in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think that those are the main points. Therefore, I simply commend the order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Public Lending Right Act,

Electricity (Scotland) Act,

1352

Wages Councils Act,

Agricultural Statistics Act,

Capital Gains Tax Act,

House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act,

Criminal Evidence Act,

Vaccine Damage Payments Act, Social Security Act,

Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) (Scotland) Act,

Consolidated Fund Act.

THE PAROLE SYSTEM
7.16 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will institute an independent inquiry into the whole parole system as recommended in the 15th Report of the House of Commons Expenditure Committee, Session 1977–78 (H.C. 662—I). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to begin by reading a few lines from the Fifteenth Report of the House of Commons Expenditure Committee:
"The Sub-Committee feel that the whole subject of parole and the criticisms which have been made of it, and the possible alternative models which might be adopted, are too complicated and specialised for them to embark on in the available time. But we regard the internal inquiry by officials as too limited in response to the criticisms of parole, and the great importance of the system to the smooth working of the penal system. We recommend"—
and their recommendation was endorsed by the full Expenditure Committee—
"that an independent inquiry should be instituted into the whole parole system …".
It is following that recommendation that I venture tonight to bring this matter before your Lordships.
I shall not spend time discussing whether parole in the abstract is a good idea. I am still—as I was when I opened a debate on parole in your Lordships' House in 1975—a strong and unrepentant believer in the parole system, or in the principle of parole. I still believe that it offers a measure of hope and encouragement and moral incentive to prisoners, and in that way offers genuine help to them in improving their conduct. I still believe, moreover, that any adequate parole

1353
system is bound to reduce considerably the number of men and women in prison, which today most of us regard as an urgent objective, even allowing for the great increase in crime in recent years. Many of us are aware—and no doubt the Minister is the most aware of all—of the serious situation, for example, in Walton Prison, Liverpool, where it is perhaps no coincidence that there are 1,600 prisoners in a prison intended for 850. I need not drive in the moral.
Again I shall not spend time asking whether the authorities operating the system are entitled to say that parole has been a success in this country. Certainly I would not say that it had been a failure. I have a vested interest, if you like, in applauding parole, since I was chairman of the Labour Party Committee—which included the present Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who regrets that he is unable to be with us tonight—which came out with the first considered proposals for parole in 1964. I readily acknowledge, therefore, that the parole system has done and is doing much more good than harm, which is far from saying that it is beyond serious criticism.
I cannot fail to refer to the retirement of Sir Louis Petch as chairman of the Parole Board and to the appointment of Lord Harris of Greenwich as his successor, to whom, once again, I wish everything good in his new role. I hope that he will treat it, if not as quite a full-time job, which is how I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, treated it, then, at least very nearly so. Once again I wish everything good to Lord Harris of Greenwich in his new life. I have frequently differed from Sir Louis Petch about matters affecting parole, but I can never forget the unfailing courtesy with which he has always treated me, even at times under considerable provocation, and the gallantry with which he faced his recent severe illness, from which I am glad to think that he has now recovered. I wish Sir Louis a long and happy retirement after many years of dedicated service to the State.
What then of the future? To quote an important document which is shortly to be published by NACRO:
"There is widespread agreement that the present system is in need of revision, although feelings differ as to what form this revision should take".
1354
There are two points there and I think each is put rather mildly in that sensible statement by NACRO. In this situation when you get the need for change generally admitted but a widespread difference of opinion, what usually happens is precisely nothing. The critics are played off against each other, unless one of two things emerges: either a Minister who has time and energy and imagination enough to produce his own solution, accepted ultimately, of course, by the Government, or a committee under a chairman of the type of Lord Beveridge, or Lord Robbins or Lord Wolfenden—to mention the first three noble Lords who come into my mind—produces a report of social dynamism.
I certainly will not rule out the first alternative of the inspired Minister. It might be the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham: it might be, under certain unmentionable circumstances, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, or even the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Why not? I believe that everything in this world happens eventually. Those are all possibilities, but under the present political circumstances we cannot expect the latter alternative to be hastily realised. So the inquiry is the only possible and urgent answer. I may be told that an internal review has been proceeding within the Home Office. The Parliamentary Sub-Committee, as I said earlier, considered that that was quite insufficient, and I personally agree with them strongly. I would concede, however, that if a Green Paper—about which we may or may not hear something from the Minister—is coming out shortly it might be commonsense to wait for its appearance. But I am sure that Green Paper or no Green Paper an independent inquiry as recommended by the Parliamentary Sub-Committee is indispensable.
In the debate which I opened in this House in 1975 I rehearsed most of the leading criticisms of the present parole system. Broadly speaking, all those criticisms apply today, but I will not take the House through most of them now. When we were discussing the Home Office on 31st January the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to what he called the anxiety-making slowness of decision-making.
"believe the time has come"—

1355
said the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, at the end of January—
"after 11 years of operation to dispense with much of the elaborate and time-consuming processing of cases which is carried out in the Home Office parole unit".
That is what Lord Hunt said then, and no doubt he believes it still.
Of course, I could give many examples because so many come my way. I will give one illustration which reached me yesterday and which I have not had time to pass on to the noble Lord, but I presume he may have had a chance to look into it. A noble Lord wrote to me as follows:
"The case arises in connection with my agricultural mechanic"—
and he gives the name—
"who has now been in prison 9½ years for the murder of his wife, of which I am convinced he is innocent"—
that is not really the point, one way or the other.
"But be that as it may, he"—
that is his agricultural mechanic, now serving a life sentence—
"was told last October that he was being reviewed for parole, since when he has heard nothing, despite the fact that I believe he has excellent reports from all the prisons. I cannot believe that it has taken six months for the powers that be to make up their minds and the delay seems to me to be a quite unnecessary refinement of torture. Would it not be possible to be kinder in cases of this sort?"
I appreciate that in a life sentence there are one or two complications which do not arise habitually, but I quote that one example out of many of how the system involves very disquieting delays. However, I shall leave that topic to others this evening, except to say that I am sure there must be much more devolution. I could name at least three ways in which this could be done, but I am ready to accept the great advantage of this issue being tackled afresh by the independent inquiry.
The other and more fundamental weakness of the present system which I shall go into more carefully is the failure to give reasons, in however general a form, for negative decisions. This failure to give reasons has, of course, been criticised many times here and in many other places and with most authority recently, perhaps, by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as the former chairman of the Parole Board in the speech on 31st January, from which I have
1356
quoted. I would myself also insist at this point on the need for a prisoner to be given a chance to be heard before the local review board, but again I must leave that point at the moment.
Mr. Paul Cavadino, of NACRO, a genuine expert, has summed up the defect of the present system as well as anyone—and now I am quoting this representative of NACRO:
"To deny parole to a prisoner who has been waiting anxiously for three or four months for a decision, and to give no formal explanation, is likely to induce cynicism and bitterness about the whole procedure. It is bound to give rise to the suspicion in an inmate's mind that the decision in his case has not been considered carefully hut has been arrived at arbitrarily".
He continues:
"Moreover without being given reasons for his failure, it is difficult for a prisoner to work constructively for his release".
I think we would all agree that the last point cannot be rubbed in too often.
We must remember that it is not only the prisoner but usually, in my experience, the local prison authority who are trying to help the prisoner, who are themselves given no clue as to the reasons for the negative decision. Why are the Parole Board so obdurate in this negative attitude? If I provide an explanation which they would regard as unfair they must realise that they deliberately refrain from giving us material for an adequate judgment. I myself cannot resist the conclusion that a crucial reason why the Board will not give reasons is that in many cases their actual reasons are not such as they would wish to avow publicly.
Take a case that I raised in the 1975 debate, that of Mr.John Poulson, for example. I mention that because I mentioned it before. If the board had had to give reasons for not letting Mr. Poulson have parole the first time round, when he was already a sick man, they would have had to explain why he was refused parole on the first occasion. I am glad to say he was granted it later. They would have found it most difficult to provide a reasonable explanation why it was impossible to grant him parole the first time and why. a little later on, they decided that it was in order. I do not think anybody would say that, somehow or other, he had become a more reliable citizen.
A week or two ago I was visiting a prisoner who has served many years of a

1357
long and determinate sentence and who has been refused parole several times. The prisoner in question is supported in his parole application by the governor, who is frankly bewildered by this refusal. The governor asked me recently: "What has the Parole Board got against Andy?". The man's name is not "Andy", but I will give him that pseudonym. I know his name, but whatever he may or may not be called he is a very well known prisoner. I said I supposed that the Parole Board thought there would be an outcry if he were released, though personally I am sure there would not be. I can only think of one other explanation, which I will come to in a moment.
When I say that fear of public opinion is the only, or at any rate the predominant, reason why certain persons are not released, the authorities become rather hot under the collar as far as their officialese permits them. I know that the noble Lord would always exercise perfect charity towards anybody's criticism, even if he thought it was not quite fair. The Parole Board say that when a prisoner, admittedly not dangerous, is not allowed parole there can be many other factors in addition to public opinion. I am quoting from official communications which are not marked "confidential".
Let us focus on that for a moment. What are these many other factors? In such communications, letters written to me about prisoners every now and then, the authorities, which is usually a Home Office Minister, mention retribution and deterrence. Here we are reaching the heart of the question. Let us forget public opinion for the moment and concentrate on these factors, retribution and deterrence. I place this fairly and squarely before the House, and ultimately the Minister. Are these factors, or are they not, to be taken into account in the parole decision, whether by the Parole Board or the Home Secretary, and whether what is under discussion is, strictly speaking, parole or release on licence? Until we get a straight answer to that question, instead of a string of calculated evasions, which I am bound to say I have received for a good many years, we cannot even pretend that we know what goes on behind the scenes of parole, or how the parole system really works or what are the criteria actually relied on,
1358
whatever may be written down in the reports.
If we read through the report of the Parole Board for 1977, with an appendix discussing at great length what is meant by suitability for parole, we will not find retribution and deterrence treated there as the factors which determine the decision. Reference is made briefly in the report to the need for retaining the confidence of the public; but that is a different question, as I have tried to indicate. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boston, would be the last to accuse me of only taking up the cases of well-known prisoners. Like his predecessors, he is constantly assailed by myself on behalf of prisoners of whom the public has never heard, and I am afraid that is part of his cross. May I say, since I am not always as kind as I might be about Home Office officials, that the answers I have received from Ministers, assisted by their excellent advisers, always indicate that a great deal of trouble has been taken to look into the case and perhaps almost as much trouble to present it in the most favourable light; at any rate, a lot of trouble one way and another has been taken over these answers over the years.
The Parole Board point out in their last report that what they call the overall Parolingrate—that is, the percentage of determinate sentence prisoners eligible who receive parole at some stage—has now risen to 62 per cent. But this figure is not as impressive as it sounds. In a great many cases in my experience the prisoner is not released on parole until very near the end of his sentence. But that does not affect this figure of 62 per cent. If you released everybody a month before the end of his sentence you could call it 100 per cent. So the figure of 62 per cent., has to be looked at with caution. In the great majority of cases, the effect on public opinion would not usually be important. So I am afraid the Parole Board decide in many cases that a certain crime deserves a certain sentence quite irrespective of the progress made by the prisoner. One is forced to that conclusion. In other words, they see themselves as a sort of judicial longstop, a longstop for the judiciary, which is surely not their intended function.
My Lords, let me leave no doubt as to what I am saying. I am making two

1359
points. First, I am saying that to allow public opinion, disgracefully inflamed in some cases by the popular Press, to decide the fate of a particular prisoner is a ludicrous caricature of democracy. One national daily, for example, has recently conducted a very biased poll in regard to the parole or release on licence of a particular prisoner. Surely no one is going to say that the Parole Board or the Home Secretary ought to be influenced by a poll of that kind, even if it were conducted, as this certainly was not, with scrupulous objectivity. Whatever may be said about the need for the general operation of parole to comply with public sentiment, surely it is absolutely contrary to natural justice and is introducing a principle of mob rule or lynch law if a particular prisoner is dealt with according to public opinion stirred up in that particular way and interpreted by these very hostile elements.
Secondly, I am submitting that to allow retribution and deterrence to play their part, and maybe a dominant part, in the decisions is to introduce a crucial element of resentencing. Those conceptions may well be necessary elements in the original sentence, but if the Parole Board relies on them it is doing the work of the judge over again, without legal safeguards and with no protection for the prisoner. If the crime and its circumstances are to be studied— and in the Parole Board appendix it is suggested that attention should be paid to the crime—it should, and this is apparently what the Parole Board has in mind on paper, only be studied as to the light it throws on the future conduct of the prisoner; it should not go towards a verdict as to how long the prisoner ought to stay in prison irrespective of his conduct. Otherwise, the whole process of collecting elaborate dossiers about a prisoner's progress turns into a cynical humbug.
My Lords, before I close I must say a few words about life sentence prisoners. I do not want to make too much of life sentence prisoners because the problems are different here, though very acute in their own way. The problems are admittedly special, if only because there is no such thing as a third of a life sentence. If a train robber is given 30 years—an appallingly long sentence—you can say that after 10 years he comes up for parole; yet if someone who has committed a
1360
grave crime is given a life sentence, you cannot say that after a certain number of years he is entitled to be considered. But even in the life sentence cases the voice of natural justice and human decency must surely be attended to.
Nearly two years ago Lord Gardiner, Lord Carr, Lord Hunt and myself waited on the Home Secretary and urged that any prisoner who had served 10 years at the outside should be at least considered for parole: not given parole but considered for parole; allowed on to the course as you might say, or, taking an analogy from croquet, be allowed to have a shot at the first hoop. That is what we four submitted, without reference to any particular individual, and that would have been at least a beginning which would hold out a little hope.
The Home Secretary turned down that request, and I am afraid his hardness of heart has not stopped there. Recently a life prisoner who has served over 13 years in prison, has not been in category A during the last six years, and has been described by Sir Louis Petch as not dangerous any longer, has been informed that consideration for parole cannot be entertained for at least another three years, with no assurance whatever that it will be entertained at that time. In other words, in the case of this prisoner—and no doubt we shall be told that this person is treated as others are treated—there will be no assurance, after 16 years in prison, of consideration for parole. If we heard of someone being treated like that in the Soviet Union or Chile, we might call it mental torture. There is no need to change the label because it is occurring in our own country, where our responsibility is infinitely greater.
I must return, more coolly, to the general question of what reforms in our parole system are just and practicable bearing in mind the immense complexity of the subject to which the Parliamentary Committee has borne witness. My own point of view is largely summed up by something the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said to the Annual Conference of the National Association of Probation Officers in 1976, and I assume that it is still his point of view. He said:
"I would like to see parole denied only in exceptional cases and to see reasons for such exceptional refusals explained to prisoners.

1361
There is still an element of re-sentencing in the process of assessing people serving determinate sentences which in my view should not be there".
That I believe, sums up the matter.
There is plenty of room for argument as to whether these changes can be effected under a system such as the present one, which is still administrative in principle, or whether we must turn, as Dr. Roger Hood and others have suggested, to a system which was in some sense judicial. I can see advantages in either course. I would not be dogmatic about their respective merits. I would be perfectly happy with either outcome. The great thing is that we should get on with the job, more concerned with the human beings than the system, and yet aware that unless we get the system right we are doing a grave injustice to human beings. For that purpose I am sure that an independent review as recommended by the Parliamentary Sub-Committee is the all-important prerequisite.
7.43 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, no one who has ever had dealings with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, or who has heard him speak, doubts that his prime concern is with human beings and such, I would suggest, should be the concern of all those who attempt to say anything upon this subject. However, I remind him that a parole system which does not command public credibility and public acceptability will not prevail or last. In saying that, I am not talking about the more flagrant and extravagant things that are said in the Press: I am talking about something which relates much more to a ground swell of opinion, very often in a particular locality. I respectfully suggest to the noble Earl that if he disregards that in his reforming zeal, he does so at his peril.
It is some time since I had anything personally to do with the parole system, but, as I read the submissions on this subject which were made from various sources to the Sub-Committee which has made this recommendation, I recognised, that perhaps not surprisingly, after 10 or 11 years, there are now a number of new ideas and radical approaches which have been put forward and which must obviously command attention—especially as they come from sources such as the Probation Officers' Working Party, NACRO and
1362
people of that sort. They are criticisms and suggestions from informed and sensible people, and we must look at them carefully. For myself, they seem to vary so much from the extreme of wanting automatic parole after perhaps a third of the sentence, to the ideas of those who now think that, having tried the experiment, there should be no parole at all, with roughly every station in between, that I am bound to say I feel the internal review that is going on—I know not how far it has got—cannot possibly be the end of the matter.
If there is a Green Paper on the horizon, it will lead, I hope, to further informed public criticism and no doubt to discussion in Parliament. But, we must, if we are contemplating changes, have the widest possible public discussion of what we are doing and, if we are to decide in the end that we shall not have any changes or none but fairly marginal ones, the reasons must be such as to convince those who are now, and who for some time have been, saying that there is a decisive need to bring about a revision of the system.
Therefore, I hope that one way or another the Government are in train of producing a type of reappraisal—I am not necessarily saying that it should be an independent inquiry—which will really give the opportunity to look at all these suggestions and open them to public discussion. Thus, if people—and this is inevitable—have their ideas turned down, they will at least know that their ideas have been treated with justice and with due consideration and that there are good reasons why they have been dismissed. I say this because it seems to me that we are getting to the stage of a very severe dispute about the whole system, at least as to its administration. I should think that nobody would for one moment really expect the parole system to be abolished. We are trying to talk about improvements and changes to it.
The noble Earl has touched upon two issues, one of which is speed of decision. There cannot be many people who would wish to deny that that is a desirable aim. But there are, as always in this area, other sides to the argument which I do not say are in any way conclusive but which we must bear in mind. The inevitable first port of call of those who wish to have speed is that there should be delegation. I do not think that it very much matters

1363
whether there is more delegation to local review committees or to regional, district or area committees or whatever they may be. However, that is what is being suggested, and of course it is right that that should be done.
However, the moment one starts introducing that type of solution, one runs into the sister problem which is equally important and equally liable to cause grievance—namely, lack of consistency between the decisions on what would at least appear to be parallel cases. I shall simply illustrate that in theory, because I am not suggesting that this is necessarily an issue where there is consistency: I just do not know. However, I would guess that in cases relating to offences of possession of drugs, particularly soft drugs, with only the slightest suspicion of pushing them, different boards, different review committees, different officials, and different Ministers are all capable quite honestly, genuinely and sincerely of holding very different views about what should be done. Of course, the result of that can, if one is not careful, be gravely inconsistent decisions on individual cases. I only put forward that example because I myself happen to find this a particularly hard subject and I know that I benefited very greatly from discussing it with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his colleagues on the board. I think all of us learned a good deal about the subject there and perhaps it aided us to be consistent.
In the evidence given by the Probation Officers' Working Party to the Select Committee the view was expressed that there is a marked degree—I should almost think that they meant an alarming degree—of inconsistency among the local review committees at the different establishments. I think that NACRO said the same in its evidence. Therefore, I would need convincing that a new district or regional organisation, with comparatively slender central co-ordinating powers, would have the effect that we all desire. I am very much afraid that there would be a premium on being in the South-Western area, because the Bristol district committee was particularly lenient with non-violent burglars, or those who committed some such offence. The danger here is that, although the moment it came to light one would try very hard to retrieve such a situation, it is not easy to
1364
do so in fact and it is almost impossible to do so in reputation. Therefore inconsistencies are a real difficulty which one must face and seek to resolve.
The noble Earl related a good deal of his speech to reasons. I hope that I know the prison system well enough to understand very fully what it is that this cry for help is about. I think that I also know the prison system sufficiently well to know that the giving of reasons could, in its turn, create almost as large a problem as the refusal to do so. That one must take into account and bear in mind. I do not know what stage the Parole Board's reasons experiment has reached and I certainly do not know what conclusions Ministers will draw from it. What I say now really derives from my own thoughts on this matter, aided by the evidence given to the Select Committee by the chairman and secretary of the Parole Board, which is printed in the book of evidence which the Select Committee published.
First, there is the question of the practicability of producing reasons which would do the job that the noble Earl wishes. I wonder what, in fact, the noble Earl expects by way of reasons. I do not think that he will get a carefully detailed reason, specifically tailored to the facts relating to an individual prisoner, which will be considered at some length by the Board. It is inconceivable that that sort of reason should be able to be given or that it would be right to do so. At the most I would anticipate a fairly stereotyped set of reasons, one or more of which would be produced. I wonder how much that would help.
Of course, the reason for my recollection is that when one is deciding an individual case, one does not necessarily do so for any one reason or, indeed, any two reasons. It is a matter of an overall impression. I also believe that when there is not one Minister but a panel of several people trying to decide, they may all come to the same conclusion but for totally different reasons. Therefore, the job of providing something satisfactory is increasingly hard.
There are also, of course, cases where we cannot tell the true reason. We cannot say to a prisoner, "In every other respect you are wholly fit to go out on parole, but the home circumstances report has just disclosed that your wife is living with a

1365
lover, and we think that if you go out and find this, you will run amok." We cannot give that sort of reason. That is, of course, an extreme case and I hope that it will never happen, but there are plenty of reasons which one simply cannot give to a prisoner without doing him and his family enormous harm, and retarding his progress.
Then it occurred to me to think that on the, I hope, very few occasions when I recommended that the Secretary of State should disagree with the Parole Board I, too, would have had to suggest a reason. Some of the decisions contained at any rate an element of an attempt to take account of what I said at the beginning of my speech—namely, the effect on public opinion as to the credibility and acceptability of parole. I do not know how that can be put into a reason, at least a reason that would ever satisfy a prisoner.
Finally, Sir Louis Petch in his evidence gave some examples of reasons that might be given. He said:
"Let us think of four typical causes for concern. The nature of the offence is such that we will not let him out yet—in other words, the retribution, deterrent purpose;"
about which the noble Earl spoke. Sir Louis continues:
"the mental state of the prisoner is such that it is not safe to let him out; the home circumstances to which he will be returning look so disastrous that we will not let him out, or, his behaviour in prison has been awful and we are not letting him out yet".
The last chairman of the Parole Board said:
"Of those four things only one is something which he can do anything about, and that is his behaviour in prison".
Certainly a good deal of the burden of the request for reasons has been that the prisoner would like to know what he can do about it so that he gets a favourable response next time. However, that illustration surely shows that three out of the four are completely out of his control. It must be realised that this should be taken seriously into account.
It seems to me that the matter goes a little further; and this is perhaps where I look at the matter rather more through a lawyer's eyes, but also with the background of my own experience in the Home Office. When one discusses the nature of the parole system at present,
1366
one must appreciate that it is surely executive. In many ways it is very similar to the release of persons who are detained in special hospitals under the Mental Health Acts. Of course, the considerations are quite different, but it is a similar type of executive action. There is good cause for this. The prisoner has committed an offence for which he has been tried and found guilty, and has been sentenced to a determinate term by a judge. By no means infrequently the judge has sentenced him, at least in part, for the protection of the public.
Again let me take an extreme case, because it illustrates what I wish to say. Let us assume that he was a rapist. He is released on parole and does it again. The newspapers say, "Who released this rapist?" At the moment it is the Minister who has to say, "I did; I overruled what the judge passed by way of sentence. I thought that it was right to do so". What do we say to the victim of the second offence or to the girl's parents? It is no use saying "Well, of course, he would have been out in three months anyway". The girl's parents, her friends and the girl herself would say, "Maybe he would, but he would not have done it to me". If one makes that sort of mistake, it is right that one should take the responsibility. I suppose that in the end if you make a bad enough mistake or do it often enough, you must face the possibility of resigning. That is what an executive decision means and that is where the responsibility lies. Personally, I would not shrink from it when I am attempting to administer this sort of system.
There are other executive decisions and NACRO has drawn a parallel, for instance, with the immigration appeals system. I find a marked distinction between that and the question of parole. It is perfectly true that there is a public interest in preventing people entering this country when they should not, but in those cases there is no question of the protection of the person and of the property of members of the public from attack, violation and injury by the person who has actually been committed to prison for a similar or another offence. I do not think that it follows at all on the analogy that there should be an appeal in this sort of case.

1367
On the subject of appeals, to whom then does one appeal? Incidentally, if there is to be an appeal by a prisoner who has been refused parole, would you have an appeal against the grant of parole by his former victim? I think it bears consideration, although I am sure in the end the answer would be, No. If you are talking about appeals, then reasons of course are the way in. In any executive decision, particularly if it can be said to be quasi-judicial, the moment reasons are given there is a handhold for the courts. I would not, as a lawyer, for a minute wish to deny that that is correct.
If on a parole decision, or on any other decision, an executive act or quasi-judicial act is carried out and reasons are given for it which clearly disclose on their face that quite the wrong considerations were taken into account, or something material was completely left out of account, then I think it is right that the decision should be capable of being overruled by the courts. This is what is likely to happen if you have reasons.
It probably would not happen very often but, if it did happen, let us consider further what would then be the result. Of course, to start with it would take a good deal of time, so that it would not get the person out of prison quickly because the process of judicial review does not usually take less than quite a few weeks, and quite likely months. But what if the refusal to let him out were to be quashed by the High Court? It is sent back then to the Secretary of State. What then? Is he to consider the same old material as he had before him on the previous occasion? If so, is he going to come to a different conclusion from his previous one? Or is he going to start again with new material, in which case it certainly is not going to result in the man being let out any more quickly.
I noticed that as you come towards a more judicial system—and this is certainly on the way to it—Sir Louis told the Select Committee that, in his view, a judicial system could very well result in fewer people being let out on parole than the executive system that we have now. I do not want to go on about this because I know that there is a full consideration going on at the moment. But I am bound to say that I would think that if you
1368
wished to talk about appeals, if you wished to talk about appearances before the board or panel which hears the case, if you wished to talk about reasons which bring in justiciability before the courts, you are moving away from the system that was laid down by the Criminal Justice Act 1967 not just in detail but in substance and in principle. You are moving away from the executive decision of the Minister. You are moving over to a partly, or completely, judicial system. Maybe that is what Dr. Hood wants, but let us recognise that it is something very different indeed.
This is no conclusive survey at all. They are some thoughts that I had when I was considering it, but I believe they underline the profundity of what we are talking about. It is not a simple little matter of speeding it up; a simple matter of communicating the reasons for the prisoner. The implications are far-reaching, profound, and difficult. If we can solve them, and improve the system, let us do so; but let us not pretend that it is going to be easy.
8.4 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we are all indebted once again to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing a debate on this important aspect of our penal system. I am sure we would all agree that the introduction of parole in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 was a dramatic step forward in our treatment of prisoners. The way in which the Parole Board has operated, to begin with under the extremely wise leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has led to that system developing and being very largely accepted; accepted, indeed, to the extent that it causes no surprise today to the general public to learn that over half of those prisoners who are eligible for parole do receive it at some stage during the term of their period of imprisonment.
The beneficial effects of parole are of course self-evident. It means first that over 50 per cent. of the prison population are able to integrate themselves in the community at an earlier date than would otherwise have been possible. It means secondly that it has been possible substantially to reduce the still appallingly overcrowded conditions in our prisons. It means thirdly—and this is not in itself a

1369
reason for any particular reform—that a substantial amount of public funds have been saved by the granting of early release to prisoners in this way.
However, so great and so dramatic has been the progress of the parole system that I believe it can now be accepted as being a success, to the extent that we can afford to look squarely at the disadvantages which, at the same time, have arisen and see to what extent they can be resolved in the future. The first problem that has arisen, and I regard it in some ways as the most important one, is that, every year until he receives parole a prisoner's hopes are built up over the months; his spirits rise. He, and often his wife, are told by various social workers, for example, that it is quite obvious that parole is going to be obtained this year; the reports are all favourable. Then suddenly, and crushingly, parole is refused. The effect on the morale of a prisoner and his family can be extraordinarily damaging. I have seen myself how depressed and morose for substantial periods after refusal of parole a prisoner and his family can be. That is so, and it is a situation that is bound to be so so long as parole remains, as it is at the moment, discretionary. It is bound to be so whether or not reasons are given. Even if reasons could be given, this would not reduce the feeling of disappointment and bitter anti-climax that is so often occasioned.
I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that although in theory it is desirable to give reasons, in practice if reasons are to be given, to be of any use they have to be detailed and they have to be scrupulously honest. I find it difficult to see how that could be done in every case. If it could not be done, then it seems to me to be impossible to embark on doing it in a limited number of cases. The third area in which difficulty arises at the moment is a feeling among prisoners that the local review committees are inconsistent as between themselves, and that decisions sometimes arise favouring one prisoner whereas someone in exactly the same position in a different area finds his application refused.
The fourth difficulty that the parole system has now come to face is the fact that there must quite inevitably be the occasional error of judgment, the occasional miscalculation. Perhaps even
1370
without there being an error of judgment or a miscalculation there must inevitably be the occasional instance in which some prisoner commits a notorious crime while on parole. When that is done, it is quite inevitable that the media will represent it as a breakdown of the whole parole system.
It is perhaps worth commenting, because it sheds a little light on what I am going to suggest is the way forward, that I have never known the Press to comment when a prisoner commits some notorious crime after being released on remission. Remission is taken for granted, and is accepted by the community. If a prisoner who has behaved himself comes out after serving two-thirds of his sentence, it never occurs to anyone to point out that the system is failing if that person then commits a further offence.
I mention that because we are reaching a situation when the large majority of prisoners who are eligible for parole are obtaining it, and the more prisoners who obtain parole the less there becomes any realistic distinction between parole and remission. If the great majority of prisoners are being released before their time in any event, there is very little distinction, except a terminological one, between the two concepts, and I suggest that, on reflecting on this, perhaps we can see an indication of a way forward.
For example, it may be that we could amend the rule whereby a prisoner is entitled to a third remission, if he is of good conduct, and say he is entitled to a half remission on his sentence in the event of his behaving himself during his sentence. If that were so, it would be possible largely, though not entirely, to do away with the whole concept of parole; it would be possible to say that as of right—as a general, though not an invariable, rule (I shall come to that shortly)—prisoners could be released after serving half their sentences.
It would of course be necessary, certainly highly desirable, to retain the great advantages of the parole system in giving support to prisoners when they are released in such circumstances, and clearly they would have to be regarded as being on licence for some period after their release and be entitled to the proper support of the probation service. If we could move forward in that way, it would

1371
relieve enormously the pressure on our greatly overcrowded prisons; it would mean that prisoners as a matter of general course were released earlier than they are now under the present remission rules, and I believe the community would accept that rather more readily than it is prepared at the moment to accept a further extension of the parole system, with what the public see as the dangers involved.
I accept at once that if we are to move in this direction there is one worry—namely, that if the courts assume that whatever sentence they pass will in effect be halved, there is bound to be a temptation for the courts to increase the length of sentences. That consideration applies particularly where courts are sending people to prison for long periods for the specific reason that it is necessary that the community should be protected against a particular prisoner for a substantial time.
It was for that reason that I said one might consider as a general, though not an invariable, rule that prisoners might be entitled to remission half way through their sentences. I would certainly accept that there should be power in a judge, if he is imposing a sentence specifically to protect the community against a prisoner for a period of time, to be able to say so in terms and that, if he says so in terms, the rule as to an automatic right to release half way through the sentence should not apply.
Although the rule as to an automatic right of release would not apply, I suggest that it might still be possible to say that, where a recommendation of that sort is made, such a prisoner should have the right to apply for consideration of his case. The Parole Board might then be able to consider such cases after the prisoners had served half their sentences, to see if and when it might be possible to release them. That would leave an important function for the Parole Board. It would at the same time mean that the board itself could deal with the applications, because they would be a comparatively small number, and it would not be necessary for the local review committees to be involved.
I put those thoughts forward with some hesitation because I perhaps see this problem from a rather different aspect from that in which it is sometimes seen
1372
by the noble Earl or Lord Hunt. On occasion I have the task of sending people to prison and I frequently have the task of seeing my clients after they have been sent to prison, sometimes while serving their sentences and sometimes when released from prison. I put those forward not as a criminologist and entirely accepting that there is scope for a great deal of research before we decide on the best way to proceed. But I believe it should be possible for us to make progress; it should be possible for us to reach a system by which, effectively, the great majority of prisoners are released at an earlier stage than they are at present, with safety to the community. I support the noble Earl in his suggestion that there are ample grounds here for scope for an independent inquiry and review of the whole system.
8.17 p.m.
Lord HUTCHINSON of LULLINGTON: My Lords, parole is a subject which all those concerned with the criminal process should consider and discuss. It has certainly become one of the vital steps in that process. I was a little depressed as I listened to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. It seemed to me the sort of speech one expects from the representative of the Home Office. His last words—that much needs to be done but we must all realise it will be very difficult to do it—were,I am afraid, the approach that all through one's professional life one has found so often when problems arise in that Department.
I suppose the most daunting and responsible decision which has to be made during the criminal process is the moment when one deprives another human being of his liberty and then, of course, the treatment one meets out to that person once he is put in prison, hidden from the public gaze. I submit that that treatment is one of the key tests of the degree of civilisation of any society. It is parole which says yea or nay to the prolongation of the process of incarceration, and so one's attitude is affected, indeed conditioned to the process in relation to parole by one's view of the circumstances in which persons serve their imprisonment. If the prisoner is leading a constructive life in conditions, though unpleasant and punitive, which enable him to regain some

1373
self-respect, the problems of parole assume no great urgency and one can feel one's way towards a sensible and acceptable procedure where individual prisoners are given an appropriate release. But that is not the case in this country.
During the 30 years of a working life in the criminal law, I have, like the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, visited clients in custody before, during and, where they have pleaded guilty, after trial, and even sometimes, on rare occasions—when juries have disagreed with my submission—when they have pleaded not guilty. On such occasions one visits them in a professional capacity, not as an official, and not as a "do-gooder" (if I may use that phrase), although that is a cap that I should be quite prepared to wear on other occasions. One visits them as a person with a job to do. Thus one has perhaps a direct, detached, and yet intimate, relationship with the persons whom one is representing, and that gives one a particular privileged insight into the effect upon them of both imprisonment and parole.
I can only say that the conditions at the moment below the courts and in the prisons of this country are a disgrace; they are one of the few disgraces left in the social aspect of life in this country. One might go to the London magistrates' courts and see how persons are held—persons who at the time of being held are innocent of any offence. One might go, as so few judges do, to the squalor of the cells and to the passages of the Central Criminal Court, where men are banged up below the fur and ermine of the City aldermen and the judges who are pacing above them on their Wilton carpet.
One might go to Wandsworth, to Pentonville, to the Scrubs, to Brixton, to Walton, to Strangeways, to Horton Prison in Bristol, or to Birmingham. The conditions in those places can only he described as degrading. They are degrading to those fine prison officers—and I emphasise the word "fine"—as most of them are in this country, and who are dedicated to their job; and of course they are degrading to the prisoners who are serving their sentences there.
A Home Secretary must stop fiddling about with Criminal Justice Bills, Criminal Law Bills, and criminal procedure, and instead plan a crash programme to destroy
1374
these Dickensian blocks of degradation, and thereafter rebuild prisons, so that officers can use their skills and dedication to work with prisoners. Prisoners can then work in order to earn and so compensate their victims and keep their own families while they are serving their sentences, and at the same time restore their self-respect. If this is not done, there will be in the Prison Service an explosion which so many of us have prophesied for so long, and which each day we see drawing nearer and nearer. Indeed, I submit that already the conditions in prison have almost reached that stage. I say this because now among the experts "rehabilitation" is a dirty word.
So parole is now looked upon, is it not?, by the officials and by many others simply as a safety valve, or a wastepipe down which sufficient inmates of the prisons can respectably be drained in order to make room for those who are to follow. That is not the kind of approach that there should be to this vital question of parole. As the new chairman of the Parole Board will well remember, in 1975 Mr. Roy Jenkins urged—almost directed—the Parole Board to loosen its criteria, not because the prisoners were not getting their desserts, but simply because the situation in the prisons was so grave that somehow the prisoners had to be got out so as to make room for the others who were entering those dreadful 120-year-old buildings with cells each of which was built for one man but now having to hold three.
I am largely uncritical of the way the parole system works because only numbers matter, and the run-of-the-mill sentences in this country at present are totally negative. It is only when he is released on parole that any constructive work is done with the ordinary prisoner; and of course I do not include in that observation the open prisons, some of which are absolutely first class.
I wish to pay tribute to the increasing army of people who make up the local review committees and the Parole Board. I believe that now the Parole Board consists of about 50 members. Unlike some Members of the Front Bench opposite, I do not decry and denigrate QUANGOS. The disinterested layman's contribution to these areas of officialdom

1375
is, in my view, a precious manifestation of British democracy in action, and it is a vital contribution in the criminal process. It is vital in the jury. It is vital in the lay magistracy. It is vital in the parole system.
I believe that all those people do a magnificent job. I know some of them; they work enormously hard, and they do the work for nothing. But they are overworked, and they are in danger of being drowned in a sea of paper, as is anyone who works on a QUANGO these days. A report on only one person who is coming up for review as to parole may extend to 50 foolscap pages. I understand that over 10,000 prisoners are coming up for review—I am sure that the Minister will let us have the actual figures—and so one can imagine the oceans of paper flowing around the country from one person to another in the great endeavour to ensure that justice is done.
I wish to go along with previous speakers and concentrate upon the two matters which I submit must, and can, be rectified. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I have repeatedly witnessed the disrupting and distressing effect on families, particularly the families of people with whom one has kept in touch as clients, when the question of parole looms on the horizon. I have seen, too, the hopes that are raised, so that for the man concerned in prison the whole matter becomes an obsession. Again as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, one is aghast at the effect upon this man when he is turned down. First, there is an explosion of anger, followed by a long period of depression. The procedure is inscrutable. It is paternalistic. It is long, drawn out; and it ends with no reasons being given for the decision.
Indeed, the result of parole, which I support 100 per cent. as an idea, is that all the sentences in this country over 18 months have now become indeterminate sentences; and they are ended administratively, not judicially. The result is that all the drawbacks of the indeterminate sentence are now applicable to all these sentences over 18 months; and, speaking for myself, I am not happy that these sentences should be decided as to their length by what one can only call, but not offensively, faceless officials. I think
1376
that, at the moment, that is one of the greatest problems of parole, and, therefore, we must have a system which is open and which gives reasons, so that people know why they are turned down. Here, I would take issue with the noble Viscount about the problem. It is not so insufferably difficult to give reasons. Anyone can stand up and give examples of how difficult it is; but, as I understand it, there is this experiment which is being carried out at the moment, of seeing whether the LRCs and the Parole Board can in fact set down reasons, and perhaps the Minister will tell us something about it.
As I am sure any lawyer will agree, to give reasons is the absolutely vital matter in the criminal process. To give reasons, whether by the magistrate or the judge, concentrates the mind and makes quite sure that you feel something is this or that, and that it is not that you do not like the face of the person you are dealing with, or whatever. To give reasons, to spell them out, you have got to concentrate; you have got to make sure that the person whose future you are dealing with has the reasons and can criticise them; and you must have the courage to give them.
I see no reason at all why reasons should not be given, except this. Of course, the reasons which, more than any other, sway the members of these boards, I imagine, and indeed understand, are the reasons which come from the prisons, which come from the prison officers who look after the particular prisoner. It is felt that you cannot let a man go on serving a sentence of imprisonment when he knows that the officer on the landing gave him an adverse report, because then he will feel that it is that officer who has kept him in prison, and this would undermine the discipline in the prison.
But the point about it is this—and I would ask the Minister to tell us about it. The hospital unit now at Wormwood Scrubs operates a different régime, a relaxed régime, where warders (or prison officers, as I must call them) are not just turnkeys. They are prison officers who are operating within an area which outside is secure, but which inside gives you no view of security; who are mixing with the prisoners, talking with the prisoners and so on; and who are operating in an area where the atmosphere is a totally different

1377
atmosphere. In that unit you discuss parole in a perfectly straightforward way. Probation officers come in from outside, join in and discuss together the prisoner's view and so on. Long before parole comes up, discussions about the parole and the chances a prisoner has got, the obvious drawbacks and so on—your offence was a very serious one; it is very unlikely you will get it the first time round—are held and the whole matter is talked about. Why it cannot be talked about otherwise is because of the dreadful conditions in prisons where prison officers have not got these relations with prisoners and are just turnkeys, where people are locked up for 20 hours out of 24, where there is no communication and where, therefore, all these things have to be kept secret and cannot he talked about.
I hope the Minister will be able to give an assurance that there is no truth in the rumour which I hear, that this particular unit at Wormwood Scrubs is going to he wound up because they happen to have a new principal medical officer, or some such reason—because the matter is awkward, the matter is new, it does not fit in. I sincerely hope that one of the most vital experiments being carried on in the Prison Service at the moment is not going to be snuffed out, because it is an example and it shows how we could, if the matter was organised differently, give prisoners reasons for their refusal of parole.
As to the other matter of the time element, on which I would also agree with previous speakers, this can surely be dealt with. We need not be defeatist about this. We must lighten the load of these people who are being drowned under paper. Would it not be possible, in the case of all sentences of, say, five years and under, for the presumption of parole to be made; that is, that prisoners would get parole unless there were reasons against it? That would mean that all the cases in which there was no good reason would simply have no paper attached to them at all, and the only ones where the paper flow would appear would be those in which there was a good reason. Those cases would be discussed, read and considered: but with all the others it would be presumed that people would get parole unless there was a good reason, and that good reason would be conveyed to the person concerned.
1378
As to the matter that was raised about consistency, I would suggest that these decisions could be made locally, by the local reviewing committees, and that there is no need to go centrally. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said that consistency was vital. You cannot get consistency in the criminal process. This cry for consistency is ridiculous. Every judge in the country has a different view about offences. It is inevitable, where human beings have to sentence people and deal with matters, that they will have different views. We all have a different view about which offences are the most serious. You cannot have consistency. Of course you can try not to be too inconsistent, but there must be inconsistency. Secondly, each case is different from every other one. There are no parallel cases. There are always elements in every offence which arc different from the elements in other offences. This cry for consistency, I would suggest, is really an impossible one; it is a theoretical cry. There is no reason why these matters should not be dealt with locally, and if there are inconsistencies that is just too bad. There are inconsistencies in sentencing, and there always will be, because every case and every individual is different, and cannot expect to have the same approach made when the only equality between the offences is, say, the quantity of the drug, or some such element as that.
The only other two matters I should like to raise with the Minister are these. In the case of these long sentences which go to the Parole Board. it would. I appreciate, be ridiculous to apply the percentage of 50 per cent., as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was suggesting. You cannot apply, can you, percentages across the board? If someone is sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for a very serious offence, it would be ridiculous that he would automatically get parole at 7½ years or, if sentenced to 10 years. at five; whereas if he is sentenced to three years and it is one-and-a-half it is a completely different matter. I should not have thought that percentages are really sensible in this matter.
What I wanted to ask the Minister was this. In the long-sentence reviews, is it necessary to have the family visited automatically at the first review?—because of the pain and suffering brought by these visits, these long inquiries by probation

1379
officers (with perhaps the best will in the world) when it is perfectly obvious that he is not going to get parole on the first time round and probably the second time round. Is it necessary to have these family visits and these long reports, having regard to the pain that they cause?
The other question is this: In those sentences where there is a recommendation by the judge that someone should not be released for so many years, is the Parole Board governed by that recommendation?— because in my experience, from clients I have had, it would seem impossible for the parole board to advise parole or achieve parole where a recommendation has been made by a judge:"… until he has served the full period recommended". I would hope there is no such direction. I would have thought that any judge worth his salt would understand and agree that during a long sentence nobody can look into a crystal ball and say, "This man must inevitably serve the period which I am advising"—because so many things can happen in a period of 15 to 20 years. I am afraid that I am not enthusiastic for the noble Earl's suggestion that there should be yet another inquiry in a world in which we seem to have inquiries into everything every five minutes. I think the inquiry which is going on in the Home Office at the moment is sufficient and, in my opinion, what is wrong with parole is the administration of the prisons.
8.44 p.m.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Longford for raising this question with the Government I must confess (and he is aware of it) that I had reservations about the timing of this discussion this evening, coming as it does before the report from the Home Office on its internal inquiry. I also think (and he is aware of this also) that the sensible way to proceed is to await that report before demanding another—and following the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson—yet another independent inquiry into the parole system.
Having said that, I acknowledge that our discussions this evening, having listened to them—and I found them interesting and constructive—may not be too late to be helpful to those who are
1380
still engaged in the Home Office study and to an eventual independent inquiry if that seems to be called for. So far as my contribution is concerned, my noble friend Lord Longford has quoted me so generously that your Lordships may share my doubts as to whether it is necessary for me to make a contribution at all. But I have a few points to make; and all the more so because of the interest with which I followed the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, just now.
Any discussion about the parole system must begin with the original purpose in the 1967 Act. It seems to me that there has been a change in its purpose since the idea was adumbrated in the 1965 White Paper. I quote from that White Paper words which are familiar to the noble Viscount and others:
"Prisoners in some cases are likely to be made into good citizens if—before completing the whole of their sentence—they are released under supervision with a liability to recall if they do not behave".
That purpose, according to the statistics, has not been fulfilled. There is little evidence to show that by parolling recidivists any impact is made on their propensity to continue to commit offences, albeit in many cases comparatively minor offences.
So far as parole is concerned—and here I listened with interest to the noble Lord—its official value now seems to be to reduce the overcrowded prison population. That purpose, it is interesting to recall, was strongly denied in 1967when we first went into business. Speaking at a NACRO Conference in 1975, Mr. Roy Jenkins the then-Home Secretary said:
"There is scope for making parole progressively more acceptable so that the system can make a greater contribution to reducing the prison population".
Those words were a preamble (as many will know) to the new guidelines that Mr. Jenkins gave to the Parole Board, upon which greater numbers of prisoners are now, and have been since, paroled.
Sir Louis Petch, to whom I, too, take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute on his impending retirement from a job which from personal experience I can say is extremely responsible and most exacting and demanding, is quoted as pointing out that the paroles announced in his 1977 Annual Report amounted to the population of six major prisons. My

1381
guess, looking at the later figures (which I have had unofficially) is that that figure has increased to a saving of prison space to the tune of about eight prisons. Is this now the purpose of parole? I hope the Minister will enlighten us when he comes to reply. If so, in conjunction with a recall rate of around 10 per cent., it should also be perceived not so much as justifying parole but rather as a devastating commentary on the length of prison sentences in general which accounts for so much of the problems and the over crowding in our prisons.
Seen in this perspective, parole could be dubbed a mere palliative for an expensive, largely negative penal policy in regard to the use of imprisonment, the length of prison sentences in our criminal law. But to say this would be to do less than justice to parole. It has achieved a great deal else; for instance, in bringing about a better degree of co-operation within our penal system as a whole; in improving prison documentation and, therefore, creating a better knowledge and understanding of individual prisoners by prison officers in prison. And, not least, in helping many prisoners to gain a measure of self-respect and self-confidence in settling back into the community. And, lastly but not least, in bringing public opinion to accepting treatment in the community for the more serious offenders. Even should there be—and let us hope there will be at some time—a scaling-down significantly of the length of sentences, I believe that there would remain a place for the parole system.
On this premise, I think the time has come to modify certain principles and procedures. Parole is neither a wholly executive nor totally a non-judicial process. It is a hybrid. The board and the Home Office, on behalf of the Home Secretary, as has been mentioned critically this evening, take into account the gravity of the offence. That is a factor that has already been fully weighed, as I understand it, in pronouncing the original sentence. In this respect, I go with other noble Lords in saying that the board is exercising a judicial function and, in effect, is retrying a case. I must accept and admit that, while I was chairman of the Parole Board, I found that acceptable. But my noble friend Lord Longford has quoted me as saying that I did not. But
1382
since, and for quite a long time now, I have been convinced, so far as the board are concerned, that it is wrong. It should be axiomatic that gravity is a matter for the courts and very exceptionally—in the case of determinate sentences—for the Home Secretary.
My other point of principle is that prisoners should have two rights in addition to the purely negative one of refusing to be considered for parole. These have been rehearsed this evening and I am not going to join the debate by arguing the pros and cons. They come out extremely well, if I may say so. The first right is that prisoners should have a right to a hearing before a review committee, if they wish. The second one—all too often mentioned this evening—is that they should be given reasons if, exceptionally, they are turned down. On both these points, and particularly the latter one, there has been prolonged discussion, not only this evening but over the years, outside this House. There has been a good deal of experimentation but there has been a failure to fulfil a matter of natural justice for too long.
It is now six years since, when I was chairman of the Parole Board, we started experiments in the formulation of reasons. As long ago as 13th July 1977, in answer to a Written Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, revealed that experiments were shortly to be made in giving reasons by the local review committees. The great majority of refusals of parole are made by local review committees—over 3,000 a year.
Will the Minister, when he replies, tell us what is the position now? What has been the purpose of all this experimentation, if it is to come to nothing? Why is it that offenders who are detained under the Mental Health Act—and this was mentioned by the noble Viscount—are, as I understand it, furnished by the mental health tribunals with reasons for not being released while supposedly sane prisoners cannot be told?
Speaking of prisoners' rights, I do not see parole as a right. I differ from other people here; I believe the early release from prison should remain a privilege. I do not favour an automatic, built-in parole period in a sentence. I would go no further than saying that parole of one

1383
third of the sentence should be a normal expectation—the noble Lord will agree with me there—by prisoners, and that that expectation should exceptionally be qualified by a recommendation by the court that it should not be granted at the earliest eligible date. Here I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. It should also be qualified by serious misconduct during the course of the sentence, and reviews would have to take both these considerations into account.
Given that parole should be discretionary, who should take the decision? The present system is hybrid in this respect also. The Home Secretary holds formal responsibility. But in practice it amounts only very exceptionally to his personal scrutiny and decision and also exception- ally to the decision of a Minister on his behalf. What is more, the board, despite its formal position as an advisory body, exercises absolute power in refusing parole. It is worth remembering that the Secretary of State has no power to release prisoners who are turned down by the Board. Seen in the perspective of 11 years' of experience, I believe that this untidy situation should be straightened out. The board, which is already semi-executive, by exercising discretionary powers in a negative sense should now—with certain exceptions—exercise them in a positive sense, too, by granting parole as well as refusing it. This does not mean that the Home Secretary would cease to be accountable to Parliament for the operations of the board. It is he who appoints the chairman and its members, and of course they are responsible to him. He can sack them if necessary. It is worth remembering that, in the course of every year over the many years that the scheme has been in existence and with the many thousands of prisoners who are paroled every year, the Home Secretary's disagreements with his Board can be counted on the lingers of one hand. Surely the Parole Board has shown its wisdom and good sense and can be trusted to take decisions.
The Home Secretary would of course continue to be responsible for taking decisions on the conditional release of life sentence prisoners and would make decisions about paroling offenders guilty of very serious offences for which an exceptionally long prison sentence has
1384
been awarded. So I should like to see a more independent system which would be more dynamic and less bureaucratic. As to the structure of the system, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has quoted from my speech of 31st January. I merely say that I stand by what I said then. It is now, after all the case knowledge which has been gained, needlessly complex. I would simplify and speed up the whole cumbersome machine. I would regionalise the system, making regional boards responsible for a wide range of cases. Such boards might well dispense with the need for local review committees. They could be peripatetic, visiting prisons and thus reducing the element of inconsistency to which the noble Viscount referred and to which I also attach importance, but only as much importance as I would to the inconsistency or otherwise of courts of law.
The regional committees would then be in a position to interview prisoners who wished to be interviewed and to give reasons—probably personally—to the prisoner at the time of the review. I see the board exercising more of a policy-making role, advising and supervising the work of the regional boards, being a watchdog for consistency, much less burdened than at present to the tune of over 5.000 cases a year.
There remains the need to have a new look at the rules and procedures in regard to the supervision of paroled offenders. I wanted to say something about this but the hour is late and I have spoken rather long. I shall say this about the probation service, which has that heavy responsibility to the general public for that part of the system. Putting aside the size of the current salaries claim which has been advanced by the National Association of Probation Officers, I believe that the case for increases to officers of that service has to be taken seriously. I should like to make this point personally to the Minister who is going to reply. They are under-rewarded in comparison with other skilled professional workers in key areas. Feelings in the service are running pretty strongly—as I happen to know from personal experience—about this inequity and, dedicated though they are to their professional work, morale could be badly affected. Anything which is detrimental to the high quality of our penal system cannot be regarded with equanimity by Parliament or by the general public.
8.58 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, I notice that in the sequence of speeches, I seem to make up a kind of ecclesiastical rear. I have no objection to that whatever in the light of the fine, cogent speeches to which I have already listened; but I confess a certain unease if it he assumed that the Christian aspect of this case is a kind of backing up of something that already exists in the enlightened minds of the politicians or social reformers. Though the hour is late, I venture to introduce what to me is the convincing argument for the prosecution even to better results of the general system of parole. It springs in my estimation from the conception of what the Christian attitude to the prison system should be. Dogmatically, I believe the prison system, as it exists, is incompatible with the Christian faith. I wish that the Church had been more ardent in the prosecution of those ideas which could have taken root and fertilised into better ways of dealing with the problem of corporate sin, as in so many cases the Church has been expert in dealing with the problems of individual sin. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that the present system is irredeemable and sooner or later must give place to something which represents an attitude to human beings which can he reconciled with the Christian faith.
Your Lordships will permit a personal experience which confirmed after a very short time most of the things that my noble friend Lord Hutchinson has already said about prisons. After 30 years as a prison chaplain in Pentonville Prison, I am utterly convinced that it is a degrading and destructive influence and that the occasional benefits which accrue to those who have been subjected to this kind of enormity only emphasise the overall capacity of the prison system to represent that which an enlightened and civilised community would want to see even its worst citizens attain so that even those who seem beyond reparation at least should be treated in a civilised way.
Of course, the alternatives to the prison system do not immediately flow from a condemnation of it and I am not simplistic enough to think that we should therefore let all the prisoners out. Nor do I think there is anything to be said for the idea that most of them are victims of circumstance. What therefore has to be done,
1386
it seems to me, until we can provide a better system is to do our best to improve the one we have got.
There is in the New Testament a cautionary tale about an evil spirit which was turned out, but there was no substitution of tenancy and the last situation was a lot worse than the first. It would be ridiculous to presume to think that the Christian answer to the problem of prisons would be to knock them all down. Parole, as I see it, is one way in which you ameliorate a system until you are ready to find a substitute for it. Therefore I heartily agree with that which lies behind the concept of parole, because prison life is destructive and it is my conviction after a good deal of experience that if you put a man into prison for more than five years uninterruptedly you tend to destroy him. You may well create a situation that is irredeemable. I have seen it happen and 1 do not want to see it happen in the future; and if parole can help to reduce the amount of time that people spend in that kind of environment, then it has my hearty support.
Secondly, I am equally satisfied that there is an immediate reason for a diminution in the numbers of those who are incarcerated. I wonder whether psycho-locally the House fully appreciates—and I hope your Lordships will forgive this if it sounds impudent—what it means to live three in a cell which once upon a time had been created to accommodate one person. I think I know a bit about it, from sitting and talking to prisoners and from listening to what they say to one another. It is an abomination. Those overcrowded prisons are already unsuited in every respect, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, but particularly unsuitable for the accommodation of three prisoners to a cell; obviously you cannot put two in a cell. Anything that can be done to reduce the number of prisoners in our prisons today should be acceptable to all who are looking to the future with any kind of hope.
There is another reason which impresses me more and more as I think about it; that is, that there is very little chance of the primary purpose of Christian punishment—which is reformation—taking place in an environment which is specifically artificial. The artificiality of the life of a prisoner is such as to render him less

1387
capable than ever he had been of taking his place again in the kind of world in which by some means or other he ought to be enabled to redeem himself and make some kind of restitution to the society which he has wronged.
It is therefore on the negative ground in the first place that I believe the whole system of parole is to be commended as one stage at which you reduce the number of those who suffer from a condition which the Church should have repudiated long ago and which is incompatible with a civilised society. But the moment we enter the field of the parole system we are hedged about with all kinds of difficulties, and they have been amply and cogently ventilated tonight. I believe there is every room for improvement in the light of the experience of many of your Lordships, which you have so explicitly set forth, and I hope that your words will be ardently read by those whose responsibility it is to look to the future.
I agree so heartily with those who claim that a prisoner is entitled to have a hearing. I do not subscribe to the idea that it is impossible to tell the truth. I think it is always safer to tell the truth if you can than to presume that you know better as to the psychological reactions of the person to whom you tell a lie. I am not sure that is true: in fact my own experience would contradict it; but I am sure that it is unfair and irrational for a man to be exposed to the pros and cons of a parole system when he is necessarily identified not with any of the propositions which take place in the consultation, but is dependent entirely on hearsay and dependent entirely upon his interior thoughts. Many a prisoner has a good deal of time to conduct those thoughts and the more he conducts them under those circumstances the more incomplete and imperfect they become.
Psychologically, I think it is very much better, for all the difficulties and dangers that may arise and all the particular circumstances which may make it more difficult than in normal circumstances, to give the prisoner the opportunity of being present. It is not good enough to tell him he can write about it. I suppose there are a great many very clever people whose writing is superior to their talking. My experience is that there is a great deal
1388
of horse sense and capability for sensible talking among prisoners who certainly could not write cogently, intelligibly or comprehensibly. It is a trust in the prisoner's capacity to respond to commonsense which I think is more to be valued than the presupposition of some prospective prognosis of danger and difficulty from which he will suffer if you try to tell him why he is refused, at one particular point, the kind of parole which is so ardently desired.
There is another aspect which impresses me considerably. It is highly likely that, if the parole system is increased and more and more are enabled to profit by it, there will be one quite substantial effect; that is, that more and more prisoners will come out of gaol and find themselves counselled and helped by probation officers. This is an expensive business, but, over and over again, it is the immediate release of a prisoner and the invitation by his pals to go to the pub and to soak himself immediately, which is one of the outstanding reasons for the return of that prisoner to the ways which had brought him disaster previously. If he knows that there is somebody who will be caring for him and will be advising him, there is a much better prospect that he will overcome the inevitable dangers and disasters of prison life, and have some reasonable chance of rehabilitation.
It is for that reason that I heartily commend the parole system. I commend it negatively—if you can have something which is negative in the right direction—and I commend it positively, because it opens up the prospect of increasing the possibilities of extra-custodial treatment; the recovery of the prisoner within the real world and not the world which is artificially constructed by a prison cell; the possibility of that prisoner, when he comes out, having the care and support of a system which still seeks to care for him and to help him. It is for those reasons that I believe that the parole system is to be cherished.
By whatever means it has to be improved, I shall not go into now, but it seems quite sensible that there should be an independent inquiry—I am not at all satisfied that an internal inquiry would do the trick—which will learn the value of that system which has already been tried and not found wanting, but which has been

1389
found difficult and therefore needs a greater application, if in future it is to redeem some, at least, of the evils of the prison system and provide some kind of doorway into that treatment of the antisocial members of our society, within Christian bounds, and with a greater hope of reformation as the ultimate purpose and, indeed, the ultimate goal.
9.10 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford for giving us this opportunity to debate parole tonight. I should also like to thank him for giving me notice, with his customary courtesy, of points that he was proposing to raise. In addition, I should like to thank him for his kind remarks.
It is a fact of life that parole normally receives only bad publicity; publicity which can be misleading to the public. One failure can be headline news—and I do not for a moment complain about this: mistakes should not be concealed. But little or nothing is heard about the thousands of prisoners who receive parole and keep out of trouble during their licence period; the thousands who have justified the hopes originally expressed for the parole scheme—that is something which has come out tonight—and who have made it a success story. I would go so far as to say that parole has been and is a success story; and this also merits publicity although, understandably, it may not be headline material.
I should also like, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to take this opportunity to thank the Parole Board and to thank Sir Louis Petch for all the work he did while he was chairman of the board. All the members of the board, and indeed the members of the local review committees and those who help those bodies, do a tremendous amount of hard work. I should like to join with those other noble Lords who have thanked the first chairman of the original Parole Board, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who paved the way in such large measure for the success that we have seen.
When the parole scheme was introduced in 1968, both the Home Secretary and the Parole Board approached their duties with a very proper caution. In 1969, the
1390
first full year of parole, only 1,800 prisoners—just over a quarter of those eligible—were granted a period of parole. After five years, the figure had risen to 3,500—just over a third of those eligible—and as it became clear that there was little justification for the fears expressed at its introduction, new and more liberal criteria—something which has been referred tonight—for the granting of parole were introduced in 1975 by Mr. Roy Jenkins, then Home Secretary, after consultation with the Parole Board.
As a result, releases continued to rise gradually but significantly until, in 1977, over 5,000 prisoners—slightly more than half of those eligible—were released on parole. By the end of that year, it was possible to say that nearly two-thirds of eligible determinate sentence prisoners—62 per cent. as quoted by my noble friend—were receiving a period of parole at some point in their sentences; that 3,500 prisoners were out on parole at any one time; and that, despite the scepticism of my noble friend, the average length of parole licences had risen from 8½ months in 1969 to 13½ months in 1977.
But parole cannot be adjudged a success merely by the number of prisoners released from prison, even though releases are a reflection of confidence in the scheme. A prisoner on licence is still a prisoner serving the sentence passed upon him by the court, but he is serving part of his sentence outside prison, under supervision in the community and on certain clear conditions. If the conditions are not observed by prisoners on parole, they are liable to be recalled to prison, as we know. Throughout the history of the parole scheme, it has only once been found necessary—and I think that this is a significant point—to revoke the licences of more than 10 per cent. of those released during a year. Although the figure rose to 10·3 per cent. in 1977, provisional figures suggest that it will have fallen below 10 per cent. again in 1978. It must be remembered in this context that less than half of those recalled are recalled for having committed further offences. Many are recalled merely for being out of touch with their supervising probation officers or for other breaches of conditions which, although regarded seriously, are not a repetition of their previous criminal behaviour.

1391
I hope that your Lordships will agree that parole has been, and is, a success. I hope, too, that it is clear from what I have said that the Government certainly welcome both this debate and public interest in parole and full debate upon it. The Expenditure Committee—which has been mentioned tonight by, I think, more than one noble Lord—did not express concern about the way in which the parole scheme itself is administered. Their point, as I understand it, was that because of the complexity of the scheme, and of alternatives which have been proposed to it, they did not have the opportunity to consider it in depth; but because of its important role in the penal system they thought that an independent inquiry should be held.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I may venture to repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech? I quoted from a paragraph in the report of the Expenditure Committee where they referred to the criticisms which had been made of the parole scheme. In that short paragraph they referred twice to the criticisms which had been made. It was not only the complexity of the scheme to which the Expenditure Committee referred; they referred twice to the criticisms which had been made of it.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. Nevertheless, the point which I was making in this context is valid: that the Expenditure Committee did not have an opportunity to examine the scheme in depth, and this was a central reason why they felt that it ought to be subjected to an independent inquiry. But I wonder whether a public inquiry is the most effective way of unravelling a complex subject like this.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary certainly recognises that after a period of 10 years the time is perhaps right for there to be a major public debate on parole: both on the way in which the scheme has developed during the last decade, together with an examination of ideas about how it might develop in the future. But whether the best method of stimulating a debate like this is by means of a public inquiry or by means of, say, a consultative document—and my noble friend referred to the possibility of a
1392
Green Paper explaining the complexities—is a matter which my right honourable friend is still considering.
It is not for me today to anticipate the outcome of those considerations but, in debating this question tonight, your Lordships will, I am sure, have in mind that an independent inquiry into the Prison Service is already in progress and that this inquiry may result in recommendations which could have significance for the working of any parole scheme. Your Lordships may feel that to mount a further inquiry into parole, even before the recommendations of Mr. Justice May's committee have been received, would he premature, to say the least.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, my noble friend Lord Longford, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that prisoners should be given reasons for the refusal of parole. This has played a big part in our debate tonight. The Government have some sympathy with this view. A significant difficulty is explaining the weight given to the many factors which affect the decisions, and it may not always be easy for the panel of five people who consider the cases to agree about specific reasons, although there may be no doubt about the recommendation which they are to make. To give full reasons would require a carefully drafted essay, I think, embracing the various opinions in each case. However, as there are some 5,000 parole refusals each year, this would clearly be a formidable task, and one wonders whether it would be practicable.
Ways of overcoming this problem have been considered, and some suggestions have been put forward in your Lordships' House tonight. In 1976, the Parole Board conducted a limited experiment to assess the feasibility of selecting reasons for refusal of parole from a list of standardised causes for concern which indicate the main elements influencing the decision. This, too, has been referred to tonight. But as a large number of parole refusals are determined on the recommendation of the local review committee alone, it has been necessary to repeat the same experiment with five of these committees representing different types of prison.

1393
The results are now being collated and analysed. Before a decision is reached, we shall have to assess with staff in prisons the implications of giving reasons to prisoners, bearing in mind that they would have to be given in all cases once one embarked on a scheme of this kind.
We also need to consider the longer term implications and that need too was mentioned by the noble Viscount in the course of his speech tonight. For instance, can reasons be given without providing a quasi-judicial appeal procedure—or even a judicial appeal procedure? And if not, how will this affect the concept of parole as a privilege, as it now is? Would the present procedure have to be changed as a result? The aspect of appeal proceedings is only one mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and it was also a matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was concerned.
These are clearly questions that merit wide and deep discussion. I think some alternatives proposed to the present scheme have been put forward primarily to overcome the difficulty of giving reasons. These are not without their drawbacks, though; and also themselves need careful debate. Other general suggestions for parole have been put forward both here and elsewhere and these need fuller discussion in detail than I am afraid time allows today. My point is that the Government do not dissent from the desire of my noble friend to open up the whole question of parole for public debate on these and other matters. If there is a difference between us—and there may not be—it is a difference as to the most appropriate method of doing this.
Perhaps I may now briefly take up some more specific points which have been raised. My noble friend expressed concern about the relevance of public opinion and also mentioned retribution and deterrence, but I think we must be clear whether this is with reference to release on parole or release on life licence, because there is a significant difference, as we know. Dealing first with public opinion, I am afraid I cannot agree with him that fear of public opinion influences decisions, if, as I think, that is what he is suggesting, but regard and respect for public opinion and public concern, which at times are very real, are important
1394
factors and, in my opinion, rightly so. It would be to fail in one's duty not to take these factors into account.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene on that point? Would he go so far as to say in the case of a particular prisoner that the board should take a kind of hypothetical public attitude in deciding whether or not that prisoner should stay in prison? I am not talking of general principles but a particular prisoner.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, my noble friend has asked a difficult question because he has asked me to comment on a particular prisoner, and has—
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sorry but I was not referring to one particular prisoner, I was asking my noble friend to imagine a hypothetical particular prisoner, whether a life prisoner or anything else, and asking whether he would say that the public attitude to that person should be decisive?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, what I am saying and what I hope I said—and I am sorry if I was not sufficiently clear—is this: when a parole board, when my right honourable friend, when local review committees are considering these matters, in my view they are bound to take into account the question of public concern. That is what I am saying and that is one of the central points to which I would adhere, for the reason that, were the public to lose confidence in any system of early release it would not be possible to sustain present procedures, let alone move towards the more liberal ones which some noble Lords want to do. I think we must not forget, also, the safety of a prisoner himself on release.
So far as retribution and deterrence are concerned, this brings to the fore the question of whether early release is a form of re-sentencing. Parole is not a re-sentencing process. Clearly, it is important that parole should not undermine the intention of the courts so far as retribition and deterrence are concerned, but one has only to examine the figures to see that many long sentence prisoners are given substantial periods on licence because it is

1395
thought that it is in the best interests of society and the prisoner that he serves part of his sentence under licence in the community.
With life sentence prisoners there is no question of the Parole Board "re-sentencing". Their role is, in effect, more akin to a sentencing one, for it is only on the board's recommendation that any indeterminate period of detention can become determinate. Where a person has been sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment the maximum period of detention appropriate to the offence—subejct to the usual remission for good conduct—is determined by the court, and the function of the Parole Board is to consider whether the prisoner should be released earlier than in the normal course, and, if so, when. As I shall explain in a few moments, a life sentence prisoner can only be released by the Home Secretary, and whatever his own views on the appropriate period of detention may be, he cannot order this unless the Parole Board so recommends. I think other noble Lords have touched on this point.
My noble friend made some reference to the release of prisoners serving sentences of life imprisonment. I do not propose to take up all the points tonight, if he will forgive me, because although the Parole Board are involved in this aspect of their work is not part of the parole system itself. But I will comment on one or two of them in order to remove what I believe to be some prevalent misunderstandings.
It is misleading—and I am not accusing anyone of doing this tonight—and it is something which has been the subject of misleading comment, elsewhere certainly, to refer to a life sentence prisoner being granted parole or even being considered for parole. This is not so. These prisoners are not eligible for parole itself. The Parole Board are involved because the law provides that the Home Secretary cannot order their release unless he is recommended by the board to do so—as he is also required by law to consult the Lord Chief Justice and, if he is available, the trial judge. But the final decision rests squarely with the Home Secretary. He is not obliged to accept a recommendation by the board that a particular prisoner should be released; nor are the views of the judiciary binding upon him.
1396
I think this may go some way to meet the point which my noble friend Lord Hutchinson was mentioning, but if not I will return to it in a few moments.
There are important differences between the review by the Parole Board in the case of a life sentence prisoner and their review of a case of a prisoner serving a determinate sentence. One is that a life sentence prisoner has no statutory right to have his case reviewed after a specified time or at specified intervals thereafter. The times at which this is done are entirely at the discretion of the Home Secretary, though because it is clearly sensible to fix these in consultation with the Parole Board the timing of the first review is fixed following a recommendation from a joint committee of senior representatives of the board and of the Home Office; and the timing of subsequent reviews, if these are necessary, is on the recommendation of the board itself. But these again are only recommendations, which the Home Secretary need not accept if he thinks otherwise.
As my noble friend has said, in 1977 he led a deputation of noble Lords to urge on the Home Secretary that the case of every life sentence prisoner should be formally reviewed after he has been detained for not more than 10 years. My right honourable friend did not feel able to accept that. In fact it was for several years the practice for all such cases to be reviewed after seven years, but this proved to be unsatisfactory because it often raised prisoners' hopes falsely, another point which some noble Lords have touched on tonight, or caused unnecessary public concern. Consequently, on the suggestion of the Parole Board, when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, introduced the present procedure. This works very well, I think, and provides the maximum flexibility; and since the considerations that led to the change are just as valid today, I would submit, as they were, then my right honourable friend has no plans to change that.
Perhaps I may just deal now with some of the other individual points which noble Lords have raised. Concerning the points mentioned by the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I think I have probably touched upon those as I

1397
have gone along, particularly in dealing with questions of reasons and other matters. My noble friend Lord Longford raised several points. As regards his first reference to a particular prisoner, I hope that he will forgive me if I resist being drawn into discussing individual cases tonight. I appreciate what he has said but I shall leave it at that.
Similarly, my noble friend mentioned another individual case without, of course, mentioning the name. He was good enough to send me a copy of the letter to which he referred and from which I think he quoted. I had a chance to read that letter today. Again, I hope he will forgive me if I say that I do not want to go into the details of that case either. I have read the letter and I am looking at its implications. However, I can say quite firmly that there has, as regards that case, been no undue delay. That much I have been able to establish already. My noble friend has consistantly and very thoroughly looked into the question of parole. This was a life sentence prisoner case so it was not a parole case as such. He is familiar with the procedures, which are rather detailed, and I shall not go into them tonight. However, perhaps I can take that particular matter up by writing to him.
My noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington raised several points, one of which concerned the hospital unit at Wormwood Scrubbs. I have had a chance to visit that myself and was much impressed by it. I am sorry to say that I do not tonight have the information to hand which he particularly requested, but I understand his concern and if I may I shall make further inquiries and write to him about it. He also mentioned minimum recommendations by judges. That was not quite the point that I was discussing earlier in my speech. Those can be made only when a life sentence is imposed on conviction for murder and they are made only in a minority of cases. They must clearly be given considerable weight by the Parole Board and by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. However, I can assure my noble friend that they are not binding.
My noble friend Lord Hutchinson also asked whether it was necessary for prisoners' families to be visited automatically in long sentence cases where
1398
parole is unlikely. The position is that every prisoner is entitled to be considered for parole on his parole eligibility date. Not to review the case properly by obtaining a home circumstances report would, we feel, be to prejudge the issue and the prisoner would be entitled to complain if one did not do that. Therefore, I appreciate the concern which my noble friend has expressed, but I suggest that this is an important part of the procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned that he was in favour of waiting for the outcome of the internal review before considering the need for an independent inquiry into parole. He went on to suggest a number of improvements to the present system. I can certainly confirm that those are matters which will be taken into account at this time while the whole matter is being considered. I take the point which he suggested, that he wants some more independent element brought into the system if it is possible to do that. I also take his point about morale throughout the penal system. Of course, there is the inquiry taking place at present which I have already mentioned to your Lordships and we hope that the outcome of that will enable us to go forward.
I do not think that there is any specific point to which I am required to reply as regards the speech of my noble friend Lord Soper. I do not see my noble friend in his place at present, but we heard a most moving speech from him.
I hope, albeit very rapidly and not too sketchily, that I have dealt with some of the points of concern which noble Lords have raised in this debate. As I said earlier, I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing us this opportunity to debate this subject, although I am unable today to give the response he seeks to the suggestion that there should be an independent inquiry into the parole system. I hope that I have convinced him and your Lordships that the Government are very concerned about these matters.
As I have said, we welcome debate on parole both here and, perhaps even more importantly, more widely in the public forum. We have confidence in the present system, although we are not complacent about it. Our reservation is solely whether

1399
a public inquiry is the most appropriate method of inviting interest and informed debate on this topic. It is to that that my right honourable friend is addressing his attention.

  IMMIGRATION: SETTLEMENT APPLICATIONS BY MALE SPOUSES
  IMMIGRATION: SETTLEMENT APPLICATIONS BY MALE SPOUSES
  IMMIGRATION: APPLICATIONS FOR REMOVAL OF CONDITIONS
  IMMIGRATION: APPLICATIONS FOR REMOVAL OF CONDITIONS
  FLIGHT CREW LICENSING: PILOTS' AGE
  FLIGHT CREW LICENSING: PILOTS' AGE
  FARM AND HORTICULTURE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS: TAX LIABILITY
  FARM AND HORTICULTURE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS: TAX LIABILITY
  FRENCH SHEEP MARKET CONTROLS
  FRENCH SHEEP MARKET CONTROLS
  WORLD SHIPPING CONFERENCE AND UNCTAD PROPOSALS
  WORLD SHIPPING CONFERENCE AND UNCTAD PROPOSALS
  NON-PATRIALS: EXCLUSION FROM UNITED KINGDOM
  NON-PATRIALS: EXCLUSION FROM UNITED KINGDOM
  UNEMPLOYED CLAIMANTS: SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS
  UNEMPLOYED CLAIMANTS: SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS
  THEFTS OF DOMESTIC PETS
  THEFTS OF DOMESTIC PETS
  HORSE SALES AND AUCTIONS: SURVEY REPORT
  HORSE SALES AND AUCTIONS: SURVEY REPORT
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT AND NATIONAL INSURANCE: CLAIMANTS
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT AND NATIONAL INSURANCE: CLAIMANTS