Sitting of 29 January 1980

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

    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 5 February.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (CASTLEFIELD) BILL
    BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
      CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL
      Read a Second time and committed.
  FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL

    LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 5 February.

PORTSMOUTH CITY COUNCIL BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I rule that the Portsmouth City Council Bill should be introduced as a Public Bill. Mr. Speaker Fitzroy ruled on 8 February 1939 that Bills which are allowed to proceed as Private Bills should never raise questions other than practical local questions. The Portsmouth City Council Bill affects other ports in the land and it also raises the question of public policy with regard to the export of live animals. For those reasons, I rule that it may proceed as a Public Bill only.
Bill withdrawn.

PORTSMOUTH CITY COUNCIL BILL
  SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
    STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  STEVENAGE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 12 February.

  UNITED REFORMED CHURCH (LION WALK COLCHESTER) BILL
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  WESLEY'S CHAPEL, CITY ROAD BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Expenditure
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest estimated saving in the field of social services which he expects to make during the current financial year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): Before answering the hon. Gentleman's question, I hope that I may be permitted to extend our best wishes to Mr. Speaker on his birthday.
    Local authorities have been asked to reduce their overall current expenditure in 1979–80 to a level of about 1½ per cent. below that for 1978–79. It is not yet possible to estimate how far authorities will make part of this saving in the personal social services.
    Mr. Parry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cuts in spending are causing the closure in Liverpool and in other cities of old people's homes, children's homes and establishments for the physically and mentally handicapped? Does he agree with such policies that attack the most vulnerable in the community?
    Sir G. Young: It is up to individual local authorities to decide how best to achieve the reductions in the light of local circumstances. As I have been around the country visiting social services departments, I have been impressed by how many have been able to meet real needs more effectively while, at the same time, spending less public money.
    Mr. Bowden: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that every encouragement be given to the elderly to stay in their homes? Will he ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reconsider paying a shortfall on pensions? Failure to do so would be a breach of a moral obligation.
    Sir G. Young: I understand that that matter was raised extensively in Standing Committee this morning. My hon. Friend gave a full answer concerning the Government's position.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that, within the area health authority that serves both his constituents and mine, cuts in social security benefits have led to serious consideration being given to the closure of a children's home? While that is being considered, the Harrow school—registered as a charity in the same area—gets a tax relief of £36,000. Is not that obscene?
    Sir G. Young: It is for the Home Secretary to decide the law on charity. It does not concern my Department.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Has my hon. Friend given any thought to how much money could be saved by the National Health Service if we investigated the abuse of its facilities by tourists from other countries, with which we do not have a reciprocal arrangement?
    Sir G. Young: That subject is under active consideration within the Department. At the same time, we are urging other countries to extend the same hospitality as we offer visitors to our tourists when they are overseas.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: May I, Mr. Speaker, endorse the birthday congratulations that have been extended to you. We offer you our warmest best wishes.
    Has the Minister seen the charge that appeared in The Times today by the Bishop of Coventry that the Government's policy of reducing personal social services by 7 per cent. is inconsistent and self-contradictory? Has he also seen the statement by the president of the Association of Directors of Social Services that this policy will tear families with disabled children apart? When will the Secretary of State stand up to the Treasury and end this mean and demeaning policy?
    Sir G. Young: In 1977–78 the Labour Government cut local authority current expenditure by 2 per cent. in real terms. That was a much bigger cut than we are seeking this year.

    Heating Costs
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to increase the heating allowance to recipients of supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Hookyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in the light of large impending increases in fuel charges

    1103
    and the continuing rise in the rate of inflation, he will bring forward proposals to give extra help to one-parent families.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): It has already been announced that the Government are reviewing the whole range of help available to assist needy consumers, including lone parents, with their fuel bills. The supplementary benefit heating additions were increased last November and are due to be increased again in November of this year.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Secretary of State accept that, unless there is a substantial increase in the heating allowance, which takes account of the appalling level of inflation and of the disgraceful gas and electricity price increases recently imposed, there is a danger that an increasing number of old people will die of hypothermia next winter?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the supplementary benefit heating additions are uprated on the basis of increases in the fuel component of the retail prices index. They take into account expected future price increases, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is a reasonable way of dealing with that element.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the massive tax on gas—decreed by the Government—is equivalent to the medieval salt tax? It will have a brutal effect on the standards of living of the poor. It can be justified only by major compensatory payments throughout the range of the social benefits scheme.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government have given a clear promise to bring forward further proposals—[HON. MEMBERS: "When"]—which will give special help to those on low incomes—including the elderly—to meet their fuel bills.
    Mr. Paul Dean: I welcome the Government's review of the whole range of fuel allowances, but will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will press ahead as fast as possible with that review? There are understandable anxieties among the elderly, disabled and other needy groups, concerning the inevitably escalat-
    1104
    ing fuel costs, for which the Government are not to blame.
    Mr. Jenkin: I recognise those anxieties. The price increases will begin to take effect in April. However, I think it is right that they will not be reflected in consumers' bills for another three months—and then only for the summer quarter. The main impact of those increases will not be felt until next winter. We intend to announce the results of our review long before then.
    Mr. Freeson: Is that good enough? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Conservative Members seem to think that it is enough. Is it good enough to announce a review that has been announced four or five times when similar questions have been asked? It is well known that something must be done as quickly as possible to establish some type of fuel allowance or rebate scheme. It is possible for the Government to be open. They do not need a private review. They should open up the question and allow hon. Members and others to put proposals to them. The Government should come forward, before this summer at the latest, with a scheme, or alternative schemes, for a fuel allowance similar to that operated for rent allowances.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that at Question Time hon. Members must not argue a case. They must ask questions.
    Mr. Jenkin: No doubt that question will be raised in debate this afternoon. From the right hon. Gentleman's experience in the Department of the Environment, he will know that any question of a major, new and comprehensive fuel scheme cannot be contemplated now, because of the inevitable administrative constraints, quite apart from the question of cost. We aim to provide meaningful help to those in greatest need who would otherwise be hit hardest by the fuel price increases. I hope that we shall be able to announce the results of the review long before next winter.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance on two counts? First, will he assure us that the restricted number of categories that presently applies will be extended under the new scheme? Secondly, will he assure us that the size of the increase will be

    1105
    commensurate with the enormous percentage increase in electricity and gas bills?
    Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to anticipate the results of the review. That, of course, I cannot do. It is clear that the scheme which I announced before Christmas gave substantial help to those in greatest need. It covered all fuels, not just electricity and the electricity discount scheme.
    Mr. Marlow: If there is not already an index, will my right hon. Friend set up an index that measures the cost of living for one-parent families? Children have only one childhood. If their cost of living appears to be going up at a rate that is faster than normal, will he persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise child benefit, and other support for one-parent families, in the Budget?
    Mr. Jenkin: I know that many hon. Members in all parts of the House are anxious to do the best they can for one-parent families as they face particular difficulties. In our fuel help scheme, which we announced before Christmas, we therefore included provision for those at work who receive family income supplement. We gave the supplementary addition automatically to those with children under 5. The question of a separate index is a different point. If my hon. Friend tables a question, I shall try to answer it.

    Benefits (Payment)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy on the method and frequency of the payment of social benefits, and in particular the use of post office facilities.
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration has been given to altering the method of payment of social benefits by the Post Office.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for withdrawing his Department's services from post offices.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): As part of the Government's campaign to improve efficiency, an ex-
    1106
    amination has been made of the arrangements for paying social security benefits, including the frequency of payments and whether the public should be able to choose payment of their benefits direct into a bank account. Changing these arrangements offers scope for saving taxpayers' money by reducing administrative costs. My right hon. Friend is considering a study team's report on these arrangements in conjunction with Sir Derek Rayner. Any changes emerging from this study will be made only after the most careful consideration of the social and other consequences and after proper consultation.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does the Minister agree that to pay pensions and other benefits less frequently might cause a great deal of hardship? As many recipients are unlikely to have bank accounts, the suggestion that they should be paid in that way should be carefully investigated before proceeding. Will the Minister confirm that any suggestion of ceasing to pay social benefits through sub-post offices will mean that those post offices will experience great difficulty in surviving?
    Mrs. Chalker: No one will be forced to have his payment made direct into a bank account. We wish to ensure that the most vulnerable groups in society—those on supplementary benefit and the very old—will be able to receive their payments weekly, and through post offices if they so wish. Other people may need to adapt to a different payment period that will strike a better balance between their wishes for fairly frequent payment and the needs of taxpayers who have to foot the bill. No one will be forced to receive payments through the post office. Those who are vulnerable will not be forced to receive payments other than weekly.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the hon. Lady assure the House that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the issues before the Government make a decision? Is she aware that many people receiving social security already have difficulty coping with a weekly payment, and a less frequently paid benefit would cause a great deal of distress?
    Mrs. Chalker: When I saw the report, I raised many of these points. However, as has been done in many other countries,

    1107
    we must consider payment direct into bank accounts where that is desired by the recipient. We should, however, ensure that there is a choice. We should also ensure that we specifically help those families who have difficulty in budgeting, even on a weekly basis.
    Mr. Dormand: We have heard similar words from the Government before without seeing any action. Is the Minister aware of the considerable hardship and inconvenience that will be caused, particularly to old people? That factor must be taken into consideration when she and other Ministers are contemplating so-called efficiency. The Minister said that there will be a choice and I hope that she will ensure that it is so.
    Is the Minister further aware that many people have never even heard of a bank account, let alone possess one, and that the proposal will be of benefit to only a few people? Finally, what will the hon. Lady say to sub-postmasters who have invested their savings in their businesses and who may go bankrupt as a result of such measures?
    Mrs. Chalker: In recent years the number of people opening bank accounts has greatly increased. The facility is being requested. The previous Government were making preparations for automatic credit transfer and we are doing likewise.
    With regard to sub-post offices, there has been a lot of erroneous comment. It will not be a compulsory measure, as hon. Gentlemen are mouthing at me. I assure the House that we are considering the measure in great detail.
    Mr. Burden: I hope that my hon. Friend and the Government will not make too much of a meal of the measure. Is it not already possible for people who wish it to have their pensions paid through a bank account?
    Mrs. Chalker: I regret to inform my hon. Friend that, although a payable order may be sent to a beneficiary, it is not possible to have it paid direct into a bank account. That is part of the proposal that we are considering as a result of the study team's report?
    Mr. Orme: Does the Minister agree that it is bad enough for the Government to fail to meet their commitments, for
    1108
    example, with regard to the shortfall in pensions, but they are now proposing a fortnightly or monthly payment? Is the hon. Lady aware that there are 26,000 post offices throughout the country? Is she further aware that a principle of child benefit is that it should be paid to the mother, and that the proposal will run counter to that?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of how many post offices there are. I am also well aware of the false comments that have been made in recent weeks. It is important that, as of right, the mother should receive child benefit. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am taking all these matters fully into account.
    Mr. Tapsell: May I reiterate to my hon. Friend the point already made from these Benches—that sub-post offices are of great importance in rural areas? They alone perhaps keep the village shop economically viable. At a time when so many facilities are being withdrawn—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not putting a question. He is asserting a point of view. Perhaps he will now put a question.
    Mr. Tapsell: Will my hon. Friend bear that very much in mind?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are well aware of the importance of the sub-post office in suburban communities and particularly in rural communities, where it is often the only shop. I am considering the whole matter in conjunction with Ministers from other Departments.
    Mr. Stallard: How much do the Government hope to save by the change in procedure?
    Mrs. Chalker: We cannot yet forecast definite savings. It has been estimated that savings in administrative costs could rise to £50 million a year, but simplification should lower that saving to perhaps £35 million. Administrative charges are constantly increasing and money available should be spent on benefits, not administration.

    Vaccine-damaged Children
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if any changes have been made in arrangements made to

    1109
    assist vaccine-damaged children; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No. The arrangements remain exactly as my predecessor left them.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he not surprised at the low percentage of claimants whose claims are being satisfied? Bearing in mind the low numbers, the latest campaign is understandable. In the light of all that, can he repeat his assurance that there has been no amendment in the advice given by his officials on the interpretation of the Act?
    Mr. Jenkin: I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the scheme that is being administered is that which was approved by Parliament when the Vaccine Damage Payments Act was passed. No administrative directions have been given to those operating the scheme. Over 300 awards have been made, and, if the 1,100 claims awaiting review by tribunals succeed in the same proportions as hitherto, the total number will be around 600. No one has ever suggested that we are dealing with significantly greater numbers of vaccine-damaged children than that.
    Mr. Ashley: Does the Secretary of State agree that the present payment scheme is not a compensation scheme in the same way as that operated for other special cases, such as industrial injuries compensation? Can he tell the House whether he refuses to pay proper compensation because he rejects Pearson's views that vaccine-damaged children are a special case, because the Government cannot afford to compensate the number of children damaged, or because he believes that these children are less injured than people compensated for industrial injuries? Finally, does he believe that he can fob these children off with £10,000 because they do not have a powerful trade union to fight for them?
    Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman knows that these are difficult problems. It was because the House recognised the special duty that the community owes to vaccine-damaged children that we agreed on all sides that it was right to make a special payment under the provisions of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act. However much sympathy we have for these unfortunate families, we have to ask our-
    1110
    selves how far it is right to go on making more special payments to that group when we all know of families with children suffering equal hardship and disability and with equal needs but who would not qualify for compensation. Our view is that any further scheme of help for families with severely disabled children must await the time when we can introduce a general benefits scheme, which will of course have high priority when further resources become available.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend look into the delay in hearing appeals under the scheme? Some cases have been outstanding for a long time.
    Mr. Jenkin: I recognise that fact, that it causes great anxiety to parents. The number of tribunals that can operate is limited by the need for highly specialist medical representation. I hope that cases will be cleared as swiftly as possible, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is even more important to give a fair hearing to each case.
    Mr. Ennals: Is the Secretary of State concerned about the small number—only 320—who have so far been given compensation? Is he satisfied that the term "seriously disabled" is not being judged too harshly? Is he still insisting, as he has a right to, that when there is a problem of proof, which is always difficult, the balance should always be in favour of the claimant? Finally, is he satisfied that the scheme is working as well as intended?
    Mr. Jenkin: I recognise the anxieties. The scheme is unchanged from that introduced in the last Parliament by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) himself. Of course, there is a number of families who will have genuinely thought that they might be eligible for help but whose handicap, on the balance of probabilities—that is the test the Government wrote into the Act—cannot be attributed to the vaccination programme.
    The degree of handicap was again approved by the last Parliament. An 80 per cent. degree of disability was set. It was felt that help should go to those families with the most severely disabled children. That is the line that was taken. That is the law now being administered by the tribunals.
    Mr. Moyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difference between this group of handicapped children and others is that this group were handicapped through following a policy publicly urged on the country by successive Governments and that the Government therefore have a responsibility to them, over and above other groups? Does he agree that it would be appalling if the Government refused to introduce a comprehensive compensation scheme for handicapped people based on the Pearson report? If that is not to happen—we shall be pleased to know whether it is or not—will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to review those people coming within the £10,000 scheme to make sure that, instead of receiving an interim repayment, they get full compensation for their injuries?
    Mr. Jenkin: I must take up the right hon. Gentleman's point about an interim payment. I have refreshed my memory of the exchanges I had with his right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North on Second Reading of the Bill. Both he, from the Government Dispatch Box, and I were careful not to describe the £10,000 as an interim payment. The right hon. Gentleman made care to look up the references.
    A longer-term scheme of help for families with severely handicapped children, which was the Pearson recommendation, is something on which neither side has felt able to commit itself in the light of the resource implication. I am glad to have the assent of the righthon. Member for Norwich, North to that. If those on the Opposition Front Bench are saying that this should be introduced straight away, it is surprising that they left no provision to pay for it.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to announce an increase in the level of child benefit.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about child benefits.
    Mr. Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to announce an up rating of child benefit allowance.
    Mrs. Chalker: An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Rooker: Is it not clear from the Minister's answer that the value of child benefit willfall, and has now fallen, below the combined value of family allowances and tax allowances? What happened to the present Secretary of State's promise in July 1977 that child benefit would be treated in the same way as direct tax reductions? When will the Secretary of State and other Ministers at the DHSS stop operating as moles on behalf of the Treasury? It has been put to me by constituents and others that this Government now stand charged with an act of unparalleled electoral betrayal and social vandalism. They have been seen through.
    Mrs. Chalker: The House has been made aware on a number of occasions that the Government considered that, with so many other competing claims last autumn, a general increase in benefit in November last year could not be justified. We fully appreciate the value of the child benefit, particularly for working families with children. But any uprating is expensive. An extra 10p costs about £60 million a year. The right time to increase the benefit is November when all social security benefits are uprated.
    Mr. Bennett: What are the Government doing to reduce the poverty trap?
    Mrs. Chalker: The Government intend to take all steps in relation to tax and benefits to make sure that work incentives are improved.
    Mr. Stoddart: Will the hon. Lady go away and bow her head in shame and put on sackcloth and ashes for the way the Government have let down and cheated families? Is she aware that families are now worse off in relation to child benefit, which the Government side of the House welcomed and said they would support, than they were before child benefit with family allowance and income tax relief? Will the Government abandon their present position and agree now to an up rating in the child benefit allowance?
    Mrs. Chalker: I do not intend to act in any strange clothes in this House. I must inform the hon. Gentleman that the value of child benefit at present is higher than at any time going back to 1971.
    Mr. Paul Dean: While recognising the deplorably weak economy that the Government have inherited after many years of Labour rule, will my hon. Friend aim to review child benefit along with the other benefits at the annual review as soon as possible?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Of course.
    Mr. Wigley: Does not the hon. Lady accept that many mothers are forced to go out to work because of the eroding of the value of child benefit? There are strong economic as well as social reasons for a substantial increase in child benefit so that these mothers can stay at home when they so desire.
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. But it is inflation that has eroded family income. We are well aware, therefore, that any inflation will hit benefits already in payment. I cannot accept, however, the hon. Gentleman's statement that women are being forced out to work. The child benefit, raised to £4 last April, and the child benefit increase of a further 50p in November, is obviously losing value because of the state of inflation. The Government's job is to get on top of inflation and to make sure that money retains its value.
    Mr. Orme: Is the hon. Lady aware that her hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said last Friday that his Government had cheated the pensioners? Today she is cheating the families. How do the Government intend to help millions of working families? Where has all the talk about incentives to work gone? Child benefit is a direct incentive to working families. This Government have let them down.
    Mrs. Chalker: I cannot accept that this Government have cheated the family. We have been clear and honest from the beginning. If the country does not have the money to pay the benefits, we cannot pay the benefits. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that child benefit plays a most important part in family income and that it is crucial to restoring incentives. His words and mine on that score are in complete accord. They are being said day by day in the proper circles.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional measures he is proposing to assist registered disabled persons to withstand the increased cost of goods and services which are essential to aid their mobility.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): Local social services authorities provide help with mobility to registered disabled persons and it is for individual authorities to determine, in the light of their own priorities, what help should be made available. As to assistance from the Department, the mobility allowance was increased by 20 per cent. last November and my right hon. Friend will be considering, before the end of the tax year, what the rate should be from November 1980.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In view of the cost of living rise, which causes many problems for disabled people, will he consult his colleagues in the Treasury to see if the mobility allowance can be made non-taxable since it is an inevitable and unavoidable extra expense?
    Mr. Prentice: The mobility allowance will be reviewed along the lines that I have suggested. It is unlikely to be made untaxable.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that disabled people will not be required to pay prescription charges, as some are doing at present? Will he give a categorical assurance that they will not pay any increased prescription charges?
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I can give no such assurance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a wide list of exemptions from payment of prescription charges.
    Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's view is that they will not give further benefits to disabled people until the economy improves?
    Mr. Prentice: There will be a review of benefits in November. As to the introduction of new benefits or the extension of the scope of existing benefits, the hon. Gentleman is right—such improvements must await an improvement in the economy.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the mobility allowance been fully phased in? If not, how many eligible people are still awaiting the allowance? Can the Minister say whether the increases in motoring costs will be taken fully into account in increasing the allowance in November?
    Mr. Prentice: On the latter point, the increase in motoring costs will be one of the factors taken into account. I cannot say that it will be taken fully into account because the allowance was never envisaged as covering all the costs of mobility. It simply makes a contribution towards them. Those people between 60 and 65 have been phased in—more rapidly than planned by the previous Government. New claims are still being processed and the processing is not quite complete.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether some special help could be given to the war disabled from the First World War? Although they are not entitled to receive a mobility allowance as such, many of them cannot use motor cars and find it very difficult to get out. Does he not agree that some special help should be given to them as there are only 2,500 of them?
    Mr. Prentice: As my hon. Friend will be aware, special allowances are payable to the war disabled. I think it is unlikely that an increase would be paid to the First World War disabled only. However, if my hon. Friend will contact me about this matter I shall look at it further.

    Industrial Dispute (Supplementary Benefit Payments)
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many strike centres have been set up to handle claims from steel workers on strike; where they are situated; and what is the total sum that has been paid to date.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the aggregate cost to public funds of supplementary benefits paid to those involved in the British Steel Corporation strike, and to their dependants, respectively, to date.
    Mr. Prentice: Nineteen centres were set up to handle claims for supplementary benefit—mostly on behalf of dependants
    1116
    —of striking employees of the British Steel Corporation. One Teesside centre has been closed and I will circulate in the Official Report, the list of areas in which the others are situated.
    Up to the close of business on 22 January, the latest date for which figures are available, a total of about £790,000 had been paid, including £260 to strikers themselves.
    Mr. Brotherton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come to stop setting up these strike centres? Is it not time for the trade unions to bear the responsibilities of the strikes that they have brought about? Is it not wrong to make the taxpayer finance these strikes?
    Mr. Prentice: I completely agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. It is not for me to comment on the pace at which we shall implement our manifesto pledges in this respect, but it is deplorable that so much money is being spent in subsidising the strike. This is more so than usual because the two main steel unions and 11 out of the 13 smaller ones involved have decided not to pay a penny piece of strike pay.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not abusive that a union such as the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, which is sitting on a piggy bank of more than £11 million, is allowed to use that money to buy the services of gentlemen from the polytechnics to man the pickets, yet does not provide one penny piece to those whom it has called out on strike without any consultation? Will my right hon. Friend please see that our manifesto commitment is actuated as soon as possible?
    Mr. Prentice: It is utterly deplorable that, on top of inflicting damage on the nation by the strike, the unions concerned should add insult to injury by expecting the taxpayers to subsidise the strike to the extent of the figures that I have announced. The House will have noticed that those figures are almost a week old. Therefore, by now certainly well over £1 million will have been paid out to strikers' families. That is money which should have been contributed by the unions themselves.
    Mr. Freeson: Is the Minister aware that it is not necessary for him to seek

    1117
    to outbid some of the contemptible sentiments from his own Back Benches with which he seems to think he must enthusiastically compete? Will he tell us the average payments per person? Will he also remind the House that, except for £260, all these thousands of pounds have been paid for the needs of women and children? Will he remind himself of the fact that these women and children are entitled in law to this money, that they have been so entitled for years, and that they shall continue to be so entitled?
    Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Member and his hon. Friends might ask themselves why the Transport and General Workers Union and the General and Municipal Workers Union are meeting their formal obligations and paying strike pay, whereas the two biggest unions involved in the steel strike and 11 out of the 13 smaller ones are not paying a penny piece.
    Mr. Dykes: Is it not important to keep a sense of balance and proportion? Is it not true that, even if the unions paid strike money, there would be no guarantee, unfortunately, that the money would go to wives and families? Why should they be penalised?
    Mr. Prentice: I agree that it is necessary to keep a sense of proportion. However, the conduct of the unions in this dispute, which is deplorable in general, is particularly deplorable in that they have not met the normal minimal obligations of unions for their own members and their members' families.
    The following is the list:
    Cumbria: Workington;
    North-East: Consett, Hartlepool, and Teesside;
    South Yorkshire: Rotherham, Sheffield (2);
    North Lincolnshire: Scunthorpe (2);
    East Midlands: Corby;
    North Wales: Connah's Quay;
    South Wales: Bridgend, Cwmbran, Ebbw Vale, Llanelli, Morriston, Neath, Newport.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Dormandasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 January.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
  1118
  I shall also have a meeting with Signor Cossiga and later I shall give a dinner in his honour.
  Mr. Dormand: When the Prime Minister sees her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will she discuss with him again the worsening problem of coking coal imports? Is she aware that 10,000 jobs are at stake here and that all we are talking about is a subsidy of £18 million after the National Coal Board has made its financial contribution? If the Prime Minister still resolutely refuses this subsidy from the Government, will she, as a matter of urgency, make an application to the EEC for that comparatively small sum, bearing in mind that those countries have received far greater subsidies.
  The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member knows, a large amount of financing for the National Coal Board comes from what is called public money. In 1979–80 this will amount to £607 million. The Government certainly have no objection to some of that being used to subsidise coking coal.
  Mr. Alexander: In the course of the day will my right hon. Friend consider the events in Birmingham last Sunday? Does she consider it right that the Sinn Fein should have been allowed to march there when a few yards away and only four years ago the IRA was responsible for the deaths of four people and the injury of 191 others on one day? If she does not find that acceptable, will she tell us what the Government intend to do about it?
  The Prime Minister: Sinn Fein is not a proscribed organisation. Therefore, whether a march should be re-routed or allowed to be held at all is a matter in the first instance for the chief constable. If he decides that it should not be held, he must consult the Home Secretary. If he decides that the march should go ahead—as this one did—the decision, in the first instance, is for the chief constable; and that is as it should be.
  Dr. Owen: In view of the fact that the latest figures available show that the Federal Republic of Germany subsidised the coking industry to the tune of £290 million and the NCB subsidises it only to the tune of about £10 million, how can the

  1119
  Prime Minister justify not making an application to the EEC if she refuses to give Government money? The amount of a mere £l8 million would avoid a substantial number of redudancies and pit closures.
  The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard precisely what I said. This year the cash limit for external financing for the NCB is some £607 million overall. That is a great deal of money. On top of that there is external financing for steel, for British Rail and British Leyland. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would expect that the small amount for coking coal could have been provided out of that considerable sum.
  Mr. Freud: While pursuing her busy schedule and rightly urging the Olympic athletes to boycott Moscow, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the situation of the English Chamber Orchestra under the patronage of Prince Charles, which is due to leave in five weeks on a British Council-sponsored tour of Moscow? The orchestra is looking to the Government for a directive on whether to go on this tour.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not necessarily issue directives; and quite rightly so. We tender advice. It is the responsibility of those who receive that advice to decide whether to take it. In general, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the advice is to cut off many political and cultural contacts for the time being as a way of making the protest that we can make against what has happened in Afghanistan.
  Mr. George Gardiner: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in a sunday newspaper concerning a moderate shop steward in the steel industry who complained of violent intimidation of himself, his wife and his children? That intimidation occurred because he wanted a say in what was happening. Will my right hon. Friend look at the industrial relations legislation now before Parliament to make sure that it is strong enough to prevent that kind of thing?
  The Prime Minister: Violent intimidation, or intimidation of any kind, must be totally and utterly condemned by everyone in this country. Violent intimidation can be dealt with by the criminal
  1120
  law, but my hon. Friend knows that the difficulty is in getting evidence. There is not the slightest shadow of doubt that some people are frightened.
  Mr. Maclennan: Is the Prime Minister aware of the report published today that Mr. Poniatowski is proposing a nuclear force for Europe? If the Government are aware of it, what is their reaction to that proposal?
  The Prime Minister: It is not the first time that our French allies have proposed that there should be a European nuclear deterrent. This is not a new suggestion. We discuss these matters from time to time and undoubtedly this proposal will be discussed in the future.
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 January.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given.
  Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend now deplore the rabble-rousing partnership at work yesterday between Mr. Arthur Scargill and the deputy leader of the Labour Party, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—which aims to destroy respect for the rule of law and the rights of majorities within trade unions? Will the Prime Minister please assure the House that the Government's industrial legislation proposals will provide adequate protection against violent picketing, blacking and intimidation?
  The Prime Minister: I believe that the vast majority of trade unionists—almost all of them—would agree that the law must be upheld. I am glad that a vast majority in the House believes that the law must be upheld and I am glad that the president and the general secretary of the ISTC also took that view. There would be no civilisation unless the law were upheld. My hon. Friend will recollect, in relation to the provisions in the Employment Bill, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment indicated that he would consider, when we knew the decision on the McShane case, whether further provisions should be brought forward in Committee

  1121
  He is actively considering that. However, it would seem that the law is far from clear.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Prime Minister consider telling her hon. Friends who sit behind her that if they would stop making their hyena-like remarks we might be able to get the strike settled?
  The Prime Minister: It is rather significant that the hon. Gentleman refers to upholding the law in that way. We do not.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most local authorities have complied with the wishes of the Cabinet on public expenditure cuts? If there are to be further cuts, the local authorities would wish central Govenment to indicate which services should be finished.
  The Prime Minister: Examples of waste within many services are noted almost daily by the newspapers. If one looks at the enormous number of people employed by local authorities and the way in which that number has steadily increased, one can but reach the conclusion that there is considerable scope for further economies in administration.
  Mr. John Morris: How long does the Prime Minister intend to maintain the Government's posture of non-intervention in the steel strike? Is she aware of bitter criticism today of the Government's proposal for the rundown of BSC as regards numbers, speed and the fact that no application has been made to the EEC for aid? Will she publish a White Paper on her negotiations on this matter with the EEC and her responses to the criticisms that are being ventilated?
  The Prime Minister: I heard on the early morning news the criticisms made by Commissioner Vredeling. He seemed to indicate that we had not applied for aid from Europe. However, since 1973 there have been 100 such applications. On 12 December the Department of Industry informed Commission officials of BSC's proposals for redundancies in 1980 and 1981. The Commission decided that £7·7 million should be allocated to Shotton and that allocation was signed by Commissioner Vredeling.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend consider today the increase in the
  1122
  United States defence budget? Will she consider whether we could increase our defence spending by more than the 4 per cent. that may be possible? Perhaps it could be increased to 10 per cent?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that we can go beyond the pledges we have already given. If we manage to get expansion in the economy and earnings and productivity go up, we could do a great deal more in many areas. I am not prepared to commit extra expenditure until we have got extra earnings.

  DRONGAN
  Mr. Foulkesasked the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Drongan.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Foulkes: If the Prime Minister visits Drongan will she compare the excellent local authority sheltered housing there with the old people's homes highlighted recently in The Sunday Times? Will she ask the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Attorney-General to look into the laws governing old people's homes and the case of Olive St. Barbe in particular?
  The Prime Minister: I am happy to report that many of us have excellent sheltered housing and old peoples' homes in our constituencies. When we once again have economic expansion we will be able to provide more of them. If the hon. Gentleman has particular cases in mind I am sure that he will refer them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  NUCLEAR SECURITY
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her latest discussions with Mr. van Agt, Prime Minister of Holland, on security at the joint conference project at URENCO, Almelo, Holland.
  The Prime Minister: I have not spoken to Mr. van Agt since our meeting on 6 December 1979, when I made my concern about the Khan affair very clear to him. As I told the hon. Gentleman on 17 January, we remain in close touch with the

  1123
  Netherlands and German Governments through diplomatic channels and the URENCO joint committee to ensure that all the necessary action to prevent a repetition is being taken.
  Mr. Dalyell: Has there yet been a complete and candid explanation by the Dutch as to why, for four long years, their British and German partners were not told about a major security leak to Pakistan?
  The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a report of which we have received a confidential copy. I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter and I wish to make it quite clear that we are every bit as concerned as he is. It was an appalling breach of security which can have very far-reaching consequences. All our efforts at the moment are strained to see that there is no repetition of that incident.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Since Pakistan deceived the British Government into sending it inverters for a nuclear weapon plant under the pretence that they were for a textile mill—I was personally involved in bringing this to the attention of the House—is it right to send arms to Pakistan?
  The Prime Minister: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that the two issues are exactly related. My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary made our views very clear to the Pakistan Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Pakistan has not signed the non-proliferation agreement, which is a matter of great concern to us. We tried to secure undertakings from the Government of Pakistan that they would not transfer any nuclear technology anywhere else.
  The selling of arms to Pakistan is a different matter, especially as Pakistan is right in the front line now.

  CORRIGENDUM
  In the Prime Minister's reply to Mr. Allaun:
  In line 5, after "views", insert "on the nuclear aspect of the question".
  In line 9, for "tried" read "therefore do try".
  [See also cols. 1578–80.]

  MR. SPEAKER (PERSONAL STATEMENT)
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall make a brief personal statement. Those who were in the Chamber earlier this afternoon will know that right hon. and hon. Members were kind enough to give me birthday greetings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I really was not asking for more. In view of the article in The Times today, it is in the interests of the House for me to make a brief statement to end speculation about my intentions for the future.
  It is but eight months since the House did me the honour of electing me Mr. Speaker for the life of this Parliament. That is a trust that I hope to fulfil. I do not wish to tempt providence, but I am feeling as fit as when I assumed the Chair. Therefore, it is my intention to continue to serve the House for this Parliament as it invited me to do eight month ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

SCUNTHORPE STEEL STRIKE COMMITTEE (LETTER)
Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the consequences of a circular letter sent by the Scunthorpe Steel Strike Committee to steel workers who are reluctant to give their support to the steel strike by picketing.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for being unable to give you notice before 12 noon. Unfortunately, the document that is the subject of my application was not in my hands until the lunch-time period.
The letter states:
"This fight will only be won with you and every member doing their duty, by reporting to our strike centre, and being prepared to assist by doing a turn on picket duties. This fight will be over one day, and we would not want any unpleasantness after we have won, by some people being accused of not pulling their weight."
The letter contains threats which, though unspecified, are a clear attempt to intimidate.
Following the recent judgment by Lord Denning, in the Court of Appeal,

1125
steel workers by that letter are being told in a most dictatorial, undemocratic and tyrranical manner to commit acts that may be unlawful. Whether the acts are lawful or whether they are not, it is intolerable that many of my constituents should live in fear and dread of union bully boys who have been unsuccessful in obtaining the support of steel workers who are on strike against their will. For these tyrants to make threats implying the possible loss of ISTC union cards and, by implication, the jobs of those opposed to the strike, is an unacceptable intrusion and intimidation of many of my constituents that should be discussed in the House at the first opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) gave me notice as soon as he received the letter to which he has referred that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the consequences of a circular letter sent by the Scunthorpe Steel Strike Committee to steel workers who are reluctant to give their support to the steel strike by picketing.
I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman's argument. I read with care the letter that he delivered to me during the lunch hour.
As the House knows, I am directed by Standing Order No. 9 to take account of the several factors set out in the order—there are many factors involved in this issue—but to give no reason for my decision.
I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN CARS
3.37 pm
Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the better safety of children in cars by prohibiting the carriage of children under thirteen years of age in the front seat of motorcars, to provide for the appropriate fitments for seat belts in rear seats of all new cars and for the fitment of rear seat child safety seats in a proportion of all hire-drive cars.
1126
In moving this brief Bill, I am repeating the attempt that was made last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to draw attention to the appalling and yet avoidable loss of life on the roads of Britain.
More than 20 people every day die in road accidents and over 200 receive serious injury. These are statistics in which my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby and I have both figured, and which should shock and horrify us all.
Road casualties are not all avoidable, and in the motorised society of today there are inevitable risks. However, Parliament could do much to reduce the widespread carnage—the daily maiming, killing and crippling—that now scarcely merits a headline in the press. Our delay in making seat belt wearing compulsory, our reluctance to tighten design safety regulations for vehicles, and our perverse resistance to the tachograph in lorries display our unwillingness to deal positively with a major and escalating national scandal.
However, that which converts our lethargic indifference into the inexcusable are child accidents. Each year 10,000 children under 15 years of age are injured in cars, and 83 of them die. Millions more of them every day are carried completely unrestrained, in cars designed for the safety of adults. All of them are carried at enormous yet avoidable risk.
Of the 83 children who died in cars in 1977, 25 were being carried in the front passenger seat. Of the 9,000 children who were injured, 2,280 were in the front passenger seat—the real and well-named "killer" seat. Most of these injuries are avoidable and, therefore, inexcusable, and these children are the innocent victims of our collective inaction.
The 10,000 children who each year are killed, maimed, crippled or mutilated cannot themselves judge that the risk of travelling in the front seat is three times as great as that of travelling in the back seat. They cannot measure the merits or benefits of the safety of a restraint or the danger of being loose in a collision.
These children, whose lives and limbs are shattered, do not design cars, which have eye-level fascias for adults, which are safe and cushioned, yet retain sharp, hostile protruding edges at a child's level. They do not make laws, which could

1127
make the fitment of rear seat restraints obligatory, or could force manufacturers to provide the anchorage points for them in family cars.
Young children do not make the decision to sit on an adult's lap in the front seat. However, they are the ones who will be torn, with enormous force, from the adult's arms and hurled against the dashboard or windscreen, often at the expense of their lives. They do not know, but their parents should, that a 30 lb. child in a collison at only 20 mph will weigh up to a quarter of a ton, and that, at best, the adult, by acting as a battering ram, will be saved injury by crushing the child, often to death.
It is Parliament that could, and should, act on the decision of the 18 nations at the 1975 European conference of Transport Ministers that
"children be carried at the rear of the car if they are too young or too small to use the seats belts or if there are no special safety devices for them."
It is within our power to act on the evidence that a child in the front seat is three times more at risk than one in the rear, and that a restrained child is the safest of all.
It is within our power and our responsibility to recognise that we have a duty to protect the helpless children in road accidents from the potentially lethal
1128
manner in which they are carried in cars. It is long beyond the time to say that where technology or legislation, or both can do something to stop this destruction of young life and of young potential, we have a moral commitment to act.
The Bill is a modest but self-evidently important step in the campaign to save human life. I hope that the House will support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Robertson, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Mr. Roger Moate, Mr. Gregor MacKenzie, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Albert McQuarrie and Mr. K. J. Woolmer.

SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN CARS
Mr. George Robertson accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the better safety of children in cars by prohibiting the carriage of children under thirteen years of age in the front seat of motor cars, to provide for the appropriate fitments for seat belts in rear seats of all new cars and for the fitment of rear seat child safety seats in a proportion of all hire-drive cars: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 February and to be printed. [Bill 130.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

  GAS PRICES
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) I remind the House that this is expected to be a short debate. I believe that it is the intention that it should finish at as near 7 o'clock as possible. There are four Front Bench speakers in the short debate. Therefore, I hope that both they and the rest of the House will realise that whoever is in the Chair can call hon. Members to speak only if those who are fortunate bear their colleagues in mind.
  3.42 pm
  Dr. David Owen: I beg to move.
  That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government's savage increase in gas prices over the next three years which will hit ordinary families and have a devastating effect upon the cost of living; and calls for a comprehensive scheme to protect the most vulnerable sections of the community from the inflationary effects of high fuel prices.
  A year ago inflation in Britain was running at 8 per cent. It is currently running at over 17 per cent. By the spring it will be over 20 per cent. Of the current 17 per cent. inflation, 8½ per cent. has been induced by specific decisions of Conservative Members; value added tax accounts for 3¾ per cent.: reduced local authority grants, 1 per cent.; reduced support for nationalised industries, ¾per cent.; higher national insurance contributions, ½ per cent.; green pound devaluation, ¾ per cent.; and increased interest in mortgage rates, l¾ per cent.
  Can anyone who voted for the Conservative Party have really believed that in less than a year it would have brought to this country 8½ per cent. inflation—double the rate that it was a year ago?
  The central core of our indictment of Conservative Members is their callous disregard for the consequences of inflation on most families. They have acted in a way that has gravely prejudiced the competitiveness of British industry and
  1130
  weakened our already weak industrial base.
  We have now a further¼ per cent. on gas prices alone, and ½ per cent. on all fuels, to take effect from April. What is worse, the Government have committed themselves to a formula of 10 percent. over and above inflation, not only this year but next year and the year beyond. That is not a drip, drip, but a torrent of inflationary action from the Government that is putting our rate well above the 12 per cent. average for OECD countries.
  Britain cannot continue with such inflationary rates. Domestic fuel bills, on average, will rise next year by £28. For the two winter quarters it will be near to £20. That is a large amount to find from family budgets that are already under great strain.
  The Secretary of State may claim in his defence that oil prices are rising, that international energy prices are rising, and that we are now receiving about 50 per cent. of our gas from the Northern basin, which costs much more than the gas from the Southern basin. The right hon. Gentleman may stress that the Price Commission advocated a phased increase. On all that we agree. He may point also to the need to invest in more gas gathering pipelines if we are to avoid the scandalous position of burning up gas in the North Sea. At times we have been burning as much as one-third of our domestic gas consumption. I would wish to see greater exploitation of the gas that I believe exists, but is yet undiscovered, in the North Sea. We need to build up reserves for the eventual switch to synthetic gas.
  On all these matters there is agreement. However, the matters are known to the British Gas Corporation. They are better known to the corporation than they are to Conservative Members. What we have to ask is why the British Gas Corporation, knowing full well that these increases were to be made, and taking them into account with its commercial interests, does not agree that gas prices should rise by the amount stated for the years 1981–82 and 1982–83.
  The only reason why it shows a broad measure of agreement with the 29 per cent. increase this year is that the Government, especially the Prime Minister, vetoed any price increases last summer. The reason why we are facing such

  1131
  substantial increases is that Conservative Members refused to increase prices last year.
  Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
  Dr. Owen: I shall not give way. It is no use Conservative Members complaining. If they wished to phase the price increase they could have raised prices a little last year and a little more this year. The central core of the argument is the rate of these increases, the effect on inflation and the effect on families.
  The other argument that has been used is the link between gas prices and oil prices. That is an extremely dangerous argument. OPEC countries have a vested interest—
  Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman has made a grave accusation. He claimed that Conservative Members were frightened of raising domestic gas prices. Will he tell us what happened to domestic gas prices when his Government were in power and what they did to hold down domestic gas prices against the commercial interests of Britain?
  Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. On the one hand he attacks us for showing enough courage to hold down gas prices and then becomes upset when I say that the right hon. Lady made a great principle of not raising gas prices in the summer of last year. She is now raising gas prices against the commercial judgment of the British Gas Corporation.
  It is an extraordinary position. My right hon. and hon. Friends are not slaves to market forces. Conservative hon. Members spend their time demanding that we should accept commercial judgments. The OPEC countries have a vested interest in ensuring that the price of gas, which it currently does little about other than burn, rises to meet oil prices.
  It is not in the interests of this country, or in the interests of Western Europe or anyone in the world, that gas prices should follow oil prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because one of the great virtues of gas is that it comes from a much wider range of countries than the OPEC countries. The largest supplies that are currently being marketed do not come from OPEC countries. Algeria is a large source, but the Netherlands is the
  1132
  largest exporter. Considerable amounts of gas also come from Thailand, the ASEAN countries, and North America. If we want to keep down world energy prices, there is a great deal to be said for trying to keep gas prices below oil prices.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Owen: If hon. Members want all energy prices to go up, they are setting a most extraordinary example. What I am warning—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that it is now clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
  Dr. Owen: We understand the sensitivity of Conservative Members on this issue, but if they are arguing that gas prices should be encouraged to follow oil prices, it is a very strange argument. What I am saying is that if one can possibly keep a distinction—
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of what the chairman of the British Gas Corporation said in a letter to me on 2 August 1979? It was:
  "The practice of market relating to the nearest alternative fuel was established right at the beginning of natural gas marketing as a means of ensuring the best use is made of the premium quantities of this natural resource."
  The chairman did not, of course, relate his remarks to gas and oil.
  Dr. Owen: There is a relationship with regard to industrial use, where there is an immediate transfer and flexibility between the two. That linkage has been established for some time. It has not been established in the domestic market, and the Secretary of State knows that. Is he now trying to establish the same linkage between oil and gas in the domestic market that has hitherto existed in the industrial market? If that is the case it will mean much greater increased gas prices than the increase that has been currently produced by the Government.
  Industry and all of us are already suffering seriously from a very high exchange rate, put up by the fact that we have a petro-currency. If it must also accept the highest energy prices that operate in the world, our industry, which is

  1133
  already experiencing great difficulty against the exchange rate, will have a particularly difficult time. Conservative Members will have to face the fact that it is not in our interests to tie domestic gas prices to oil prices. Of course, gas prices must bear some relationship, because they cannot be divorced totally—[Hon. Members. "Oh."]—Of course, because that is an inevitable fact of life. What we are talking about is the savage rate of increase. The Secretary of State will also have to consider the question of conservation. As one of the prime reasons for increasing gas prices, the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that this was necessary because if the price were too low we should burn it up too fast and bring forward the day when we would have to turn to more expensive sources of supply.
  Where in the Gas Act 1972 is the legislative authority for such an argument for increasing gas prices? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain that to the House. Under sections 2 and 14 of the Act, it is the corporation's duty in respect of pricing that, taking one year with another, it should charge prices that enable it to meet its outgoings and to make such allocations to reserve as it thinks adequate. Presumably, the word "adequate", means adequate for the purpose of performing the corporation's statutory responsibility to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economic system of gas supply and to satisfy, so far as it is economical to do so, all reasonable demands for gas—not for any other purpose.
  It seems that the new policy is to use higher pricing to deter people from entering, or remaining in, the market for gas. I have been able to discover no power under the Gas Act for the corporation to secure revenue or build up reserves for the purpose of stopping people from using gas, and still less to encourage them to use other sources of energy. I find it difficult to understand how it is consistent with that policy for the corporation to satisfy, so far as it is economical to do so, all reasonable demands for gas in Great Britain.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The right hon. Gentleman has advanced the argument that the Government should not
  1134
  control gas prices for any reason other than those inherent in the Gas Act itself. Is he aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), who was a Minister in the Labour Government, said in 1977, when he increased gas prices:
  "We were aware of these considerations, but an increase in gas prices was necessary to reduce the level of Government financing."—[Official Report, 17 March 1977; Vol. 928, c. 251.]
  Is that what the right hon. Gentleman wants?
  Dr. Owen: That is quite a different reason. Under section 15 of the Gas Act it is arguable that the Government of the day were using the powers of discretionary decision that are open to the Secretary of State. Had Conservative Members wished to challenge that at the time, no doubt they would have done so, but my argument relates to a quite new issue. If the Government wish to use rationing by price as grounds for a gas increase, it is my submission that that authority is not contained in the Gas Act. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he consulted the Attorney-General about the reasons for raising gas prices. It may well be that one of the consumer councils will wish to challenge the validity of this policy.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
  Dr. Owen: No, I shall not give way. Our main criticism of the Government relates to their overall argument about conservation. They underestimate the importance of gas on conservation grounds. It is a far better way of heating homes than electricity, where about 70per cent. of the energy goes up the chimney in waste. It is much easier to use the supply lines for gas heating to domestic homes. It is much easier for the industry to diversify into coal. By using price as a means of conservation, the Government must face the fact that they are selectively hitting those people who have no other option, such as young families who must keep the house warm for 24 hours a day and the housebound, disabled or elderly who also have heating bills in respect of a 24-hour period. It is for that reason that we find that families on low incomes, or families with young children, spend a

  1135
  much higher proportion of their income on fuel bills. It is they who will be most savagely hit.
  Furthermore, it seems to be envisaged that the tariff will hit prepayment customers hardest. There is already a differential, and it is suggested that it should be increased. That again will affect the poorest. If conservation is the key factor, it would be better for the Secretary of State to consider a peak load tariff—which was suggested by the Price Commission or even an inverted tariff, where the average price increases with usage after an initial basic allowance. There are difficulties in that respect, but that at least would encourage conservation and not penalise basic users.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is to be taken seriously, and if conservation is the key factor for a price increase, we have the right to ask why he has not increased the £50 allowance for roof and loft insulation. Why has he cut back on the "Save It" campaign budget? Why has he scrapped a pilot project for centres to advise on home insulation? Why is it intended to stop the £25 million scheme to help industry and businesses insulate buildings and improve their boilers? Why is it intended—effectively, it has already occurred—to cut back on the STEP programme to insulate old people's houses and to help them to obtain grants?
  The right hon. Gentleman would carry more conviction on conservation grounds had he acted more to promote conservation. It is not just a question of words. For some time now we have urged specific measures on the Government, which they have consistently rejected. It would have carried more conviction in the country had some of the substantial increases in profit that will occur as a result of these decisions been diverted into genuine measures to help conservation.
  But the real question that we must face is the impact that this will have on poor families. Council tenants increasingly use gas. In 1978, more than 80 per cent. of all new council houses had gas installed in them.
  The supplementary benefits inspectorate has estimated that 60 per cent. of pensioners receiving supplementary benefits under heat their homes. Half the
  1136
  people who run fuel debts are pensioners; the other half are mainly single-parent families. It is difficult to assess the full extent of hypothermia, because it is rarely recorded as the sole cause of death. Obviously, winter death rates can be influenced by many factors, and cold must be one. Over the last 10 years the death rate in winter has been 17 per cent. higher for people aged 60 to 69, 20 per cent. higher for people in their 70s, and 25 per cent. higher for people over 80. For infants aged between 12 weeks and four months, the winter death rate is 40 per cent. higher than the summer rate. It is difficult to believe that cold is not playing a part in those figures for people who would normally be confined to their homes in winter.
  We are told that the Government have a review in hand to examine ways of helping poor families. That is a bit rich from a Government who last year made a central public expenditure cut of between £20 million and £30 million, at the expense of electricity users, by scrapping the electricity discount scheme. A new fuel scheme is urgently needed. The Secretary of State for Social Services says that there is nothing in our proposal. I can suggest a scheme that he should introduce. He knows as well as I do that if he is to introduce it a decision to do so must be made in the next few months. The right hon. Gentleman will claim that no allocation was made for the electricity discount scheme. That is the great defence of the Conservative Party. The electricity discount scheme was already operating.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The right hon. Gentleman repeats his canard that the Government cut spending on the electricity discount scheme. With the greatest respect, one cannot cut something that is not there. There was no provision in the estimates by the previous Labour Government. We introduced a new and better scheme, at a cost of £16½ million a year.
  Dr. Owen: The electricity discount scheme was always decided on by the Cabinet, as an overall decision, to try to relieve poverty. It has not been borne specifically by the social security budget. One of the reasons for that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is that it was

  1137
  felt that there should be a contribution to help with fuel, not simply from the social security budget but from the Department of Energy and other Departments. That scheme would have continued, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
  We were aware that there was a strong case for a comprehensive scheme, not simply to cover electricity. The Government must now introduce for next winter a comprehensive scheme that will cover not only electricity and gas but coal, paraffin and oil. It must be implemented by next winter, and therefore a decision must be taken by the summer, at the latest. The scheme should be simple to administer and, given the time restraints under which we are currently operating, keep the existing heating allowances and use the categories covered by existing schemes. It should be a scheme that could develop further into a proper comprehensive fuel benefit.
  Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now virtually impossible for hon. Members to collect information from the DHSS about the number of people who are likely to benefit from the Government scheme—for example, the number of pensioners over the age of 75? It seems that instructions have been given by the Secretary of State for such information not to be given to hon. Members. What is the Government's reason for covering up? Is it not clear that the reason why they are refusing to give information is that many people whom the Government claim are entitled to benefit will not receive it?
  Dr. Owen: Sadly, there is likely to be a low take-up. Whereas, previously, over 3 million people were benefiting, even on the Government's estimates, only 350,000 people would benefit from the new scheme.
  A comprehensive scheme must cover not only those people who receive supplementary benefits. If the scheme were confined solely to people receiving supplementary benefit, as a recent survey by the economic advisers to the DHSS has shown, it would miss 60 per cent. of the people in greatest need. The scheme must cover the working poor, the low-income wage earner with a large family, the poor elderly who are just outside
  1138
  supplementary benefit levels, couples with small occupational pensions, and the disabled. The scheme must give an entitlement to anyone claiming a rent or rate rebate, people receiving invalidity benefits, as well as people on supplementary benefits and family income supplement. The cost of the scheme cannot start at less than £100 million, and it should be a good deal more than that.
  The logic of the right hon. Gentleman is that if he is to increase energy prices, part of the profit that will accrue to those industries must be turned back to finance a comprehensive scheme to help people in need. It must cover the two winter quarters and be paid either in cash, or, if there are objections to cash payments, through fuel stamps, provided that fuel stamps are available for all energy consumers. That method of saving and budgeting for fuel bills is advocated by the Gas and Electricity Consumer Councils. That is the only way in which to salvage the wreckage caused by the right hon. Gentleman's insensitivity and callous disregard for the consequences of his decision, which takes effect in April. Its worst consequences will come in the winter of next year. The House will judge the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative Party savagely if all they produce for next winter is a small addition to the already mean-minded scheme produced by the Secretary of State for Social Services.
  Our indictment of the Government is that they are savagely increasing inflation, and seem not to care what happens.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point? Are the Opposition in favour of a gas price increase? If so, by how much?
  Dr. Owen: All my remarks have indicated that there will have to be a gas price increase. I have not shirked that in anything that I have said. My criticism is of the rate and pace at which it is being increased. The Price Commission recommended that if there were to be a gas price increase it should be phased. I believe that a 29 per cent. increase, at a time when inflation is spiralling upwards to 17 per cent., is too high. At the very least, the increase should have been at the current rate of inflation.
  It is no use Conservative Members salvaging their consciences by voting

  1139
  against the motion tonight and somehow thinking that they are clothing themselves with realistic virtue in voting for some increase, because Labour Members are not facing up to the need for any increase. That is not the case. We recognise that there is a need for an increase. Our indictment is of the savage and callous nature of the increase. It does not simply cover the current year. Conservative Members are committing themselves to inflationary increases for next year and the year after. They are building in inflation-plus on fuel prices. They have acted against the commercial judgment of the British Gas Corporation. The corporation does not think very much of the phasing.
  The Government are intervening in an industry at a time when Minister after Minister states that the Government cannot interfere in the dispute at the BSC, and that their stance is one of non-intervention. They make a virtue of non-intervention over steel, and serve their own ends over gas. The Government have introduced what the Financial Times has called a disguised tax. They have introduced it on grounds of conservation, which are very doubtful legal grounds. In effect, they are using the price increase as a way of taxing gas consumers. It is unfair and retrogressive. They have failed to introduce a comprehensive scheme to help those people least able to cope with ever-increasing fuel bills. They have shown a total insensitivity to the feelings and fears of the 14 million gas consumers.
  The Secretary of State's reputation, which has already slumped—by 29 per cent. according to some Tory newspapers—deserves to slump a good deal further tonight. Are Conservative Members prepared to vote for their intentions? We have heard that the Tory Party is extremely annoyed by the Secretary of State's decision. Many Conservative Members who are concerned about the poor are worried about the absence of any new scheme, and the hard-faced market people are upset at the intervention in market forces.
  Tonight will reveal the true extent to which the Tory Party really cares. I suggest to Conservative Members that if they cannot join us in the Lobbies they should at least abstain.
  The Secretary of State for Energy has made a dangerous decision. He has
  1140
  fuelled inflation and he has undoubtedly introduced a scheme that will cause very great hardship. It is the duty of this House to reject his decision tonight.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.10 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises the inevitable need for domestic gas prices to rise, bearing in mind that no profit is now made on domestic gas sales, while industry goes short of gas; welcomes the Government's determination not to evade or disguise economic realities; and believes that the Government's stated intention to review the whole range of fuel assistance offers much the best basis for helping the old and those in need in an era of high energy costs".
  I ask the House to reject the motion proposed by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). He has made his case—except perhaps at the end—in very fair terms. He has put forward his feelings on this matter and expressed his concern about an era of high energy costs. His whole tone was somewhat different from the slightly hysterical note struck by the motion. I am glad to be able to offer the House the opportunity to discuss a key aspect of the nation's energy supplies.
  I do not disguise for one moment that the decisions that I announced the other day, setting three-year financial targets for the gas and electricity industries, were unpleasant and difficult. They were decisions that had been shirked for a long time and were thus all the more difficult to make, but in the Government's view they were decisions that could be shirked no longer.
  I shall deal immediately with the question of legal powers, which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The chairman of the Gas Corporation has informed me that the corporation will implement the target set by the Government. It regards its acceptance of the target as consistent with its obligations under section 14 of the Gas Act 1972. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman reads section 14 (b), he will see that it requires the corporation to set aside reserves.
  "as may be necessary to comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State under section 15 below."

  1141
  As the British Gas Corporation has agreed to implement these targets, no question of legislative direction or power arises. The British Gas Corporation has accepted these targets and intends to implement them. That is consistent with its legal obligations, and that is what it will do.
  When the right hon. Gentleman talks about such matters, I have to suggest to him that his memory is a little short. Surely he recalls that, for instance, in March 1977 his right hon. Friend, my predecessor, slapped an increase on domestic gas prices, exclusively to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. That may have been right. It was done without any energy policy need or justification at all, although there was some muttering at the time about conservation. It was done without proper consultation with the British Gas Corporation, and it was in defiance of the previous Government's own beloved Price Commission. The then Secretary of State may have been right to do it, but I do not recall that there was then any dancing up and down about powers. The truth is that the British Gas Corporation is well within its powers in pursuing these financial targets, which it has accepted.
  The emphasis today in our debate is on gas. The first tariff increases implied by the three-year target are to be brought in on 1 April, and my announcement in the House was necessary in mid-January in order to give the corporation time in which to complete its consultations with its consumer councils and to publish the tariff proposals. There have this time been proper consultations.
  My statement looks forward over three years. I can see the point behind some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devonport. There would have been attractions in announcing a single-year target, taking cover behind a one-year figure, and saying nothing about local price increases in later years. That is what the previous Government did for the current year, in December 1978; indeed, they released the news of the one-year target on Christmas Eve in a press release, despite having published earlier that year their White Paper on the nationalised industries, which was full of high-minded virtue, advocating the set-
  1142
  ting of targets for three to five years. But when it came to doing the difficult thing they ducked the issue.
  If, as I shall argue shortly, it is now essential for domestic gas prices to increase by at least 30 per cent. in real terms, it would have been dishonest not to give consumers full warning. In fact, much of the strong feeling that we have heard about what we have had to save on gas prices arises precisely because people who banked on gas staying cheap were not told by previous Governments what they should have been told, namely, that prices would have to rise substantially in the years ahead. People felt misled. The Government believe that in this area, as in many others, it is time for the misleading to stop.
  Let me explain to the House the thinking that underlies the Government's view. The real price of domestic gas has fallen by more than one-third over the past 10years—and this against the background of energy prices rising in real terms. Last year crude oil prices rose by 100 per cent. or more. In contrast, the price of domestic gas went up by only 8 per cent. in June, after more than two years with no increase at all.
  Hon. Members may recall what happened when the British Gas Corporation submitted its proposed 8 per cent. increase to the then Price Commission. Not only did that commission allow the increase in full; it said that prices should be 30 to 35 per cent. higher still, even after the 8 per cent. increase was implemented. The Price Commission, as far as I recall, was not in the business of urging price increases unnecessarily, and since that time—the report was made last July—the costs for new gas have soared further.
  That is the position on the gas side. Turning from gas to the crucial question of supply and demand, we find that British Gas sells gas to industry at prices broadly related to those of the competing oil products. It must follow that policy. At one stage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech I thought that he was arguing for that, although he seemed to veer away from it. This is the only way in which to match supply and demand, since much of industry can switch quite easily between gas and oil.
  The corporation's market-related pricing policy, as was emphasised in an

  1143
  intervention, is long established and has been endorsed by successive Governments. Industry is now renewing contracts for firm supplies at about 24p per therm—a price that is bound to increase substantially in the light of recent oil price increases. Indeed, entirely new contracts are already fetching over 28p per therm. In contrast, the current average revenue per therm from the domestic market is less than 20p, which is well below the industrial trade price, despite the fact that the costs of supplying smaller users are significantly higher than those for bulk quantities.
  That is the position. The relative prices for industrial and domestic users are topsy-turvy, and industry has rightly been complaining. The profitability of British Gas sales to the two markets reflects this position. About half of the gas sold goes to domestic consumers and the other half goes to industry. In the past about half the profits came from each market, but in the current financial year, ending on 1 April, domestic sales will barely break even; in fact, without the forthcoming price increases—and I am not at all sure from the right hon. Gentleman's speech whether he is for them or against them—they would make a loss. It would have been a question of subsidised fuel. It will not be until towards the end of the three-year target period that the domestic market will again be making a reasonable contribution.
  The key factor underlying this market approach to pricing policy is that gas is an increasingly valuable resource. As we run down our reserves of gas from the old low-cost fields—and already nearly half of these have been used up—we shall, as I have indicated, have to replace them with higher cost supplies from deeper, more distant, northern waters and with further imports from Norway in addition to those that we import already, or perhaps from elsewhere, either in liquid natural gas form or in some other form. Indeed, some hon. Members may have seen recent press reports that the Algerians are seeking to double the price of the gas that they sell.
  Although gas sells under different terms from oil and is generally cheaper to produce, it is bound to be dragged upwards by the world oil price explosion. We cannot insulate ourselves from that in
  1144
  reaching decisions on gas pricing policy. I found it difficult to follow the view of the right hon. Member for Devonport that somehow we could wish away the increasing pressure in the world for gas prices to be related to oil prices. That is what those who sell gas to other countries seek to do. That is the reality which we must meet.
  Dr. Owen: The Secretary of State does not have to tie domestic gas prices in Britain to oil prices. Britain is self-sufficient in energy. Britain has substantial indigenous gas reserves and does not have to price its gas at the same level as Dutch gas or LNG from OPEC countries. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. That is an option that is open to a British Government to enable them to keep prices down, and wherever they can they should keep gas prices below oil prices.
  Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing production costs, which is what I was talking about, with supply and demand. The facts cannot be blinked away. On the production side, nations which sell gas, whether as liquefied natural gas or as directly piped dry gas, are seeking to relate the price of the gas to the price of oil.
  As regards supply and demand, I think that the right hon. Gentleman recognised earlier—though he was ambiguous on this—that the policy of relating the price of gas sold to industrial customers to oil was long recognised and correct. All that the Government have proposed in their financial targets is that domestic price gas prices should move some of the way towards the market-determined level. There is no question of the price of gas moving all the way under our proposed financial targets, yet the right hon. Gentleman appears to be excited about those targets and has denounced them as savage. He cannot have it both ways, although he is trying hard to do so.
  I turn now to the setting of the financial targets for British Gas and the claim of the right hon. Gentleman and others that by setting financial targets for three years we are interfering in some way with free market prices. It is true that the setting of any financial target, whether for the steel industry or the Gas Corporation as a public utility, is an attempt to provide some of the disciplines of market

  1145
  forces. Were there a completely free and competitive market for the supply of gas in the United Kingdom, prices would already have risen above the level now proposed for three years' time.
  British Gas is fully agreed on the objective of economic pricing. It has agreed to implement the financial targets. It has agreed the price increases proposed for this year, but I believe that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he did not agree. Therefore, had the right hon. Gentleman been in my place, presumably he would have overruled British Gas.
  Though British Gas wanted to go slower in later years, the Government have to take account of the need to conserve and to delay the dangerous day—the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Foreign Secretary, must know of the dangers—when we have to rely once more on far more expensive gas and politically less reliable supplies.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Can the Secretary of State tell us precisely what the British Gas Corporation told him with regard to the later years? Just how much slower does the corporation want to go?
  Mr. Howell: When I discussed the financial targets with the corporation, it said that it would like the objective to be achieved but paced out over a greater number of years. That is exactly what I have just told the House. The corporation wanted to go slower in later years. I was given no precise figures.
  What I have said should emphasise that the Government are not in any way artificially pushing up prices. What we are doing is to phase out some of the restraints on artificially low domestic gas price levels, allowing them to rise to something closer to their true market value. That is less intervention than in the past, not more. Those who argue the other way round have got the matter precisely 180 degrees wrong.
  Mr. Tim Renton: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, doubtless he will remember that the Select Committee on nationalised indusries in the previous Parliament, with a Labour chairman and a Labour majority, recommended that all nationalised indus-
  1146
  tries should be set financial targets for three to five years by the Government. My right hon. Friend will also recall that British Gas, in its last report, regretted that the Labour Government had not set a three- to five-year target for the corporation. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the new target is based on replacement cost of capital employed rather than on the historical cost?
  Mr. Howell: Yes, I can confirm that. I can confirm also that this is a move to set three-year financial targets which were consistently ducked by the previous Government. A great many people regretted many things under the previous Government, and this was one of them.
  Quite apart from the long-term importance of conserving scarce resources, the British Gas Corporation also needs to use the price mechanism in the short term to help match demand to available gas supplies. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of the price mechanism or against it, but if he says that what we are doing is rationing by price, my answer is that his approach would be rationing by rationing.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: What estimates have the Government and the corporation made of the reduction in demand for its product, or the rate of decrease or increase in demand for its product?
  Mr. Howell: If the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) will allow me, I shall come to that in a moment. I was about to refer to the surge in demand and the effects, as far as can be estimated, that the financial targets will have, but I shall come to those in detail in a moment.
  Following last year's oil price increases and supply uncertainties, there was, as the House knows, a huge surge in demand for gas. About 70,000 domestic customers and about 4,000 firms are waiting to be connected. I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of that situation from their own constituencies.
  The pressures are so great that British Gas has had to ration the provision of new supplies almost entirely to those who have a statutory right to be connected because they are within 25 yards of a gas main. That puts industry at a substantial disadvantage compared with the domestic consumer, despite companies queueing

  1147
  up, as they are, to pay a higher price. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and I have received many complaints from firms waiting to build new factories or undertake other developments which cannot get a gas supply. That cannot be satisfactory. I cannot believe that even the Opposition are prepared to condone that.
  The rising demand from the domestic market has also increased the frequency of interruptions to supplies to industry on the type of contract that provides for a limited number of days' shut-off in cold weather. We believe that the sooner industry gets the gas that it is ready to pay for, the better it will be for us in the future and the better it will be for the economic health of the country.
  After a decade during which domestic prices have been falling in real terms, I agree that it is difficult to predict precisely what savings in gas consumption will be made when prices start rising, but I believe that the combination of higher prices and the extra capital investment by British Gas will mean a real improvement in the availability of new gas supplies to British industry in the coming years.
  I have spent some time telling the House the reasons why domestic gas prices have to rise. Let me now turn to some of the other factors that the Government took into account in reaching their decision on the three-year financial target.
  British Gas is, of course, making big profits. The corporation made £360 million last year and the profits will increase substantially over the target period, though, as I have already indicated, this year there will be virtually no profit from domestic sales. The reason for those profits arises from the fact that the corporation managed to negotiate gas contracts with producers on a basis that originally did not take full account of future increases in the price of oil. In consequence, the oil price rises since 1973 have left British Gas in receipt of a substantial windfall in "economic rent" which boosts its profits enormously. Its profits help to finance its high level of capital expenditure—nearly £600 million in the coming year.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is it not a fact that British Gas is one of
  1148
  the few nationalised industries operating on current cost accounting and that it is possible to shrink its profits from a surplus of £500 million in 1977–78 to about £180 million because it uses a system of accounting which is different from that of other nationalised industries?
  Mr. Howell: Like the previous Government, we are seeking to get a standard accounting practice in the nationalised industries, but the figures are a fair indication of the operations of the gas industry.
  The increased capital expenditure will increase the availability of gas by strengthening the transmission and gas storage systems and by bringing gas ashore faster from the Morecambe Bay gas field.
  The corporation should also begin to pay corporation tax on a substantial scale in the coming years. Nevertheless, the new financial target regime will leave British Gas with cash surplus to its immediate requirements, and that cash will be deposited with the National Loans Fund. The interest will serve to increase the sums that can be deposited.
  I hope that the House will accept my explanation that there are compelling energy policy reasons for increasing gas prices, though the increased profits that will result from higher prices will make an important contribution to the Government's central economic objective of holding down the public sector borrowing requirement. I see nothing wrong with that. The fact that there are two additional reinforcing arguments for the policy makes it stronger, not weaker. Some sort of gas tax has been suggested, and we shall have to look at that, but we need to be clear that whether the profits of British Gas are left in its name or taken away by tax, the effects on the PSBR are exactly the same.
  There is a further important point connected with the corporation's profits. At present, about 70 per cent. of households have access to a gas supply. The remaining 30 per cent. do not benefit from having on tap the cheapest of the household fuels. Raising domestic prices will inevitably mean a transfer of the benefit from those who happen to be near enough to a gas main, via the public expenditure effects that I have described, to the community at large.

  1149
  All the factors that I have mentioned so far point, regrettably, in the same direction—towards higher domestic gas prices. No one likes bigger bills, and I did not expect this necessary view of the future, which we believe it right to take, to be greeted with enthusiasm. Gas consumers have enjoyed falling prices, in relation to their incomes, for at least 10 years.
  The motion vastly exaggerates the effect of the proposed gas price increases on the cost of living. The April increase will add about 0·25 per cent. to the going rate of inflation, and the October increase, which is the one which the right hon. Member for Devonport finds so objectionable, will add an additional 0·16 per cent.—both spread over the subsequent three months.
  Mr. David Price: Although the motion may exaggerate what my right hon. Friend has been doing, the presence on the Labour Back Benches does not.
  Mr. Howell: It is not quite the crowded assault that was billed by some of the extravagant pre-publicity.
  The Opposition talk of savage increases, but I wonder what their real feelings are. When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), as Secretary of State for Energy, hiked domestic electricity prices up by 28½ per cent. in one go, I did not hear his right hon. Friends shouting "savage increase". That may be because they did not notice, because the announcement was slipped out in a written answer. Of course they were not setting proper financial targets either. In addition, there was no special scheme for the old and the poor. Let us have a little more candour from the Opposition.
  To ask the British Gas Corporation to hold prices down at current levels for all domestic gas consumers is the worst possible and most wasteful and totally counter-productive way of trying to help those for whom rising fuel costs mean real hardship. We cannot protect everybody against high energy costs in today's dangerous world. It is far more sensible to identify those who need help directly.
  The two policies go together, and I have never sought to hide the fact—market prices for energy and effective help for those in need, especially the old and the poor. The nationalised indus-
  1150
  tries' consumer councils agree that that is the best way of helping. So did the late lamented Price Commission and the 1978 White Paper of the previous Labour Government. The motion has taken leave of all those views for a start.
  The previous Government had an electricity discount scheme, but it was generally recognised to be complicated and expensive to administer—it cost £4 million to run—and all too often it went to those not in real need of help with electricity bills. It did not offer much help either to those in need whose main fuel was gas rather than electricity.
  I am sure that the motives behind the scheme were excellent, but it was a classic example of trying to help everybody and ending up helping hardly anybody. The new scheme of assistance with heating costs announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in October is at least a start in providing worthwhile help for those most in need this winter.
  At least the current benefit, worth £50 in a year, which is seven times the average help given by the electricity discount scheme, is big enough to make a substantial dent in a winter quarter's fuel bill for some of those in greatest hardship. The National Gas Consumers Council rightly says that it is an improvement on the previous Government's scheme.
  Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman ruling out any possibility of a national fuel rebate scheme? Secondly, if the scheme introduced by the Government to replace the electricity discount scheme is so good, why is it that I, like, no doubt, many other hon. Members, have been refused information about the numbers eligible to receive the benefit? No doubt it is the policy of the Secretary of State that we should be refused information about how many people in our constituencies will receive the benefit announced by the Government.
  Mr. Howell: There is no secret about the figures. They are available. I shall deal later with how the Government see the matter.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: Most of my hon. Friends were concerned about the effect that the increases would have

  1151
  on pensioners and in particular the disabled. We are greatly encouraged by my right hon. Friend's statement, but it is essential that it should be made clear beyond doubt, and I hope that he will issue a press release outlining his intentions.
  Mr. Howell: I am grateful for that intervention. I am aware of my hon. Friend's worries, and I hope that what I am saying will reassure him.
  The price increase resulting from the new financial target will not affect this winter's bills. As I told the House on 16 January, we shall take proper account of the higher cost of energy in our social policies and in determining benefit levels, particularly the levels of extra heating allowances. In that context we are reviewing the whole range of help available to assist consumers with fuel bills and to make extra provision for the elderly and others on low incomes who need help. My right hon. Friend will announce our proposals in good time for people to plan how they can manage next winter, and the proposals will be fully publicised.
  To set a three-yeas financial target and to warn people openly that prices will have to be allowed to rise is, I acknowledge, never easy, and that is presumably why the last Government never got around to doing it. The decision which this Government have now made was a hard one to reach and is an easy one to criticise, but it is, none the less, I believe, the right one, and as time goes by it will increasingly be seen to be right. Despite all that has been said or implied by the Opposition, economic reason and effective social policies are not opposites. They go hand in hand. Our policy is rooted in that reality and I ask the House to support it, and with it our amendment.
  4.41 pm
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: We all know that the Secretary of State for Energy is a very able man in his own way and we have certainly today had as fair a defence as he could muster, but I submit that there are three defects in what he has just told us.
  First of all there was the apologia for the present scheme. I have never been a part of the yahoo school of politics in believing that simply because
  1152
  my side did something wrong, therefore the other side is entitled to do equally wrong and I should not and cannot criticise. Nor have I ever believed the reverse. I believe that situations have to be taken in the circumstances of the time.
  By the way, if the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is satisfied with the present scheme, why do we need another scheme? If the present scheme is adequate, why should we have a new one? The answer is that prices will go up by 29 per cent. in April, which is a very formidable figure. Also, it must be taken into account that in the next two years after that there will be a 10 per cent. impost on top of the figure for the rate of inflation. That is what we are told. So obviously the scheme we are discussing is something very relevant to the winters to come.
  When we listened to the pathetic response of the Secretary of State for Social Services today in regard to this, it was quite clear that a struggle is going on within the Government over the nature of this scheme.
  I say to Tory Members, with all respect, that their influence in Parliament is largely determined not just by what they do in voting but also by what they do behind the scenes, and I hope that a great effort will be mustered in the ranks of the Tory Party in favour of those Ministers who want to introduce a really comprehensive heating allowance scheme. This whole proposal of gas price increases smacks not of the Department of Energy but of the Treasury. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's references to the National Loans Fund gave the game away.
  The three defects of the Minister's programme are the following. The first is the total absence of any comprehensive socially conscious scheme. The Secretary of State for Energy did his best. He has probably been fighting very hard to get a scheme of such a kind, but he is not able to announce it today, and this shows that the fight is still going on. It has to be a comprehensive scheme, comparable with nothing that we have ever had before, and one that takes into account every fuel. We all know that. The argument is that the true value of every fuel has to be known to the consumer. This is the new doctrine of the Government. We are not dissenting. In terms

  1153
  of present conditions, it is not an unreasonable proposition. But, if that is true, obviously the obverse of the coin is that there must be a heating allowance scheme of a comprehensive nature.
  That is mentioned at the end of our motion. What the Secretary of State for Social Services said today, and what the Secretary of State for Energy has said, gives us on the Labour Benches no confidence at all that an adequate scheme of that size will be announced this summer.
  I specifically asked the Secretary of State for Social Services today two points at Question Time: first, would the new scheme be comprehensive and would it take into account more categories than those spelt out on 22 October? He refused to make any comment. Secondly, I asked whether it would be of such a size in terms of the multiple that it would get anywhere near the kind of increases that are being proposed by the Secretary of State in his three-year programme.
  That is the first defect, and the Government have got to accept it. Their own Benches are uncomfortable about it. That is why all these speeches are made at the weekends by senior Ministers to try to make us believe that something is going to be done and is going to be done reasonably quickly. We are entitled as the Opposition to complain about this defect and to have it put on the record with our votes. We hope that some Tory Members will abstain or perhaps even vote with us. On that count alone, I submit that today, having heard the Secretary of State for Social Services, we have no assurance that such a scheme will be brought in.
  The second argument, perhaps moving away from the anti-social aspects of these proposals, concerns the so-called three-year programme. What a laugh that is in the world of energy—the idea that anything will last three years! One need only look at the procession of White Papers we have had from various Governments trying to look ahead 10 years, seven years or five years. How reckless. To take even three years, I submit, is incredibly frivolous. I am not against planning; I am not against saying that that might be our intention and that we would like to get there, but who knows
  1154
  what the price of oil will be in three years' time?
  Mr. David Stoddart: In three months' time.
  Dr. Mabon: Even in three months' time. But here we are debating a three-year proposal. I am not against the Government having intentions, having guidelines, but firmly to announce a 10 per cent. increase on top of inflation, without even knowing what the inflation figure will be, is reckless. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will not be the Secretary of State for Energy in two years' time and his successor will have abandoned these figures in favour, quite rightly, of the reality of that moment.
  What is the point of having all this hassle, of raising these things, burdening us with these figures, when they may not come true? The British Gas Corporation is supposed to be demanding these figures. It is not demanding these price rises; the Secretary of State now has admitted that. Of course, the British Gas Corporation welcomes the idea of having three-year guidelines, but not figures of this order. The Secretary of State is trying to have it both ways. Therefore, I submit that the second defect of this proposal is the economic nonsense of trying to argue that it is possible rigidly to plan and set firm figures for three years.
  Within that context we are talking about the use of this money. What should be the use of this money? The ordinary citizen, paying his gas bills, not concerned about getting a rebate, not concerned about the heating allowance because he does not qualify, wants to know one simple thing about the Gas Corporation's profits: are they being used to improve the industry? Take the great problem of gas that is yet to come. Is it not the case that the Gas Corporation is about to embark upon one of the biggest gas-gathering pipeline systems in the world? Would it not be wise for that to be taken into account? Would it not be right for the Gas Corporation to be told that it will not be able to spend a great deal of money on exploring for gas and developing finds of gas which at the present moment are uneconomic? None of that is acknowledged. No. The money is pouring into the National Loans Fund. The Gas Corporation is in the

  1155
  most extraordinary situation for a nationalised industry. It is virtually free of debt, yet at the same time the Government are forcing up the prices of gas.
  Mr. Peter Emery: I know that the right hon. Gentleman would never knowingly mislead the House. The money going to the National Loans Fund is only on loan; it is not a gift. Therefore, any time the Gas Corporation wants it back it can be reclaimed.
  Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman, whom I regard as a friend, has been a Minister and knows as well as I do what a sticky-handed lot the Treasury are. He knows as well as anybody that once it is in their hands it takes a hell of a big effort to get it out of them.
  I can see the argument going on in the various Cabinet committees about this, and I would much prefer that the Gas Corporation was able to commit itself to many of these programmes of exploration, gas-gathering development of new fields and systems of pipelines and take a step forward towards the synthesising of gas, which ultimately will be its enormous role. We witnessed the Gas Corporation changing from town gas to natural gas in 10 years—one of the most remarkable achievements of British industry, or, indeed, of any industry, at any time. The yahoo aspect has to stop. It is an achievement of the industry, not of the Tory Party or the Labour Party. It is an achievement of Britain.
  In time, when natural gas from the North Sea province has gone, we shall have to invent synthetic fuels by means of using waste gasifying coal and so on. These are the sort of things that the consumer wants to hear are being done with profit from gas.
  Consumers would like to hear that the money is being used for that sort of benefit. But, that is not the case here. To my mind and the minds of many others—including many in the Tory Party—it is an exercise on behalf of the Treasury to try to meet the immense challenge that the Tory Party has set itself. The Treasury has to find how to make a massive cut in public expenditure in a very short space of time. For purposes of my argument, it does not matter whether that object is a good or a bad thing. The gas industry is being subverted to that
  1156
  end—not to the end of promoting gas or advancing energy interests, but to that end primarily and immediately.
  Mr. Peter Rost: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the principal argument in support of putting up the price of gas is that the investment that he is talking about, which he admits will be required in years to come, will become cost effective? It will become cost effective only if the market price of gas is a European or world price.
  Dr. Mabon: That leads me on to what I believe is the third defect. First, I have alleged that the proposals are anti-social. Secondly, I have alleged that they are economic nonsense because they have never been properly explained and defended and that they are not about energy saving but are about a Treasury PSBR-cutting exercise. I am glad that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) intervened, because I can add the third defect, namely, that there has been no justification for the actual figures. The Secretary of State has taken no time, either in this speech or in previous speeches, to defend any of the figures. I have listened carefully to him and read a great deal of what he has said on the matter, he will be surprised to hear. They are curious figures, not vague but very definite.
  Other than the explanation about a Treasury exercise that I have given, there is no real explanation to justify what the figures mean in terms of the industry. However ineffective some hon. Members may feel at times—merely by voting and not speaking often—being a voter tonight is something. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for the motion, whatever may be its language in the eyes of the Secretary of State for Energy. Likewise, I hope that Conservative Members will be tempted to vote for the motion so that we might bring some sense to bear upon the Government.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. John Hannam: Most hon. Members have a great liking for the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon). However, they should agree that most of his arguments this afternoon support the amendment that was moved by my right hon.

  1157
  Friend the Secretary of State to the Opposition motion. I should like to take up briefly some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate and that some of the right hon. Gentleman's points will be referred to by them.
  On 9 January, a report in the Financial Times stated that it was just as well that New Year's Day was a public holiday, otherwise United Kingdom industry would have its gas supplies cut off because of a surge in demand by domestic consumers. The report added that only a steel strike would avert further cuts in gas supply this winter, regardless of weather conditions. In July 1979, after two years of the freezing of gas prices by the Labour Government, when the real price of gas fell by about 15 per cent., the Price Commission called for a 30 per cent. increase in gas prices. That was at a time when inflation was running at between 8 and 9 per cent.
  In November of last year, at an energy seminar in Plymouth, the Opposition spokesman on energy, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), referred to the likely energy gap in 1990 and the immediate need to conserve energy. He said that we would need to build more nuclear power stations. I agree with him on that. He also said that conservation of fuels was essential. I agree with him on that, too. He added that a pricing policy was inevitable and that a special scheme of help for poorer families would therefore be needed. I agree with him on that as well
  At the same conference, the deputy chairman of South Western Gas spoke of the fivefold increase in gas usage since the 1960s and the dramatic effect on the gas market of the "flight from oil" of last year. He said that a great imbalance in demand and supply had been created by the surge of new customers and appliances. I should like to quote briefly from his speech. I believe that his remarks relate directly to today's debate and what I consider to be the hypocritical attitude of the Opposition.
  On the subject of price, the deputy chairman said:
  "The demand for domestic gas has been intensified by an artificially low price, which
  1158
  has, by successive Governments and their price-regulatory bodies, been held down to a rate of increase roughly two-thirds of the RPI or one-half of earnings or pensions…The Price Commission has recently commented on this and indicated that a substantial increase in gas price is overdue and that there should be more parity between these and industrial prices…Supplies of natural gas will last well into the next century as long as they are not recklessly dissipated as a result of short-term pressures. When natural gas does commence to be depleted there are practical and economical processes to make a completely interchangeable gas from oil products or, more importantly, from coal.
  The price of natural gas must increase—Industrial prices will be geared to oil—Commercial prices have already increased substantially this year and will follow the same trend, and—Domestic prices, artificially held down for so long, will certainly rise next year by a significant amount."
  Under the previous Government, not only did the former Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), hold down gas prices artificially for two years but, at the same time, he allowed spending of large amounts of money—millions of pounds—to persuade people to use more gas. Over seven years about £73·7 million was spent with that objective in mind. It is no wonder that this winter has seen a dangerous over-demand for gas and a loss-making domestic sector in the Gas Corporation. Industrial gas users are being clobbered not only by high gas prices and charges but by the serious lack of guaranteed supplies.
  In Holland, a similar problem developed over the previous decade. Through the low pricing of gas, the country allowed such a substantial increase of its usage that the crazy result was that about 90 per cent. of space heating in Holland was provided by gas, and about80 per cent. of electricity generation was provided from the burning of gas. In economic thermal usage terms, that makes no sense at all. Holland saw the danger about three years ago and effected a doubling of gas prices in that time.
  Sir Denis Rooke was reported as being so concerned about the instability of gas supply that he was considering cutting off gas supplies to the House of Commons if the necessary steps were not taken to remove the requirement to buy gas without discrimination. He realised the danger and made that comment. We have a price structure which means that, at a time when energy conservation is

  1159
  being preached by everybody, United Kingdom domestic gas prices are half those in Germany and France and 70 per cent. lower than prices in Italy. Yet industry in this country is paying more for gas than our competitors in those countries.
  About 20 per cent. of our gas comes from the Norwegian sector of the Frigg field. The next main new source of gas is likely to be the Norwegian Statfjord field. Gas prices from those northern fields are five times higher than the old southern-based gas contracts. There is fierce European competition for supplies of gas from those fields. If gas prices were to be increased on an oil-related basis, the increase would be nearer 60 per cent. compared with the 29 or 30 per cent. that is proposed for the next three years. That answers the point raised by the right hon. Member for Devonport about the unfairness of these increases. If gas prices were linked to oil prices, the increase would have to be double that announced by the Government.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: If the Gas Corporation negotiates with an oil company, is it not the case that from now on it will be in a considerably weaker position as regards the rates at which it can obtain supplies of gas? It was not in such a weak position in the classic case mentioned by the Secretary of State in relation to the southern fields.
  Mr. Hannam: The Gas Corporation is still in a monopoly situation in the southern fields. It is competing with overseas buyers for gas, and it is therefore having to pay the market price. That is the price that the British consumer has to pay. It is the market price of the northern gas fields that we must accept. If one adds to the price of gas the need for massive investment during the coming decade in order to ensure a switchover to gasification from coal—when oil and gas reserves run out—the arguments for the Government's action are irrefutable.
  When and how fast should those increases be applied? That is the nub of the Opposition's argument. The other part of that argument is about how to protect the poor and the elderly. First, the price increases should be implemented immediately. I have pointed to the Dutch example and said that we are only halfway towards achieving parity
  1160
  with oil. No one will dispute that there should be a substantial increase now. That point was emphasised at the conference in Plymouth which the right hon. Member for Devonport attended. He did not dispute that fact then.
  The former top Labour economic adviser, Michael Posner, has come out decisively in favour of the timing and method of the gas price increase. He favours stable long-term financial objectives for nationalised industries rather than short-term taxes that are subject to the whims of the Government. I should like a system which ensures a proper revenue return to the taxpayer, in addition to giving proper incentives for the development of marginal gas fields. The present system does not do that. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will outline the Government's views on the advantages and disadvantages of a gas tax system.
  Finally, I turn to the emotive aspect of the three-year hike in gas prices, which is the effect on the elderly and the poor. The Opposition seized the political opportunity presented by the rather hurried announcement that was made after a press leak. They painted a picture of people faced with grave hardships and of their sometimes dying as a result of price increases that will rise 10 per cent. above inflation next year. All hon. Members are concerned to ensure that proper protection is given to those who are unable to adjust their weekly budgets to allow for a particular commodity price increase.
  I should have welcomed the announcement of a major social package at the same time as these price increases. The lack of it is probably the cause of complaints by many hon. Members. However, in recent years we have had increases for electricity, oil and coal similar to the present increase. How many people suffered death or the consequences that were portrayed in remarks made at the time of the announcements? When coal prices rose as a result of the miners' pay demand, did Labour Members raise the same cries? The same situation applies, because it involves a dramatic increase in the cost of fuel to consumers.
  We must look at this problem from all angles as part of a rational policy to help the poor and the elderly. Many poor and elderly people have night storage heaters. They face the same problems

  1161
  as gas consumers face now. We must consider a new system of charging. Instead of reducing the charge as consumption increases, we should reverse that process. We should demand an increased charge for increased consumption. North Thames Gas charges about 29·30p per therm for an annual use of 80 units. That drops to 17·27p per therm for 1,200 units. That is ridiculous, because the more fuel one uses, the cheaper the price. If a new system were introduced, combined with a drive to insulate many of the older properties in which the elderly and poor live, we should get to grips with the problem.
  I call for a package that will give real help to the elderly and to the poor. I should like a better system of charges, in order to encourage conservation. I seek an explanation of the gas tax versus financial objectives argument. However, I reiterate my support for the Government's decision, unpopular as it may be in the short term. Natural gas is a resource that is precious to the nation, and it is invaluable to the economy. However, it is not infinite in quantity. We must ensure its supply for as long as possible into the next century.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Thomas Torney: I wish to take issue with the Minister about his use of the word "hysterical" to describe the motion on the Order Paper in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Is it hysterical to condemn savage increases that will hit ordinary families? Is it hysterical to say that those increases will have a devastating effect on the cost of living? Is it hysterical to draw the Government's attention, and that of the House, to the devastating effect that those increases will have on the worst-hit sections of the community?
  The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) pointed out that a number of people have already suffered because of the high cost of fuel. Perhaps he does not represent a constituency like mine. I regularly receive letters and calls at my surgeries from those who have had their gas or electricity cut off because they cannot pay the bill. They are not spendthrifts or drunkards. They do not waste their money. That is not why they can-
  1162
  not pay their bills. They are families with children, where perhaps the breadwinner is disabled or sick. Perhaps there is no breadwinner.
  Those who cannot pay their bills often include pensioners and those receiving disability allowances. They are people in the lowest income groups. Single parent families also find it difficult to pay their bills. It is not good enough for the Minister to point to the increases that were allowed last October. Those were agreed in the previous Budget. It is people on social security, pensioners and other low income groups who are worst affected. I accept that the Labour Party can be criticised as much as the Conservative Party for the way that a Budget announcement is made. When an announcement is made in April or May, people must wait until October before any benefit is received.
  The Minister cannot use the argument that whatever was given to those unfortunate people last October will benefit them as regards future increases in gas prices. Such increases—meagre as they were—have already been absorbed by the general increase in the cost of living. The Minister has promised us something for the future. We do not know what it is. We certainly know the record of the Government during the short time that they have been in power. We can judge by that record what the lower income groups and the poorer people of Britain will receive in future.
  The dogma of the Conservative Government is to cut, cut and cut again. We have been warned of the possibility of future cuts. The cuts that have occurred have hit hardest at the lower income groups, the sick, the disabled and other badly off sections in our community. I find it extremely difficult to accept a vague promise that the Government will do something for these unfortunate people.
  Let us consider another section of the community—owner-occupiers, young couples, perhaps with young families, who are setting up homes. Many of them misguidedly helped to return this Government. How are they feeling about the proposals? I know how many of them are feeling in my constituency. They have borne the brunt of increased VAT,

  1163
  with household goods and clothing costing a tremendous amount. Owner-occupiers are saddled with large mortgage repayments. They have suffered increases in the mortgage rate which can be attributed directly to this Government's policy.
  The Conservative Party in Opposition levelled tough and bitter criticisms at the Labour Government for increases in the cost of living. We were attacked because it was held that we had caused those increases—and such increases obviously are felt most severely by the poorest sections in the community. The actions of this Conservative Government have contributed more to the increased cost of living than our legislation on such matters as imports.
  I was extremely cross when I first heard of the gas price increases. I knew how they would affect the people whom I represent. I made a little press statement. Unusual though it may be, that statement appeared in many newspapers, not just the one in my constituency. As a result, I have received letters from all over the country. It may surprise the Government to know that I received letters from Tory strongholds, such as Bournemouth, Eastbourne and Torquay. These people read my statement and wished to join me in protesting bitterly and strongly. They are not Socialists. They are not Labour supporters. The Government should look to their laurels and consider not only the poorest sections of our community, which I wish to support, but their own supporters.
  I venture to suggest that if this Government went to the country now the result would not be the same as in May 1979. Many of the people who supported them then would not vote at all or would go over to the other side. Increased prices and cuts in public services are being felt, not only by the poorer people but throughout the country, and the Government are responsible.
  We cannot increase the price of such a commodity as gas without industry being affected. It has already been badly hit by the increased bank rate that the Government imposed. The consequences for industry will, in turn, cause higher prices in the shops. We shall also be less competitive in selling our goods abroad, and we must sell abroad if we are to buy the food and
  1164
  raw materials that we need. That is our lifeline.
  In their short time in power, the Government have added insult to injury in bringing our country to its knees. There will be worse to come. As a result of their economic policies, industrial stagnation has already set in. I wonder what industry will have left in 10 years' time.
  The Government's policies will make life more difficult for the domestic consumer, and especially those who cannot afford price increases. Further, the cuts in services will affect most the sick, the disabled and those least able to look after themselves. Their policy appears to be: if people have, they can have more; if people have little, they can have less. The Government's method of rationalising or conserving supplies is to ensure that those who can afford to pay will get the supplies that there are and those who cannot will go short.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Peter Emery: This is a curious debate. I found the comments of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) quite irrelevant to the problems of gas and energy policy. It seems to me that the sooner he goes back to foreign affairs, the better for him and for the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. And it will be better for the Opposition, so that we can rectify Left-wing pressure on foreign affairs.
  In all the publicity that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) put out, I wonder what he believes will be the average increase on the average bill.
  Mr. Torney: It will be 29 per cent.
  Mr. Emery: How much is it in real terms?
  Mr. Torney: Quite a lot.
  Mr. Emery: It is not quite a lot.
  Mr. Torney: It is for those who are not earning much.
  Mr. Emery: Let me tell the House exactly what it will be. We should consider the facts of the "savage increase" that the hon. Gentleman talks of. The increase to the average domestic consumer will be 56p a week.
  Mr. Torney: That is a lot for those on social security.
  Mr. Emery: The hon. Member for Bradford, South suggests that this Government have no feeling for those who are worst off. Since his Government left office, we have given a fuel allowance of over £50 a year for the 355,000 who are worst off. We have dealt more generously with the worst-off section in the community than the Labour Government, and that fact must be registered.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: Can the hon. Gentleman justify that argument? It would mean that in the great parliamentary constituency of Honiton, which I know fairly well, there are only 500 people who need help with their fuel bills. In effect, that is the proportion helped by the Government's legislation.
  Mr. Emery: Those who are severely badly off are getting aid from a Conservative Government which they did not get from a Labour Government.
  Having said that, I find myself in a worrying and difficult position. I helped to set up the Department of Energy with my right hon. Friend, and I resolutely admire his intellectual approach in politics and his work for the Conservative Party on policy matters. The last thing that I wish to do is to begin condemning his approach today.
  However generous any of us may feel, the presentation of the new gas prices that will be necessary to obtain the new financial objectives for the British Gas Corporation can hardly be described as an oustanding success. Nor could it be claimed, certainly before the debate, that the British public knew or understood what was behind the new energy policy.
  I listened with great attention to my right hon. Friend's speech. I congratulate him. I believe that he has cleared up a number of previously unanswered questions, most specifically in view of the assurance he has given of further assistance to the least well off before the new price increases begin to bite. Many consumers turned to gas because they believed the Gas Corporation's advertising that stated
  "Gas—the clean, cheap fuel"
  or
  "Join the bonanza of gas from the North Sea."
  That is what the new consumers wanted. Now they see a nationalised industry being well managed, highly successful and
  1166
  making major profits. "Hurry, damn!" might well be their expletive. But the pleasure may not last long. We now have a Government policy that demands greater profits, increasing the net return on replacement cost of capital employed from 6·1 per cent. to 9 per cent. That is a one-third increase in profits. In terms of profitability, this means an increase not to the BGC but to the Government?
  Mr. Tim Eggar: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the profit to which he refers is in the form of the economic rent that should be accruing not to the BGC but to the Government?
  Mr. Emery: That is an interesting argument about the economic rent factor of mineral resources underground. It is not part of the argument with which I am trying to deal.
  My worry is that the Government have failed to communicate and have failed to convince the public about the reasons for their policy. The domestic consumer knows that the Government are determined to overcome inflation and wish to see prices rise as little as necessary. The consumer sees the British Gas Corporation operating effiently and making substantial profits. It is, therefore, strange and, to many, unacceptable that the supplier of something better and cheaper than that provided by competitors should be forced to put up the price. Surely, it would not be unreasonable to claim that this is the worst practice of a monopolist. In private industry, it would be condemned. The argument that competition is meant to bring down prices, not push prices upward to match the prices of expensive competitors, such as coal and electricity, must be answered completely.
  Mr. David Howell: I am listening closely to my hon. Friend. He has great experience in these matters. To give a fair picture of the profits issue, he has to emphasise what is the position, namely, that no profit is being made from domestic gas sales. If there was not a price increase, we would have a subsidised domestic gas price. That cannot be right.
  Mr. Emery: I reject that approach. I am trying to establish an argument that people can understand. It is necessary to talk of the efficiency of the gas industry. I shall then come to the point made by my right hon. Friend.

  1167
  It is important to stress, and give praise to, the efficiency of the gas industry and the success of its management. It has carried out 13 million conversions to North Sea gas with a minimum of dislocation. Over the last two years, it has reduced its borrowing and capital liabilities from £2,093 million on 1 April 1977 to £881 million on 1 April 1979. That is over £1·2 billion down—a remarkable performance.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I seek clarification. You said that the British Gas Corporation had hoodwinked—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Bernard Weatherill): I did not say anything.
  Mr. Dickens: My hon. Friend was saying that the British Gas Corporation had hoodwinked the general public in switching to cheap gas. He is now singing the praises of the British Gas Corporation.
  Mr. Emery: I never said that the Gas Corporation had hoodwinked the public about cheap gas. I said that the public believed that it would stay at the levels at which it was.
  Mr. Dickens: As advertised.
  Mr. Emery: As advertised, if my hon. Friend cares to say so. At the same time, the transfer of depreciation from historic cost basis to current price replacement cost basis has cost an extra £310 million over the last two years. Accumulated reserves of £783 million have been built up and still there have been pre-tax profits of £360 million and £180 million. Over the last two years, surpluses on operation of an amount in the region of £2,050 million have been created. That is a remarkable financial prospect of which any company would have reason to be proud.
  I now wish to turn to conservation. In the ultimate, as my right hon. Friend the Minister says, gas supplies are finite. But we must be honest with the people. At the moment, we have announced gas reserves to last for 30 years. Knowing the oil companies, I feel that this will be a conservative estimate. It does not take into account associated gas from oil production fields or the aspects of imported Algerian gas contracts that may be available. Nor does it accept that new technology will allow for much greater
  1168
  extraction from existing fields. With only minimal new discoveries and even a doubling of our gas consumption, I believe that we shall have adequate domestic supplies in 50 or probably 75 to 100 years' time.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer rose—
  Mr. Emery: I have given way a lot. Many hon. Members rise to speak. I shall give way, but this will be the last time.
  Mr. Palmer: At least, I am on the Opposition side of the House. Are the figures that the hon. Gentleman has quoted British supplies or do they depend on the Norwegians?
  Mr. Emery: These are British supplies. But these supplies are likely in time—I stress "in time"—to become more expensive. However, in considering conservation, I have to be convinced that the demand is so elastic that, for heating, it alters greatly as the price increases. I shall attempt to argue that this is not the case.
  It is true that although British Gas has, in past years, always had a surplus of gas available of between 3½ to 5 per cent. of total demand per annum, there are problems of shortages during very cold weather at the highest peak of demand. But this is not basically a pricing policy matter. Whatever the price in the most bitter weather, people will heat their homes if this is possible. I refuse to believe that there is great elasticity of demand in that sense. I would argue that there need never be any shortage for domestic consumers.
  I would suggest that a surge of an extra 10 per cent. by domestic consumers can be easily met. It has always been catered for in the past by the use of interruptible supply contracts to industry that make up between 15 to 20 per cent. of industrial contracts. These companies have always made provision to deal with the problem of supply interruption and have been willing to accept this to obtain special discounts. To talk of domestic gas consumers freezing is nothing short of scare-mongering. I am, however, worried that, because of the cheapness of gas, the vast majority of the nation will want to turn to gas. Then, of course, existing facilities will be inadequate to meet that situation.

  1169
  I turn to the argument that there is no profit in the supply of gas to domestic consumers. I believe that this is an argument of some considerable ingenuity. It is based entirely on the management accounting decision as to how one applies certain overhead costs. It rests on the decision concerning the correct proportion of capital overheads and operating expenses as between industrial and domestic consumers.
  Last year industry purchased just over six million therms of gas at a total cost of £721 million. That gives an average of cost per therm of 11·9p. Domestic consumers purchased about 7·9 million therms. At the same average cost, they would have contributed £939 million to the British Gas Corporation's accounts. What did they actually contribute? The domestic consumers actually paid £519 million more, so that the average cost per therm was 55 per cent. higher than the industrial price—an average of 18·5p a therm.
  If the gas were to be supplied at the same cost per therm without quantity discounts, and the total costs were divided on the basis of equal proportion per therms supplied, the average thermal cost would be 15·9p. On that basis the Government's argument could not be correct, and the domestic consumer could expect a reduction of at least 2·5p a therm. Therefore, it is ingenious to argue that the domestic consumer does not contribute to the profits of the British Gas Corporation, because this must depend on the accounting factors of the corporation.
  The fact of most overriding importance is that BGC is making a thumping good profit. Therefore, how can the Government stop a massive rise of gas demand from new consumers? There are two respectable arguments for dealing with price increases. First, the Government could think that it is unfair that energy consumers other than gas consumers should pay between 200 and 250 per cent. more for the same amount of energy, or that a gas consumer should be able to heat his home at one-third the cost faced by electricity consumers. Therefore gas prices, it could be argued, should go up to obtain the profits which would allow an equalisation of prices between the two commodities. However, that is not the
  1170
  argument, nor is it the policy of the Government.
  Secondly, it is honest to say that because of the low price of British gas compared with world energy prices generally, the Government will put up the price of gas in order to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement by another £360 million. That would benefit everyone. If that is the policy, the Government should say so openly. Although there is the power to do this, it would breach the intention of section 14 of the Gas Act 1972, which requires the industry to break even, taking one year with the next.
  Therefore, let us consider the alternative of a gas tax. This is not a revolutionary suggestion and it should be realised that there is already an existing tax on heating oil—the rebate tax on oil of 3p a gallon which is the equivalent to 1·7p a therm if applied to gas. At that rate it would raise some £290 million for the Government on the basis of present consumption. Therefore, it must be understood absolutely by gas consumers that they have been in a most favoured position over the last few years. I quote an exact example because one has not been given today. I found this in the Library and it affects London prices. If a small customer consumes 2,500 kilowatts a year, one kilowatt hour of heat would cost 1p if it was gas but 3·516p if it was electricity. If the same applied to a large customer consuming 30,000 kilowatts a year, those costs would be ·589p for gas but 2·179p for electricity.
  It must be clearly understood beyond peradventure that gas consumers have been in a special position because of the low price of their commodity. It is clear that the Government may well consider the requirement for a major capital expenditure—I would hope in a utility company—to finance a pipeline complex to ensure that smaller gas fields which are uneconomic on their own can be drawn together to maximise energy potential and go forward. I know that it is difficult to afford that money from the Treasury, but I suggest that the profits that are being made by the British Gas Corporation should be set towards the ability—if this cannot be launched on the market—for financing that type of extra energy. I believe that the capital requirement to do that would be more than £2 billion at present prices, and, as such a project is

  1171
  likely to be some way off, obviously the cost will be very much more.
  While that pipeline scheme is being prepared, there is nothing wrong with the reserve going to the public sector borrowing requirement so as to benefit everyone.
  In conclusion, one can dismiss the whole Opposition argument as inconsequential, unrelated to their actions in Government and out of tune with reality. One must recognise that the Government are propounding a new policy for the gas industry. Whatever arguments are used, gas consumers, both domestic and industrial, are getting an unbelievable bargain at the present level of prices, which are massively below other energy costs. These consumers will still be getting a bargain even after the increase. Therefore, the Government are quite justified in setting out to rectify the position.
  Having said that, I believe that section 14 of the Gas Act might be altered. However, rather than have excess profits within a nationalised industry—which is not the intention in the structure of any nationalised industry—it would be much better to introduce a direct taxing method to ensure that that does not come about. This should be phased in, perhaps to increase the retail price index by no more than a half per cent. in any one year. It should be phased in with the necessary fuel assistance for the poor which, thank goodness, the Government have announced.
  The pricing policy will not stop major and continuing demand by new customers—particularly industrial customers—for connection to the gas supply. I do not believe that the price increases will do that. Therefore, I believe that there should be an amendment to the fourth schedule to the Act, altering the obligation to supply so that this is brought more into line with the general approach of section 2(1) of the Act. I will not go into all these matters but they are very specific. Section 2 makes it quite clear that it is the duty of the Corporation to develop supplies
  "so far as it is economical to do so".
  That interpretation should be used by the Gas Corporation instead of the very much more precise obligations in the Act.
  I should point out that the increased income from gas passing to the Government
  1172
  would allow the money to be used across the board, whether for the PSBR or to relieve taxation, but most certainly for fuel assistance, as promised by the Government, to the benefit of all users.
  I find myself more or less where I started on 14 January. I warned the Government during Question Time then that they had better explain the reasons for their gas policy or they would be open to criticism. We did not get that across to begin with. I only hope that this debate will have contributed to getting that message across to the public.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. David Penhaligon: The Minister is making a major policy decision in this debate, or at least he is backing up one made over the past few years. That decision is to give OPEC countries the power to fix the internal prices of our gas and oil even though we are one of the few countries that are self-sufficient in both.
  Having listened to the Minister's argument for this increase, which comprises inflation plus 10 per cent., I would like to know how firm the three-year programme is. The argument for this increase is that the world price of oil generated by OPEC has gone up. If OPEC increases the price again in six months, nine months, 12 months or two years' time, what will the Government do about gas prices then? Will they say that the increase will be kept at inflation plus 10 per cent. provided that OPEC does not put up the price of oil yet again? Or are the Government saying that given another OPEC oil price increase gas prices will be increased further? If they do not announce that, their argument is not logical.
  I can see an argument for increasing gas prices on the basis of inflation. Internal labour costs, if nothing else, have gone up. However, I do not concede the case that has been employed in this debate, which is that Britain must, automatically and slavishly, follow world demand prices for energy. It strikes me as ironic that one of the few nations self-sufficient in oil charges more for its oil than almost any other country. We certainly charge as much as the OPEC countries, and more, I believe, than all but one of them. I do not understand

  1173
  the logic of that for an industrially based country such as ours.
  Mr. Eggar: Perhaps the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) will clarify that remark. I am not aware that North Sea crude is sold for any greater sum than comparable—I stress the word "comparable"—African or North African crude.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I thought that that was what I said. We are following totally the latest OPEC oil price increase, but our oil does not have a stated price relative to some particular crude from North Africa. If the price of OPEC oil goes up, ours automatically goes up. There is no price justification for that increase. Nothing has changed. There is no extra labour force. No sudden extra investment is required. But when OPEC puts the price up we put ours up by exactly the same margin, on the same day bar a few hours.
  We have reached the ludicrous position in our economy of realising that the saddest day in our economic growth in the last couple of decades was the day that we discovered North Sea oil and gas. That is a ludicrous proposition, but already one can see the effects on our industry.
  The international value of the pound in part reflects the fact that we are self-sufficient in oil. It also partially reflects the ludicrous monetary policy of the Government. That, however, is a debate for another time. We apply to our industry an international value for our currency—a value that cannot be justified on any basis.
  As a rural Member who lives many miles from the industrial heartland of Great Britain, I can say that the future of my constituents relies on the ability of our industry to survive and compete in international trade. The combination of following—to the penny—international energy prices and monetary blight is killing our industry stone dead or is, at least, having a good try.
  I could have been more sympathetic to the Government today on three counts. There is no point in arguing that there is no problem. The problem was underlined by the statistics quoted by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). There
  1174
  is not much point in the people of my village, which I have never left, arguing against gas price increases. They have never seen a cubic foot of gas in their lives. Nor will they ever see one, because their village is a long way from the local gas pipe. There is a case to be made that those people are being penalised by being excluded from a supply of gas.
  If the Government had come forward and said that they were putting up the price of gas to enable them to operate a system of cross-subsidy for other sources of fuel, I would have had some sympathy for them and seen some logic in their argument. I might even have been persuaded to stand up and argue the case for them. But the Government have not announced that.
  If the Government had told the House that their main concern was the conservation of energy, that they had an employment problem on their hands that would get worse, and that as a result of the new increase in gas prices they would establish a massive scheme for energy conservation throughout the length and breadth of Britain, I could have seen some logic in that. That would have been a rationale for saving energy and providing jobs.
  Thirdly, had the Government come forward today with a firm indication of what they proposed to do to help the elderly, the disabled and the low paid—of whom my constituency has more than are found in the constituencies of the majority of hon. Members—I could have had some sympathy for the Government. On the first two counts, the Government have clearly indicated that they will do nothing. On the third, they have expressed little more than a pious hope that they might produce something before the end of the year. If the scheme they produced last time is any indication of what is to come, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members—when not in the Division Lobby—will admit that it is disappointing.
  I do not expect any difficulty in persuading my colleagues to vote with the Opposition tonight against this increase. The Government have not made out their case.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: It is a tax.
  Mr. Penhaligon: My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is making my case for me. The Government have introduced a tax. That fits in with the argument of the hon. Member for Honiton. Had the Government stood up and admitted that, they would have got away with it better than they have.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. William Waldegrave: It is an intimidating thing for an experienced speaker in this House to face the serried ranks of the Opposition on a major occasion like this. Unfortunately, this time the Leader of the Opposition appears to have called a war and nobody has turned up for it. Perhaps there is a war going on elsewhere that is of more interest to Opposition Members.
  This debate has been full of pleasant ironies. The most enjoyable of them was that the main weapon with which we were able to beat the chief Opposition spokesman on energy was the performance of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), whose policy at the end of 1976 was based on exactly the same principles as those that we are now following. I have no doubt that the right hon. Member did not believe in that policy then, since he is not a great supporter of the price mechanism, whereas the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), in attacking our policy, is probably attacking a policy that he believed in then and still believes in now. I have never seen two such intelligent people as the right hon. Member for Devonport and the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) struggling so desperately to find arguments against Government policy.
  On the other hand, the Conservative Party is full of resource and is providing its own debate. Indeed, we have had, more or less, a one-man debate in the shape of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens), who is given to surprising forays, will also add savour to the debate. We had to wait until the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton to discover some of the arguments against the gas price increases, just as we had to wait until the speech of the right hon. Member for Greenock
  1176
  and Port Glasgow to find some of the arguments in favour of our policy. The right hon. Member put the case against imposing a tax on gas quite clearly.
  I reiterate the three principal grounds in favour of the kind of policy decided upon by Her Majesty's Government. The first argument is, who gets the rent from the North Sea gas fields? Surely that is the fundamental argument. It was not due to the inventiveness of the British Gas Corporation or of anybody else, nor was it due to great capital investment over many years, that a great asset was discovered in the North Sea. It was a gift of God to the whole community. The Government are quite justified in taking the surplus and distributing it. It is most likely that it will be used to reduce the public debt and for the diminution of taxation. It will thus be distributed to the entire community.
  I appreciate that some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon),represent areas where gas connection is not always available. Most of my constituents are within the range of gas mains, but I accept that for those who live in the area of Somerset in which I was born, for example, it is unfair that they should not in any way be able to derive benefit from the national asset of North Sea gas.
  The second argument was advanced neatly and accurately by my friend Michael Posner, in a letter to The Times. At present it is irrational to invest capital in energy conservation in one's house or to undertake proper methods of insulation if it is possible to connect oneself to the gas system, that system being a much cheaper alternative. It cannot be sensible to take any other course under present conditions.
  Investment is not being undertaken, furthermore, by industry in, for example, new forms of electrical space heating, which, I have no doubt, in the long term will be the basis of home heating. There is not sufficient investment in heat pumps, for example, because the low level of gas prices makes such investment not worthwhile. I have heard representations from companies involved in that type of development and I have been urged by them to advance that argument.
  The third principal argument hangs on the irresponsibility of luring into an

  1177
  attachment to the gas system an increasing number of domestic consumers who at some stage will have to be disconnected, or on whose behalf great capital investment in chancy new processes will have to be made to meet their future needs. About1 million new domestic consumers have been attracted to attachment to the gas system in the past three years. Surely it is not in their interests to maintain an artificially low price for gas, so that in due course we have either to cut off their supply or increase prices in an enormous step.
  There is a clever-silly argument, the sort of argument that my alma mater, the Oxford Union, is sometimes accused of encouraging. It is this: "Is not this price rise an intervention by a Conservative Government who are committed to non-intervention?" I do not think that any of my right hon. and hon. Friends will argue that the Government, however free-market we might like them to be, should not have a view on the prices of a monopoly buyer that is a monopoly distributor. As I have said, it is a clever-silly argument. I hope that we shall not hear it again from the editor of the Spectator or from anyone else.
  I add two major caveats. First, it is a great Pity in presentation and political terms that we were not able to announce a scheme to help the old and the cold at the same time as the price increase. I have worked in Whitehall and I respect the reasons that led to that announcement not being made. I am aware of the difficulties, but it is a pity that no such announcement was made. It may be that the indisposition of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General led us temporarily to lose our grip on presentation. However, I welcome wholeheartedly my right hon. Friend's announcement today that such a scheme is well under way. We shall welcome it when it is put before us.
  The second caveat is this. The British Gas Corporation is now protected by a cost-plus method of pricing, which removes it, even though it has to meet its target return, from some of the pressure for efficiency and from some of the pressure to control its costs. That is a matter of some concern. It is fortunate that the Government are about to put themselves in a position to deal with that problem. When the Competition Bill is
  1178
  enacted, we shall be able to refer nationalised industries to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That would be a sensible course to take at some stage during the next three years, to ensure that the corporation does not take advantage of its now privileged position on prices to waste money.
  The House is not always at its best when it is responding to pressure groups and losing sight of the common good and the future national interest. It is so easy for the right hon. Member for Devonport to say that although he supports the principle of increasing prices, he would have increased them differently, more slowly, or in some magical way that would have hurt no one. The truth is that many people will have to pay higher gas prices, higher oil prices and higher energy costs generally over the next few years. There is nothing that the House or anybody else can do to avoid that. However, we can and should take steps to ensure that those who are least able to help themselves are protected. It is irresponsible of those who are responding to their constituents' letters to try to pretend that there is a way out of an expensive energy future.
  Those who argue against the gas price increase will have a pretty feeble answer when asked by their children what they did in the great energy war. Their only answer will be "I kept down the price of gas so that the supply ran out quicker." That will be a frightfully helpful answer. It will come to be seen that those who have acted like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—courageously, and in so doing facing short-term unpopularity—to relate the prices of the gas industry to the reality of the world's energy economy did the right thing. That is why I hope that all hon. Members will support the Government's amendment and face the short-term unpopularity that may derive from that vote.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: My fellow Bristol parliamentarian, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), made an interesting remark at the beginning of his speech when he said that the undoubted success of the gas industry did not owe all that much to the ingenuity of the industry; it owed much more to the forces of God—shall we say the forces of nature—which

  1179
  provided, on discovery, a great new resource in the North Sea.
  I have always felt that it was something of a blunder—it was a Conservative Government who introduced the Gas Act 1972—to allow the gas industry, a retail industry in competition with the electricity industry, to have unlimited access to wholesaling. If the electricity supply industry owned the coal industry, that would probably make a great difference to its economics. The hon. Gentleman started a useful chain of thought.
  Thanks to the consideration of the Chair, I have taken part fairly frequently in energy debates. I have long argued that one of the most obvious tasks of the Department of Energy is to maintain, under varying world conditions of price and supply, a rational relative pricing structure for available energy sources.
  It is no good saying that the industries can do that between themselves. They cannot. They naturally look to their own interests. There are those who talk about the forces of the market. Perfect competition may make sense for grocers' shops or hairdressing salons, but with gigantic public utilities such as the gas and electricity industries, which involve vast capital investment that the nation cannot afford to under-use and have a national monopoly, market forces can have only a limited effect towards achieving good results.
  The price of coal is emerging more and more in electricity prices rather than in its own right in terms of the coal industry. Oil price is dominated as much by international political considerations as anything else. I have always been against interference by Ministers in the day-to-day running of the fuel industries, but I believe that ministerial price intervention is essential if the consumer is to make a choice that he or she will not afterwards regret.
  Domestic consumers have spent money that they perhaps could ill afford in moving from one fuel to another in recent years. They might have changed from electricity night storage heaters that appeared to be less expensive to oil when that seemed to be the cheapest domestic source, and then during the past two or three years to natural gas. That is not genuine consumer choice.
  1180
  In principle, I have no objection to the Secretary of State continuing to fix up-to-date rates of return on assets for nationalised gas and electricity. A Conservative Member suggested that that was a recent recommendation of the Select Committee on nationalised industries. My experience of these matters goes back rather further. It was, first, a recommendation of the Select Committee on nationalised industries of two decades ago that Ministers should fix the proper rates of return in order to have a balance in matters of consumer choice and cost.
  Twenty years ago electricity was expected to make a high cash return on its assets because it was doing extremely well. At that time town gas was doing very badly and, hence, the rate of return was set well down. Now the boot is on the other foot. I wish to make a fair party point—as many party points have been made during the debate—by asking who broke up, who smashed, who sabotaged that rational way of carrying through energy pricing policies. I know who it was. It was the Conservative Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) occupied a junior position in that Government. I am sure that his talents deserved better.
  That Conservative Government started the subsidisation of two prosperous nationalised industries. The industries did not ask for that. The electricity supply management resented it enormously, as did the trade unions operating within that industry. The Conservatives subsidised the industries to hold down prices to help the acceptability of their policy of wage restraint. It was the Conservative Party that broke a system that had been working well. It was Labour Ministers, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley)—who is not here today—who risked a great deal of unpopularity within the Labour Party to return prices to something like rationality.
  The unrestricted way in which the British Gas Corporation has been allowed to behave in recent years has not been in the national interest. I am not blaming its energetic chairman, Sir Denis Rooke, for the manner in which he acted in the interests of his industry. British resources of gas in the North Sea have been depleted too fast and too soon,

  1181
  leaving more to come eventually from the Norwegian field. It has unbalanced the British fuel economy, largely at the expense of electricity. I declare my known interest here.
  Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman says that gas resources have been depleted too fast. There is a known reserve of between possibly more. Following that, there will 35 trillion cu ft and 80 trillion cu ft, and be synthetic gas available from the further gasification of oil products or coal.
  Mr. Palmer: I am well aware of the hoped-for coming of unnatural gas. The hon. Gentleman must understand that that is for the future. It will come one day, but it is not yet here. In the meantime, the North Sea supplies are already running down. I was rather surprised by the remarks of the hon. Member for Honiton, who was one of the leaders in the Standing Committee in 1972. He said that he thought that the gas industry had been tied too tightly to a statutory obligation to supply consumers. That is not the case. One must compare the obligation of the gas industry to that of the electricity supply industry, which must supply everybody, profitably or otherwise. It is not in the general interest of the fuel economy of the country for the gas industry to be even more loosely controlled in this re-respect.
  As an advocate and defender of the nationalisation of basic industries over many years, I have never believed that they should be run as a social service either in whole or in part. The responsibility for protecting and caring for our less fortunate citizens must be that of the community as a whole and not that of the gas and electricity industries, if only for the good Socialist reason that it is bad for the reputation of nationalisation.
  The Government have behaved badly in that social area. I cannot quarrel with the economics of the action. In the supply position in which we find ourselves, it is inescapable. I quarrel with the Government's social behaviour, as the Opposition motion states, at a time when everything else is rising in price—mortgages, rents and fares. People are suffering badly. Many hon. Members on both sides know that that is true. If the gas price increases had to come about, they should have been phased in more gradually. That
  1182
  could have been done. I agree with other hon. Members that they should have been combined with a wider heating allowance—for whatever fuel is used—than that proposed by the Government to cover the needs of families with small incomes, hard-pressed pensioners and so on. That view has gained much currency this afternoon on both sides of the House. The Government should pay attention.
  Also, it is now the time to step up and not reduce spending on conservation programmes. Incredible as it sounds, the Government, in their cutting spree—Governments may have spending sprees, but this is a cutting spree—have included as a victim of their economies many aspects of the "Save It" campaign, to which the previous Administration were committed. Will the Minister, when he replies, confirm that the Government have scrapped a project to establish local centres to advise on insulation of homes?
  If ever there was a time when a programme of that kind was needed, it is now. We should realise that once we have cut our conservation efforts—never very good—we shall have slipped far below what is being done in France, Germany and throughout much of the Continent. I urge the Government to think again, because this is a false economy that should not be proceeded with.
  Mr. Rost: The hon. Gentleman will know that I share his concern about investment in conservation. Does he agree that the best incentive to more investment in conservation is through the price mechanism, which is exactly what a more realistic price for gas will achieve?
  Mr. Palmer: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton who seemed to think that people would pay in any case if they were to remain warm. In other words, these proposals are not very price-elastic. In that respect, I am more in agreement with the hon. Member for Honiton than I am with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). I have made my points, and I shall soon sit down.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has sat down. Has the hon. Gentleman sat down?
  Mr. Palmer indicated dissent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise. Perhaps I confused the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies).
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I wanted to invite the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) to enlarge on one matter with which he dealt. I think that he was still standing at the time. He was sort of suspended in mid-air. The hon. Gentleman has great experience as Chairman of the Select Committee on science and technology and, indeed, is at the present time the leader of his own group on the energy Select Committee. He raised the question of heating allowances and other items that those in need ought to receive, and suggested that they should be much widened. From his experience, does he think that it would be useful if the Social Services Committee considered this as a matter of urgency in order to decide whether the question of need and heating allowances should be considered, and whether that type of approach—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must make an intervention, not a speech.
  Mr. Palmer: I would have thought that that was a matter for the Select Committee in question, but I would be in favour of it.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Since 1977, the British Gas Corporation has conducted an intensive campaign to encourage people to switch to warm natural gas. Many people with perfectly good oil or coal-fired burners switched over. They took out loans and used their savings to switch home and water heating appliances to gas on the strength of the availability of cheap gas.
  Overnight, the Conservative Government made a statement to the effect that in one year those people would have to face a 29 per cent. increase in those costs. Of course gas prices must go up—no one disputes that—but one wonders why the increase is so savage. I agree with Opposition Members that this is a savage increase in the first year of a three-year phase. There is no doubt about that.
  1184
  The British Gas Corporation has perhaps been less than honest in its advertisements, because someone at home could not expect to know that the United Kingdom shelves were rapidly running dry. He could not know that we already buy gas from Norway. He could not know that the Morecambe field will not be opened until 1985–86. He could not know that we are going into partnership with the Norwegians, on a ratio of 15·1 per cent. British and 84·9 per cent. Norwegian. He could not know that we shall be in competition with France and Germany. The State and the British Gas Corporation have known those things for a long time, but the people who trusted the advertisements on television, and who switched over to cheap gas, did not.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have advanced financial arguments. That does not impress the person at home. It worries the elderly and the disabled, but at least it now seems that they will be protected by a Conservative Government, as one would expect. It is a pity that the Government's proposals in that regard were not introduced today.
  I have based my figure on a Library 1977, 1 million more people applied for gas and were connected to it. They prided themselves that they had been clever enough to select gas as their heating source. Many householders have committed themselves to gas for their heating, water and cooking purposes, and some will have to pay £100 more on their first annual bill. The figures that were quoted earlier were quite unacceptable. The people who will be forced to pay the lion's share of these gas increases are the people who are paying the lion's share of mortgage increases, income tax and domestic rate increases. Many are Conservative Party supporters.
  I have based by figure on a Library quotation, which I analysed, and that was the average. When hon. Members talk about the average gas user, they usually mean someone who has an Ascot water heater in his kitchen, but I can tell the House that some people will be faced with very high bills.
  We have criticised the Labour Opposition on many occasions and have said that on many issues they have done too little too late.
  Mr. Skeet: I just happen to have pencilled down the fact that a consumer of

  1185
  1,200 therms will pay only 17p per therm in London but 33·5 in Dusseldorf and 43p in Copenhagen. Therefore, I do not believe that the United Kingdom consumer has done badly, and I do not believe that the consequences indicated by my hon. Friend will occur.
  Mr. Dickens: I am not impressed by my hon. Friend's argument about what people pay in other countries, because they do not pay as much tax as British people do or pay many of the high prices. They also earn more money than people in this country. Therefore, my hon. Friend should not throw that argument at me.
  On many occasions, we Conservatives have said too little too late. In this instance, the State has a moral obligation. It does not matter that Labour Members have a cross to bear or that we have a smaller cross to bear. It was the State and the British Gas Corporation which hoodwinked the general public. We Conservatives now have a moral obligation to do something about it. I believe that the first year's increase should be scaled down tremendously, because at present we are guilty of imposing too much too quickly.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: It is always a pleasure to follow a vigorous speech such as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens). On behalf of Labour Members, I assure him of a warm welcome in the Opposition Lobby this evening.
  I do not propose to concentrate on the economic and financial arguments, but rather to deal with the social consequences of the increase in gas prices. In my view, they will be disastrous. The spiral of inflation that will result from this increase will in itself affect the elderly, the disabled and the poor. The gas price increase alone is enough to worry them. I compare the speedy introduction of the gas price increase by the Government—truly it was a "high-speed increase", to use the terminology of the gas publicity advertisers—with the tardy, not so speedy announcement of any help for the disabled, elderly and poor.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave)—as he was speaking,
  1186
  the Chamber filled with Conservative Members and I almost began to believe in reincarnation—said that it was a pity that the Government did not make a simultaneous announcement about the poor, the elderly and the disabled. It is much more than a pity. It is tragic and disastrous. The Secretary of State may say that anew scheme is on its way, but there was a scheme for electricity discounts. There were criticisms of the electricity discount scheme, but there is an all-party motion on the Order Paper, signed by Conservative Members including the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, suggesting that the electricity discount scheme should have been expanded and developed by the Government into a fuel discount scheme, covering electricity, oil and gas prices. Instead of taking up that suggestion, the Government abandoned the electricity discount scheme and introduced an extra measly 10p increase in the heating allowance, which will benefit only those receiving supplementary benefit. Many hundreds of thousands of people who previously benefited from the electricity discount scheme will no longer do so.
  What can we expect from the Government's announcement, which was anticipated by the hon. Member for Bristol, West? I do not think that we can expect very much from a Secretary of State for Social Services who tells us when the lights go out that we must clean our teeth in the dark, and who tells us not to go to the doctor until we fall on the ground writhing in agony because treatment will cost too much at an earlier stage. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell old people not to switch on their gas fires until they are really cold and shivering.
  The Government's figures for hypothermia do not reveal the true picture. That is true also of the figures of the previous Labour Government. Old people are living in conditions not only below the recommended temperature for the elderly but below the temperature recommended for people who are young and relatively active. That is the situation with the current level of fuel prices, and the poor, the elderly and the disabled merely receive reassurances that at some time in the far-distant future the Government's social policy will remedy it.

  1187
  What faith can those people have in the Government's social policy? What faith can they have in a social policy which abandoned the electricity discount scheme? What faith can they have in a social policy which will abandon the link between pensions and earnings? What faith can they have in a social policy which is cheating pensioners out of a week's pension which the Government are duty bound to give to them? I believe that the Government are morally and legally bound to give it because of the increase in wages above the level of inflation. What can we expect from a Government with that sort of social policy? We must increase our help to the elderly, the disabled and the needy. We must have a totally new scheme, and the Government have shown no indication or will to introduce such a scheme.
  Fuel poverty is already a great problem. It has been highlighted by many voluntary organisations which have submitted evidence to the Government. Those organisations have pointed out that the effect on old people of the gas price increases will not merely be that of the increases, but will be much greater. The budget of every old person consists primarily of the cost of food, of housing—rent, mortgage, or rates, all of which are increasing—and, most important, of fuel. The cost of fuel is a major element in the budget of every old person. The gas price increases will affect them and the disabled more than they will affect others. It is no use giving vague assurances about the possibility of the Government's social policy taking account of that in the future. Old people are suffering in the cold now, this winter. We need a speedy announcement from the Government.
  I turn now to two other arguments advanced by Conservative Members in justification of this unwarranted price increase. First, they say that the money generated can be used for all sorts of good and worthwhile projects. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) suggested that there would be a decrease in the public sector borrowing requirement which would benefit everyone. The Government's record so far on benefits for everyone—for example, the tax cuts—does not lead us to believe that there is anything like that in store.
  It has been suggested that if we could anticipate a subsidy on other fuel to
  1188
  bring down its cost, there might be some logic in that. If there was more money for the insulation scheme, to encourage people to save energy, we might have more understanding of the increase in gas prices, but the opposite is the case. The Government's insulation scheme is being cut back. All that we can expect from the Government is that any money that they can grab from the increase in gas prices will be used to improve the standard of life of those who are already wealthy, by further tax cuts.
  Secondly, I turn to the argument—in which the Secretary of State seems to have great faith—that this is being done to protect our stocks. That point was dealt with on a previous occasion by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). With his impeccable, ultimate logic, he asked for whom we were preserving the stocks. If we were to take the Secretary of State's logic to its ultimate conclusion, we would use no gas and no energy. We would increase the prices so much that we would cut out their use totally. We must get the balance right, but it is not a balance that should result in this sort of doubling of prices over three years.
  For those reasons, and above all for the social effect on vulnerable people, I hope that some Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, who feel strongly about the issue and who are anxious to protect the standard of life of our elderly, disabled and needy, will go through the Opposition Lobby tonight and show the Government what they think of this mean and despicable increase.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I refer to the oil-related price of gas. The wise chairman of the British Gas Corporation, Sir Denis Rooke, in a letter to me on 2 August 1979, set down principles of policy with which I totally concur. He said:
  "In the industrial sector most of our firm gas supplies are sold on individually negotiated contracts at prices related to the price of the nearest alternative premium fuel, which is usually gas oil. At the present time this produce is being sold to industry in the United Kingdom at net prices in excess of 28p per therm."
  He continued:
  "Interruptible gas is sold into non-premium uses and the price is related to the price of

  1189
  heavy fuel oil which is currently just below 20p per therm".
  My point is that under the previous Administration these principles were being applied to the gas industry, with the consent and approval of the Ministers at that time. As these ideas are now being pursued by the present Government. I cannot see that the Opposition can have any objection to them.
  At the present moment there is a broad differential between the industrial prices for gas and the domestic prices. The domestic prices are about 40 per cent. cheaper than the industrial prices. It is laid down in the Gas Act that the corporation must not discriminate in favour of or against any particular category of consumer. It has been doing this over the years. Therefore, it is only right that my right hon. Friend should rectify the position. He is doing so by putting up prices in the way proposed.
  Let us bear in mind that the price of oil today is roughly $30 a barrel in the United Kingdom. If we relate it to gas, it works out very conveniently at 25·5p per therm. I fully concur with what the Secretary of State is doing. Those who have listened to the speeches made in the debate will realise that the course that he has taken is right, although I will say, in deference to all the speakers today that perhaps the presentation could have been better.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: It would be very easy today for me to take lists of statistics, as many speakers have done, but statistics can be bent in any way in order to present certain points of view.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) hit the nail on the head when he said that behind all this is the grasping hand of the Treasury and not the Department of Energy. What we are talking about with the gas industry is not just a licence to print money; it is really a licence to mint gold, because of the size of the industry and the enormous level of profits made over the past two or three years. Much of the profit is hidden by the system of current cost accounting, whereby profits of £564 million can be written down to £182 million. Here I am quoting
  1190
  Kenneth Fleet, the editor of the business news section of The Sunday Times.
  We are really talking about a capitalistic dream. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) pointed out that the Tory policy in the early 1970s used to be to starve the nationalised industries, to keep down their prices, and to use them as a means of keeping down inflation. Now, we have the opposite policy—to milk the nationalised industries, at least the ones that can be milked. The policy is to put up their prices not to a point that is as high as the consumer can bear but to a point that he has to bear, having no other option. Then the Government suck in the cash, but the question then is, what is to happen to the cash?
  The policy of the Secretary of State for Energy, as revealed in the last few weeks, really involves a tax on gas. Although the policy is presented on the basis of the need for conservation, it really is a tax on gas. We know from the Prime Minister that she is not so much concerned with what Ministers say as with whether they do what she tells them to do. This is evident from the policy that we are seeing from the Department of Energy. The target set for the industry was 6 per cent. on turnover. It has not been changed to 9 per cent., not on turnover but on the value of the asset.
  We are therefore witnessing a major shift in Government policy, and it is inconsistent in its operation. There is intervention in profitable concerns, such as British Airways and British Gas, but there is a policy of non-intervention in the unprofitable industries, such as steel. Why do we see the figure-juggling? Why is there the insistence on massive profits? Is it for the purpose of conservation or is it because the Government intend to sell the gas industry?
  Ten days ago I tabled a question to the Secretary of State asking whether he had any plans for selling off any part of the gas industry. I received a quick reply, informing me that he would let me have an answer as soon as it was possible. I am still waiting for a definite answer. Perhaps I shall get one from the Minister tonight when he replies to the debate. Perhaps I can be told

  1191
  whether it is the intention of the Government to sell off part of the gas industry. Perhaps that is why the Government are fattening it up, so that they will get a good price. Or perhaps they want to make a very good profit for the people to whom they sell the industry. Perhaps, again, the Government are trying to slim down the steel industry before selling it. We have been desperately trying to find out what is the Government's policy in this respect.
  Is it the policy of the Government not to sell off the industry but to put a tax on gas? If it is really a tax on gas, why not be honest about it? Why not point out that all the other countries in Europe have VAT on their gas—as they do—and that, therefore, the Government propose to fall into line with them? At the time of the general election, the Conservative Party said that it would not do this, but now the Government have changed their mind about it. In effect, they are putting VAT on gas—10 per cent. now, and next year another 10 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation. What is involved is the gradual bringing of gas into the VAT range. It would be much more honest of the Government if they were to admit that this is their intention.
  After all, there is a tax on petrol, and it is accepted that we have a tax on petrol. The difference is that petrol tends to be used by affluent members of the community who own cars, whereas gas is used by elderly ladies who cannot afford to own cars and who cannot afford to pay a tax on gas.
  In this action of the Government we are seeing a major shift of wealth from elderly people, who will have to pay higher gas prices because of a gas tax, to the Treasury. Although the money goes to the loans board, once the Treasury gets its hands on it it will use it for some purpose of its own, as we have seen in the past with the road fund tax and petrol tax. It is a shift in tax gathering, via the gas industry, so that the money goes from old ladies to the Treasury.
  If the Government had had the courage to put 10 per cent. VAT on gas—which is what this is—there would have been a massive outcry, and they would have been accused of going back on their
  1192
  election promises. As I am reminded, there is an outcry anyway. In effect, that is what the Government have done, although by using this method they have sought to avoid an outcry.
  The effect on the poor has already been well dealt with, but there is also the effect on industry. Again, this has been wrapped up to a great extent. It must be remembered that industries such as glass, chemicals, clay and pottery use a great deal of gas. It is no good saying that they can suddenly switch to conservation. They cannot do that. They can use less gas only by sacking people or by having a massive reinvestment programme.
  I have some figures that have been given to me by the Chemical Industries Association. At April 1979, the United Kingdom industries were paying 14·5p per therm, compared with a figure of 13·4p for West Germany, 13·4p for France, 14·9p for Italy, 13·1p for Belgium, and 12·2p for the Netherlands—all more or less in line. Then comes a swingeing gas price increase for our industry. It is not simply a 17 per cent. plus 10 per cent. increase for industry; it is a free market, and some industries are having to pay a 50 per cent. increase. Many of our competitors are not having to pay that sort of figure.
  Our foreign competitors pay for their gas on three-year to five-year contracts. Our industries tend to be on 12-month contracts. Suddenly, in the space of a few months, the gas-using industries are having to pay 50 per cent. more for their gas. A firm in my constituency—it will not mind if I mention it—was paying £2 million a year for its gas. The firm, Harworth Glass Bulbs, is now having to pay £3 million a year—a massive increase. On top of that, the value of the £ sterling has gone up. The company's export trade has been almost ruined within a few months. It exports 50 per cent. of its products, and within a few months, because of the massive cost of gas and the rise in the exchange rate of the pound, it has been knocked sideways.
  I cannot see any point in conserving gas supplies under the North Sea if it means ruining industry. That is a false economy. I do not think that the Government have done any sums relating to the effects of inflation on exports or on

  1193
  the capacity of firms to stand up to swingeing increases of this sort.
  Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the British Gas Corporation is following the same pricing policy for industrial consumers as it has always followed?
  Mr. Ashton: If that means keeping pace with oil, it means that the Arabs are fixing the costs of our industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] As has been argued already, one of the best ways of keeping down the international price of oil is to keep down the international price of gas. If oil has a competitor, that will help to deflate the oil economy. That is a very valid point.
  Let us look at the conservation argument put forward by the Government. If they wish to conserve energy, why is there no crash programme to install double glazing and insulation in the roofs of council buildings and council housing? I know that grants are available, and they are very often taken up, but old ladies cannot scramble up ladders to insulate the loft. They need somebody to do it for them.
  There is no pressure on councils to undertake this sort of work. It is work that would create a large number of jobs. No massive capital investment would be needed if councils decided to introduce a programme to install double glazing and insulate the lofts of council properties. If it is necessary to put a few shillings on the rent to pay for it, the tenant would at least get that money back through decreased heating costs. Those on rent rebate might not have to pay anything towards such a programme. It would be a good, self-financing scheme.
  No such ideas have come from the Department of Energy. The reason is that the argument for increasing the price of gas is not a conservation argument but a tax argument. The Government are hiding behind OPEC and using the increase in the price of oil as an excuse to raise cash for the Treasury to use in cutting taxes for the rich in 1982 and 1983. There is no doubt about that.
  Those who are concerned with the old and the cold will tell the Government that 10 per cent. of pensioners are in serious danger of hypothermia because they cannot afford to heat their homes or even
  1194
  their bedrooms. One-third of all old-age pensioners' bedrooms are heated to less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit. It will not just mean 56p on the weekly gas bill, as the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said. People do not pay for their gas weekly. They receive big bills in the winter and small bills in the summer. It is highly probable that the 56p per week will mean £18 on the winter gas bill, and an increase of £18 is a great deal of cash for a pensioner.
  We may hear more in the Budget or over the next few months about the scheme that has been hinted at, but if it is anything like the scheme brought in to replace the electricity discount scheme in November it will, as usual, be some sort of sham scheme designed to help a select few elderly people so that the Conservatives can at least salve their consciences.
  I hope that all hon. Members will support our motion, for the reasons that I have outlined. We believe that the action of the Government is a transfer of wealth from the ordinary people, via a gas tax, to the Treasury, so that tax cuts can be paid out to friends of the Conservatives in future years.
  6.42 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont): I intended to begin tonight by saying that the whole House had expressed concern about the rising gas prices, but the tears have been crocodile tears, because the Opposition Benches have been empty for much of this debate. We never had any doubt about the concern that our announcement would cause. That is why we spelt out the consequences for three years with a frankness that is disturbing to the "week is a long time in politics" mentality.
  The reasons why the price increases and financial targets are necessary were spelt out both in the announcement made to the House and in the speech made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. They were not seriously challenged by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), let alone in the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Unpalatable as they may be, the facts stare us in the face.
  First, new supplies of gas from the northern North Sea will be increasingly

  1195
  expensive—perhaps six or seven times as expensive as at present. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) pointed out, those contracts are likely to be increasingly related to the price of oil, a point which the right hon. Gentleman might have taken into account when he was making his strictures about the impact of the price of oil on gas prices.
  Secondly, domestic gas barely covers its costs. Although domestic gas accounts for 50 per cent. of the business of the British Gas Corporation, this year it will probably make no contribution to profits. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) took issue with this point and rightly pointed out that when attributing losses and profits to particular divisions of a business much depends on how one attributes the overheads and other costs. That is right. The practice of BGC has not only been approved by auditors but has been the subject of investigation by the Price Commission, which came to the same conclusion.
  A further point that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is that the trend, on the same accounting basis, is clear; the sort of profits made on domestic gas sales two years ago are no longer being made. Two years ago, 50 per cent. of the Gas Corporation's profits came from domestic sales. That is not so today. If there is not a substantial price increase, on the basis of the accounting practices which the corporation has pursued in the past there will be a loss on domestic gas sales. I cannot believe that anyone in the House, at a time of increasing awareness of energy problems and rising energy prices, would think it a wise and prudent policy to sell gas to domestic users at a loss.
  Thirdly, while domestic gas prices have been frozen for two years—and there will have been an increase of only 8 per cent. between 1 April 1977 and 31 March 1980—the retail price index will have increased by about 35 to 40 per cent. Though domestic gas prices have been frozen, industrial prices have definitely not been frozen, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter.
  Many industrial firms are paying up to 50 per cent. more for gas than is paid by the domestic consumer. This has brought the corporation close to a breach of its statutory obligation not to dis-
  1196
  criminate between different categories of user.
  Mr. Torney: I believe that the Minister has sat through the entire debate. He talks about no profits in the gas industry, but did he not hear the excellent early part of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), in which he seemed to elucidate details of the considerable profits that were being made in the gas industry?
  Mr. Lamont: Indeed, I heard that clearly. I listened to it more closely than the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) seems to have listened to my comments on it.
  While industrial prices have accelerated, domestic demand has increased enormously. Nearly 1 million new customers have been supplied with gas during the past three years, while at the same time industry has been paying very high prices and been unable to obtain the gas that it wants and needs.
  I was astonished when my right hon. Friend made his announcement in the House and the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) commented on it by referring to the damage that it would do to industry. The right hon. Gentleman could not have got it more wrong if he had tried. It is industry that is complaining about the enormous difference between domestic and industrial prices. I cannot believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends think that it would be right for domestic consumers to be subsidised by the wealth-creating private sector. If the right hon. Gentleman had his way, there would be plenty of centrally heated houses in which the unemployed could live. The implication of his policy is that industry would have supplies diverted from it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton suggested that the Government should impress upon consumers the great benefit that gas has been to them. He is right. A pensioner today needs to spend less of his income on gas to heat his house than he did 10 years ago. The real price of gas has fallen steadily during that time.
  Even after three years of real price increases, gas will still be far and away the best and most attractive buy for the consumer. Regular surveys are conducted on the average costs of heating a three-bedroom house, and the latest figures

  1197
  show that the annual bill for oil is £272, for electricity £253, for coal £222, and for gas £157. Even after three years of real increases of 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation, gas will still be cheaper than any other fuel—even coal, which may dismay Labour Members—by a distinct margin. Gas is still a good buy for the consumer.
  The Government recognise that the correction of years of under pricing will cause problems for poorer consumers. Economic pricing and social policy must go hand in hand, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged at a recent Question Time the need for greater help for the elderly. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, our policies are being reviewed, and we hope to make an early announcement in good time for people to make their plans for the winter.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: This is a matter on which many of us feel strongly. Will my hon. Friend consider producing a scheme that shows what is desirable to meet the needs of the elderly and the disabled, particularly in relation to the heating allowance, so that we may have an opportunity to consider it and make suggestions before it has statutory effect? If I do not have that assurance, I shall try to ensure that the Select Committee on Social Services considers the subject a matter of emergency. It is an issue of the greatest importance to the nation as a whole.
  Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is important that we should consult hon. Members and, as we have indicated we wish to do, the welfare organisations and others with particular knowledge who have been energetic in these matters. We shall consult, and if my hon. and learned Friend has any suggestions we shall be happy to receive them.
  On the radio this morning the right hon. Member for Devonport cast grave doubts on the Government's sincerity and questioned why, if we intended to help those in need, we scrapped the electricity discount scheme. We did that because it was a pretty lousy scheme. It gave only a small amount of help, far less—six or seven times less in individual cases—than the replacement scheme offers, and
  1198
  it was of no use to gas consumers. It would not have helped them one bit.
  The U-turn watchers in the House have suggested that the Government's policies towards the Gas Corporation contrast with our attitude towards other nationalised industries, such as the steel industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) called that the "silly-clever" argument. In the mouth of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw it sounded a lot more silly than clever. It is not an argument to say that because a Government set a financial target for an industry and leave the management to achieve it, that constitutes a new sort of intervention.
  The White Paper of the previous Government suggested that Governments ought to set three-year financial targets for the nationalised industries. We have to set the Gas Corporation a financial target. Anyone who seeks to deny the Government that opportunity is suggesting that the corporation should set its own target.
  In setting the target, we have assumed that the contribution to the profits of the corporation will return by the third year to the same division between domestic and industrial contributions as two years ago, before the previous Government interfered through the imposition of price freezes.
  It has also been suggested that there is a major disagreement between the corporation and the Government. My right hon. Friend made it clear earlier that the corporation accepts both the magnitude of the under pricing that needs to be corrected and that there must be a price increase of the amount proposed for this year. The corporation says that it is necessary because of the danger of interruptions to supply. That is not the Government's opinion; it is the opinion of the Gas Corporation. It does not believe that it could cope with peak demand to a greater extent by switching away from the interruptible contracts. During recent winters there have been enough risks to hospitals and schools from the switching away of gas because of accelerating demand from the domestic consumer.
  Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the impact of the Government's

  1199
  philosophy in economic terms on the corporation's bargaining position with oil companies, particularly in relation to the North Sea?
  Mr. Lamont: The corporation's negotiations on the price at which it buys gas from the North Sea are confidential matters for its management. However, it is an open secret that the contracts are increasingly related to the price of oil. That happens already, and nothing said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or announced by the Government will change that situation.
  The Government reject accusations that what is being proposed is a tax. I understand why the Opposition are so keen to make that accusation, because they did precisely what they accuse us of when, in 1977, they increased gas prices by 10 per cent. more than the Price Commission recommended, and did so purely to satisfy the IMF and reduce the public sector borrowing requirement.
  We have freely admitted that we are pleased—in our current financial situation it is enormously helpful—that the Gas Corporation is contributing to a reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement, but that is not the reason for the changes. They were made for reasons of energy policy.
  Much has been made of the profits of the Gas Corporation. I have already said that domestic gas is not contributing to those profits, but the point is that costs ought to determine the price that British Gas charges for its products, and there is no doubt that the costs of gas are increasing steadily.
  A number of my hon. Friends have put forward the arguments for a gas tax. We note their suggestions, though if there were a gas tax we should have to be careful that it was not imposed on top of the price increases.
  Mr. Ashton: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he say whether it is the Government's intention to sell off all or part of the industry?
  Mr. Lamont £The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the answer that I gave him. I do not know why he did not just read it out. There is a lot of difference between answering as he described it,
  1200
  "I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman shortly", and saying in a perfectly standard way "I have no plans at present to denationalise the British Gas Corporation." It seems an extraordinary piece of misrepresentation by the hon. Gentleman. The Government are not intending to denationalise the British Gas Corporation, and for the hon. Gentleman, who is causing great dissension in the ranks of Tuscany behind me, to suggest that is, I fear, to fall back upon his talents as a novelist. It is a work of pure fiction.
  It is interesting that the Opposition have not been able today to put their full weight against the necessity for a rise in gas prices. The right hon. Member for Devonport even managed to attack the Government for not having put up the gas prices in June. It is difficult for the Opposition to attack these rises when in 1975 they put up electricity prices by 28½ per cent. It is difficult for them to attack economic pricing when they repeatedly defended it in office. It is difficult for them to attack the need for targets when it was their White Paper which called for them. They quibble about the amounts of the increase, but the amounts of the increase were recommended by their own creature, the Price Commission, in its last desperate gasp of life. And now they have the effrontery to criticise the timing of the increase, when they doubled electricity prices in two years. Then, of course, they introduced the electricity discount scheme, long after the massive rise in electricity prices.
  This country is extremely fortunate in the fact that it is very well endowed with energy supplies, but this country is not on the Persian Gulf. Perhaps if we were Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, with reserves of oil and gas stretching on for years and years, we could afford to subsidise the domestic consumer, subsidise the motorist or divert supplies from industry. But we are not in that position, and all the best estimates are that supplies of oil and gas in this country will run down in the 1990s. It would be folly for this country, at this of all times, with all our problems, to waste and burn up one of the few advantages that we have.
  The Government were elected to face the economic and commercial realities, and in this case if we do not face the

  1201
  consequences they will face us, in terms of distortions, shortages and waste. It would be wholly inconsistent and wholly out of line with the purposes and objectives of the Government if we were to shirk this decision today. The Govern-
  ment have accepted reality, and I hope that the House will do likewise.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 305.

  Division No.146]

  AYES

  [7.00 pm

  Abse, Leo

  Evans, John (Newton)

  McKelvey, William

  Adams, Allen

  Ewing, Harry

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Allaun, Frank

  Field, Frank

  Maclennan, Robert

  Anderson, Donald

  Fitch, Alan

  McMahon, Andrew

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McNally, Thomas

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McWilliam, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Ford, Ben

  Magee, Bryan

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

  Forrester, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Foster, Derek

  Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Foulkes, George

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Beith, A. J.

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Freud, Clement

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Meacher, Michael

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  George, Bruce

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Bottomley, RI Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bradley, Tom

  Ginsburg, David

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Golding, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

  Gourley, Harry

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Graham, Ted

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred(Wythenshawe)

  Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles(Openshaw)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon

  Buchan, Norman

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Morton, George

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Newens, Stanley

  Campbell, Ian

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Ogden, Eric

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cant, R. B.

  Haynes, Frank

  O'Neill, Martin

  Carmichael, Neil

  Heffer, Eric S

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Cartwright, John

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Clark, Dr David(South Shields)

  Home Robertson, John

  Park, George

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Homewood, William

  Parker, John

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hooley, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  Coleman, Donald

  Horam, John

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Pendry, Tom

  Conlan, Bernard

  Howells, Geraint

  Penhaligon, David

  Cowans, Harry

  Huckfield, Les

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

  Prescott, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Race, Reg

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Radice, Giles

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richardson, Jo

  Davidson, Arthur

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Robertson, George

  Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, J. W.

  Dempsey, James

  Kerr, Russell

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Dewar, Donald

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Dixon, Donald

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dobson, Frank

  Lambie, David

  Ryman, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sandelson, Neville

  Douglas, Dick

  Lamond, James

  Sever, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheerman, Barry

  Dubs, Alfred

  Leighton, Ronald

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Eadie, Alex

  Litherland, Robert

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Silverman, Julius

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McCusker, H.

  Snape, Peter

  English, Michael

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Soley, Clive

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  McElhone, Frank

  Spearing, Nigel

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McKay, Allan (Penistone)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Stallard, A. W.

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Stoddart, David

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Winnick, David

  Stott, Roger

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Woodall, Alec

  Strang, Gavin

  Watkins, David

  Woolmer, kenneth

  Straw, Jack

  Weetch, ken

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Wellbeloved, James

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  Welsh, Michael

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Whitlock, William

  Mr. Hugh McCartney and

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Mr. James Tinn.

  Tilley, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Durant, Tony

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Alexander, Richard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Alison, Michael

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Ancram, Michael

  Eggar, Timothy

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Arnold, Tom

  Elliott, Sir William

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Emery, Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Knox, David

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lamont, Norman

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lang, Ian

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Farr, John

  Latham, Michael

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lawson, Nigel

  Best, Keith

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lee, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Lester, Jim (Beston)

  Blackburn, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Blaker, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Body, Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Loveridge, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  Luce, Richard

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Bradford, Rev. R.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  MacGregor, John

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Bright, Graham

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Brinton, Tim

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Brittan, Leon

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Goodhart, Philip

  Madel, David

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Major, John

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gorst, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Buck, Antony

  Gray, Hamish

  Mates, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Greenway, Harry

  Mather, Carol

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Mawby, Ray

  Burden, F. A.

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Butcher, John

  Grist, Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Grylls, Michael

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mellor, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm & Ew'll)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hannam, John

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Channon, Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Molyneaux, James

  Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Monro, Hector

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heddle, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Cockeram, Eric

  Henderson, Barry

  Moore, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  Cope, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Corrie, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Costain, A. P.

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Mudd, David

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hooson, Tom

  Murphy, Christopher

  Critchley, Julian

  Hordern, Peter

  Myles, David

  Crouch, David

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Neale, Gerrard

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Needham, Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Neubert, Michael

  Dover, Denshore

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Newton, Tony

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Normanton, Tom

  1204

  1205

  Onslow, Cranley

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

  Scott, Nicholas

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Trippier, David

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Trotter, Neville

  Parris, Matthew

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Viggers, Peter

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Shersby, Michael

  Waddington, David

  Pawsey, James

  Silvester, Fred

  Wakeham, John

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Porter, George

  Speller, Tony

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

  Spence, John

  Waller, Gary

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Walters, Dennis

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Ward, John

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Sproat, Iain

  Warren, Kenneth

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Squire, Robin

  Watson, John

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Raison, Timothy

  Stanley, John

  Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Wheeler, John

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Stevens, Martin

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Renton, Tim

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Stokes, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Strading Thomas, J.

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Tebbit, Norman

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rossi, Hugh

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Rost, Peter

  Thompson, Donald

  Mr. Anthony Berry

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the inevitable need for domestic gas prices to rise bearing in mind that no profit is now made on domestic gas sales, while industry goes short of gas; welcomes the Government's determination not to evade or disguise economic realities; and believes that the Government's stated intention to review the whole range of fuel assistance offers much the best basis for helping the old and those in need in an era of high energy costs.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
7.15 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill: —
Committee
1.— (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 4th February 1980.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 4th February may continue until 11 pm whether or not the House is adjourned before that time and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 5th February 1980.
Report and Third Reading
2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion uider a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the
1208
Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be moved to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.
Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted days
7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those Proceedings.
Conclusion of Proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall

1209
forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the
1210
House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal
12.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Education (No. 2) Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
Any debate on a timetable motion invariably causes a good deal of indignation from the Opposition when it is debated on the Floor of the House. That indignation is usually found to be largely synthetic and totally unjustified. I am bound to say that, in so far as Labour Members may attempt to raise any indignation this evening, they could not find an occasion upon which it would be more synthetic or unjustified. Indeed, the absence of Opposition Members supports the need for tonight's motion.
The Bill has already been in Committee for about 82 hours. It was clear

1211
that, from the outset, the Opposition were determined to get a timetable motion on the Bill. They have brought the motion on themselves. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) appears to look upon the achievement of the guillotine measure as a form of virility symbol. The real reason is that, having allowed the first Education Bill to go through with reasonable debate, he was so attacked by many of his hon. Friends, that he has had to show his mettle to his friends on the Left wing on this occasion.
I believe, as I shall show, that from the outset of the Committee stage the hon. Member for Bedwellty was determined to have a guillotine debate. He believed that it would give him an opportunity to make some great, flamboyant and histrionic speech instead of bothering himself about any detailed discussion of the Bill.
Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
Mr. Carlisle: I shall not give way at this stage.
Mr. Beith rose—
Mr. Carlisle: I shall give way in a moment. I do not dispute that this is an important Bill. Equally, as far as the Government are concerned, it is an urgent Bill. That is why the Bill was introduced in October. That is why it had its Second Reading on 5 November that is why it was the first Bill to go into Committee at the end of the Summer Recess.
Mr. Beith rose—
Mr. Carlisle: There is no doubt that, given reasonable speed, there is ample time for the Bill to have a proper Committee stage, without resort to a timetable motion.
Mr. Beith: The Secretary of State has talked about flamboyant speeches and synthetic indignation. The Leader of the House, who was formerly a spokesman on education when the Conservative Party was in Opposition, tabled 103 new clauses to the Labour Government's Education Bill. Would he make the same comment about those actions?
Mr. Carlisle: I am bound to confess—if my right hon. Friend the Leader of
1212
the House will forgive me—that I do not normally read his speeches at a later stage or use them for such purposes. However, I suspect that we shall get, as in all timetable motions, a considerable degree of synthetic indignation tonight.
The Bill went into Committee, after Second Reading on 5 November, and it has been given ample time to complete its Committee stage. The hon. Member for Bedwellty has a record as regards timetable motions. I have consulted the record. While speaking on proceedings in the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Bill in 1975, he said:
"Our debates on guillotine motions usually arise as a consequence of parliamentary mischief, either by a contemptuous Government…or by a verbose Opposition."—[Official Report, 7 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 119.]
There is no doubt that this guillotine motion is the result of a verbose Opposition.
The Bill contains 37 clauses. Some of those clauses are controversial. I concede that some of them are extremely controversial. However, many of them are not controversial and are based on the previous Labour Government's Bill of 1978. Consequently, many of those clauses were debated at that time.
The Bill has already been in Committee for some 82 hours. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced the intention to move the timetable motion, the Committee had reached clause 17. The proposals that I shall outline shortly will allow the Committee—in all—over 100 hours on the Bill. The Education Act 1944—probably the cornerstone of educational legislation in Britain since that time—had 120 clauses and eight schedules, yet it went through the whole of its Committee stage on the Floor of the House in 14 sittings. Everyone had an opportunity to speak in the course of those 14 sittings. That shows the length of time that has been taken unnecessarily on the Bill.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State recognise that whilst the Education Act 1944 was passed by the great majority of the then Tory Government, the present Government are now busy tearing up the same Act? That is why the Bill has taken up so much time.
Mr. Carlisle: I realise that we now have a majority of over 50 hon. Members. We therefore have a responsibility to get our legislation through. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] During the Committee stage, the Opposition have not been at all interested in debating individual clauses.
Mr. Beith: That is rubbish and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it.
Mr. Carlisle: I shall prove it. Much time has been taken up on totally different issues. Over two full sittings were taken up in debating matters of procedure before the debate on clause 1 could start. A sittings motion debate took four hours. A motion was moved by the Minister for the convenience of the Committee concerning the order in which matters should be considered. That motion took an additional one hour and ten minutes. Five hours and ten minutes elapsed before a word of debate was heard on any part of the Bill.
Six hours were taken up in general debate on points of order. I concede that I asked for this to be checked for me, but the Chairman of the Committee intervened on 48 separate occasions during the Committee stage. He had to call Opposition hon. Members to order and point out that their debates on those points of order were irrelevant to the issues under discussion.
On 15 January the Opposition took up one and half sittings—three hours and 40 minutes—on a point of order that was totally irrelevant. The point of order concerned whether the Department of the Environment should issue a directive to local authorities allowing them to speak and vote on matters involving school meals and school transport. I accept the importance of that issue. However, if it had any relevance to the Bill, it would have concerned the clauses that dealt with transport and meals. As it was, it took up one and a half sittings which should have been devoted to the assisted places scheme. Within half an hour of those points of order being raised, the Minister made it clear that he would make a statement to the Committee at the earliest opportunity.
Finally, as regards the reason for this debate, I shall use one other example.
1214
Clause 1 is a simple clause. It deals with
"the change of nomenclature".
That simply means changing the names of the members of governing bodies of primary schools from "managers" to "governors". It is totally uncontentious. The clause is identical in wording to the previous Labour Government's clause in the 1978 Bill.
On that occasion the whole clause went through in five minutes. On this occasion it took four hours and 30 minutes to make that single change. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) was a member of the Committee on both occasions. However, whereas he did not feel it necessary to intervene on the first occasion, he found it necessary to make a speech of one hour and 45 minutes on this occasion. Whereas in the 1978 Bill—in similar circumstances—clause 2 was reached in 10 minutes—
Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) called my hon. Friend a "Trotskyist". Will he please withdraw that remark?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Nothing has been heard at this end of the Chamber.
Mr. Flannery: Everyone round here heard it. They all heard it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Even if the word had been heard at this end of the Chamber, it would not have been unparliamentary.
Mr. Carlisle: Whereas clause 2 of the 1978 Bill was reached within 10 minutes of the Committee sitting, the same clause in this Bill took nine and a half hours to be reached. The reason is simple. We did not resort to elaborate points of order or long-winded speeches on sittings motions during the 1978 Bill.
Finally, regarding the claim of the hon. Member for Bedwellty that a timetable motion is caused by a contemptuous Government or a verbose Opposition, may I remind him about the length of his speeches. Fifteen Opposition speeches have each lasted for longer than 45 minutes. Six of them were by the hon. Member for Bedwellty and two by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bolton, West

1215
(Mrs. Taylor). Although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Bedwellty enjoys the sound of his own voice, I believe that he is somewhat overdoing his self-enjoyment on this occasion.
During proceedings on the 1978 Bill, which is similar to this Bill in many respects, we reached clause 22 in 45 hours. After 82 hours on this Bill we have just reached clause 22.
I now turn to the need for the motion. The requirement for the Bill is clear. If local education authorities are to achieve the savings that we desire in the coming financial year, the provisions covering meals and transport should be on the statute book before the beginning of the summer term.
Although it may be a matter of contention, the Government are committed to reductions in educational expenditure in the year 1980–81. That was stated in our White Paper and in the rate support grant proposals. We are looking for reductions of £280 million against the equivalent expenditure in 1978–79, amounting to 3½ per cent. We are anxious that those savings should not be made, as far as possible, at the expense of the quality of education. We believe that over £200 million can and should be found out of the present subsidies for meals, milk and transport. It is necessary that local authorities should be free to charge for transport. Everyone accepts that the present situation is illogical. The Bill proposes that freedom, subject to the necessary safeguards for those on supplementary benefit or family income supplement.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Although the Government are committed to giving the local authorities power in that area, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is considerable anxiety in country areas? My amendment to clause 23 suggests that
"The maximum charge of the levy for school transport should not exceed the cost of public transport for 'walking distance'."
If such an amendment were accepted, it would relieve a great deal of that anxiety.
Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware that there is a great deal of concern. It is perhaps a pity that so much time has been taken up with less relevant issues in the Bill. I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am not accusing the Secretary of State personally, but is he aware of the cavalier manner in which his fellow Ministers have handled the objections of many thousands of Catholics in the diocese of the Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle? I sent his Department the first tranche of about 100 letters, and the Minister of State in another place replied with only one letter, and that was almost a circular. She ignored the letter of the Lord Bishop.
Mr. Carlisle: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is aware that I have seen the Right Reverend Bishop and had a long discussion with him, and I believe that he will accept that I have shown him every courtesy in arranging to meet him when I was in that area.
For Committee stage of the Bill the Opposition were presented with notes on clauses to assist them in their study of the effects of the Bill and with any document that came out of my Department. It cannot be suggested that my hon. Friends rode roughshod over the Committee.
Mr. David Ennals: Following the intervention of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises that the measures that are of the greatest concern to rural areas will be least debated as a result of the motion? Is he aware that in Norfolk there is deep feeling on the issue and that the motion is riding roughshod over our concerns?
Mr. Carlisle: I recognise that these issues will be less debated than they would have been had the Opposition not chosen to spend a great number of hours on points of order and sittings motions. However, I am satisfied that the time provided by the motion is adequate for the purpose.
It is also necessary that, before the beginning of the summer term, local authorities should have wider freedom to provide such meals and refreshments as they consider appropriate and be free to charge what they think appropriate. In that way we believe that some £220 million of the £280 million saving provided for in the rate support grant can be achieved.

1217
Local authorities should be able to introduce these measures by the beginning of the summer term, and they should be able to plan on that basis. If local education authorities are not empowered to introduce arrangements designed to bring about those savings from the beginning of the summer term, some of them may find that they are no longer able to provide transport. They will also be forced at very short notice to take other action on general education expenditure that is bound to impinge much more directly on education in the classroom.
On Second Reading the hon. Member for Bedwellty, quite unintentionally, paid me a compliment. He said:
"If Governments so organise affairs as to maintain a proper relationship between reductions in the birth rate and falls in school rolls, and simultaneously make reductions to their commitments to education of a comparable nature and in proportion, that is good husbandry. However, when they do it in excess of the reduction in the number of children seeking school places, that is an act of vandalism".—[Official Report, 5 November 1979; Vol. 972, c. 56.]
Our proposals for a reduction in expenditure for the year 1980–81 compared to the year 1978–79 amount to 3½ per cent. at a time when the pupil population has fallen by 4·7 per cent. On the hon. Gentleman's own test, I stand convicted of his offence of good husbandry.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Setting aside the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is engaging in more than his usual share of misrepresentation, may I ask whether the figures that he has given include or exclude the settlement that will be made over teachers' pay? Has he estimated what difference that will make to the effective cut that he is making in the finance available to local education authorities?
Mr. Carlisle: In the rate support grant, as well as allowing for 13 per cent. year-on-year inflation in wages and non-wage costs, we have also allowed for what we consider to be our best estimate of the likely, reasonable effect of the Clegg award. If hon. Members think it will be half of what is expected, it is doubtful that they know even the amount of the claim. If we achieve what we want and savings are made in the ways that we are asking local authorities to consider, it will mean not 3½ per cent. but
1218
merely 1 per cent. of provision out of the classroom at a time of falling population. By deliberately delaying the Bill, the Opposition are putting at risk the jobs of teachers and risking damage to the standard of education in the classroom.
The slow progress of the Bill is putting the quality of education for some children seriously at risk and threatening serious disruption to local education authorities in terms of financial planning and practical preparation in the introduction of new arrangements. We are, therefore, asking the House to pass this motion, which requires the Committee to conclude its proceedings on 4 February. We believe that within that period it will be possible for the Committee to sit often enough and long enough to give adequate consideration to the remaining clauses of the Bill.
I need hardly say that if the Opposition had chosen to make more reasonable progress on some of the earlier clauses we would not be bringing forward this motion and some clauses of immediate political interest might have received fuller consideration than is now likely. I still believe that the Committee will be able to do justice to the remainder of the Bill in the time available and that the two days allocated for Report and Third Reading will give adequate time on the Floor of the House.
We have left decisions about the sittings of the Committee entirely to the Business Sub-Committee. I am sure that this accords with the wishes of the House. Beyond that, I need not refer in detail to the terms of the motion. It follows, in significant respects, the precedents in respect of timetable motions that have been established in recent years, not least by the previous Administration.
Governments have the right and the duty to get their legislation through the House and to oppose any attempt aimed at frustrating them in that aim. The provisions in the Bill—some, I concede, controversial—are in accordance with the commitments we made in our manifesto. The Opposition have made clear that they are prepared to use any tactics to frustrate the Government getting their legislation. The need to get it becomes more necessary when its achievement, in necessary time, is part of the economic strategy of the Government and when failure to

1219
do so will rebound to the detriment of standards of education. I believe that this is a fair and reasonable measure. I commend it to the House.
7.43 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I have been wondering since 3 May what particular talent equipped the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the post of Secretary of State for Education. It has taken me until tonight to discover that he has precisely that aura of bored sophistication required of members of the Cabinet who have the duty to respond to guillotine motions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman acquitted himself very well. He has all the attributes necessary to fulfil that task. It is the velvet glove task of the Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, if nothing else, is a wet velvet glove. Consequently, we have had it smote across our face. It is more or less what we expected.
What we did not expect was the great inaccuracy of the Minister's understanding of what has been happening in Committee. It is, I suppose, the kind of misunderstanding that can be expected from an absentee landlord. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made no visit to the Committee. His presence has been totally unfelt by the Committee. We even adjusted our sittings, without any opposition from the Opposition Front Bench, to ensure that Thursday mornings, at least initially, were not sitting days, so that the Secretary of State should not be distracted by his Cabinet duties and could attend our Committee at other times. Unfortunately, he was not able to take advantage of that opportunity. That was a matter of considerable regret to us.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has also disclosed another side to his character. He accused me of trying to maintain our activities in Committee as a virility symbol. I thought that he intended to draw the allusion—it would have been totally erroneous and synthetic—that this was to be mocked, that it was an over-performance and a misuse of the function that I had been allocated on the Front Bench. But he did not. It emerged that he was complaining about the virility of the Opposition on this Bill. His comparison with the 1978 Bill exposes the inadequacy of opposition on that Bill and the way that the Opposition, at that time, were too tired, lazy or misinformed
1220
to fulfil at least their parliamentary duties of scrutiny. It could have been impotence. I realise, however, that the Opposition on that occasion were led by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). He is anything but impotent. Consequently, we acquit the Opposition of that charge.
We can only conclude that it is a matter of complaint. The right hon. and learned Gentleman accuses me of enjoying my own voice. [Interruption.] I see that I am in the majority in that enjoyment. Even if that were the case, I wonder whether the enjoyment and dependence upon the sound of my own voice is as extensive as the right hon. and learned Gentleman's dependence on his speech-writer. Once again, the author and the sponsor of the Bill, in the course of a guillotine debate that is supposed to rouse defensive passions, if not actual vengeance, on the Government side, had to rely entirely on the close typescript of what had been prepared for him. That is most unfortunate. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he accuses me of enjoying the sound of my own melodic, Welsh tones, will acknowledge the charge that as the Cabinet Minister in charge of the Bill, at least in title if not in practical fact in the slogging hard work in Committee, it is about time he started stringing together his own words.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: This is a total irrelevance. It should be made clear that at 4.30 pm today the hon. Gentleman and I knew that we were opening the debate. I can assure him that the notes from which I was speaking were all handwritten.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Kinnock: I see that I have scored a bull. I could inquire "Whose hand?" I shall not, however, go into that aspect. It might invite me into inquiries about whose hand lies behind not so much the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech as the Bill that he and his hon. Friends have been proposing.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Kinnock: I would give way to the hon. Lady, but time presses. Several of my hon. Friends wish to make contributions. I do not wish to attract the criticism of the right hon. and learned Gentleman for any extended contribution. He

1221
quoted from my speech on the guillotine on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill some years ago. If he had taken the trouble to read further, he would have seen that what I was proposing, together with many of his hon. Friends, was a constitutional change in our consideration. If he or his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wishes to give time to these matters and to make a proposition, he will find enthusiastic encouragement from me.
But, given the system that exists, we have seen the Government using that system specifically for the purpose that the Secretary of State set out and showing contempt towards the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is using the strength of the majority effectively to suppress and telescope important considerations that should be taking place on the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made several mistakes of fact in the course of his description of the way in which we have conducted ourselves in Committee. He said that we debated the sittings motion for four hours. That is not so. The reason why we debated the motion to sit on Tuesday for five hours was that at the beginning of the second sitting of the Committee the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) moved exactly the same sittings motion as that moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). That caused the extension of the debate.
The Secretary of State says that he wanted to curtail that debate, but he must have known from reading the proceedings of the Committee that we would have been ready to move on to clause 1 within five minutes had he condescended to make himself available in the Committee for questioning. His absence led to the extension of the debate. That sittings motion was not only proposed by a Conservative Member; it was carried with the votes of Conservatives. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will acquit us of any unwarranted delay on that score.
After we had been poking, prodding and teasing for some time, we got an admission from the Government, in the form of the Under-Secretary, that they
1222
had dropped an almighty and anti-democratic clanger in refusing, up to that point, to give a general dispensation to parent councillors to discuss the important matters of school meals and transport. The Under-Secretary told us that he realised that this was a matter of general concern and he promised to look into it and either make a statement or write to hon. Members about the position.
We all knew that the Under-Secretary was concerned. We instinctively understood that with his knowledge of education he might want to make a concession, but we did not understand why the Secretary of State for the Environment should be forthcoming, especially in view of his attitudes on that and other matters affecting local councils. Therefore, it was necessary for us to do our duty, not just in the context of this Bill but in the context of advancing the democratic rights of both the councillors involved and the people who elected them to become part of local education authorities. If the Secretary of State intends to comment on that matter, he should congratulate my hon. Friends on getting the undertaking from the Under-Secretary and eventually from the mountain top of the Department of the Environment, allowing councillors to fulfil their responsibilities to constituents.
As for inhibiting or trying to frustrate the Government, that is absolutely not true. We have co-operated on all the matters of sitting from the outset. On several occasions we have repeatedly asked for the extension of sittings. We have had only one all-night sitting. We have objected only to the ridiculous contortions of the Government in sitting on a Wednesday and sitting between 4 pm and midnight on Monday. Such is the panic of the Government in trying to bulldoze their legislation through the Committee. That has been done in spite of the co-operation of and offers from Labour Members. In the true tradition of the Labour Party, we have been prepared to extend sittings and to be here for the duration of the debates. I understand that it was restlessness on the Conservative Back Benches and the refusal to sit mutely for additional hours that led to our rising at 11 pm and 11.30 pm instead of going on and making progress, as we had demanded.

1223
The Government are making this guillotine debate an opportunity to try to secure their business. They are doing so with unusual alacrity. Generally the guillotine season is somewhat later in the year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman really cannot try to impose on us the responsibility that he must bear for trying to bring about cuts policies in such time as to enable local education authorities and others to make those cuts. He introduced a Bill in November and expected the whole Committee to co-operate with the conspiracy in which he is engaged against standards of living and standards of care in this country. The last thing that we were elected to do is to co-operate in that development, and we refuse to do so.
Of course, this is the first of many guillotines. There will be guillotines on the Housing Bill, the Social Security Bill, the Transport Bill and the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill. In fact, under this Government, such is their haste, panic and frenzy to bring about their cuts, we shall have government by guillotine for the next five or six months. That is contrary to the best traditions that I had hoped the Government would uphold. Of all those guillotines, none will be as precipitate, panicky or unnecessary as this one. It seems to be in order to shoulder-charge the House of Commons into meeting the cuts deadline.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) realises what it is all about. She has tabled an amendment to our Committee proceedings, and we hope that further opportunity will be found to debate it. For a considerable period she has put herself forward as a "flat-rater" on fares. That contrasts with her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who is a flat-earther on these matters. However, I hope that the hon. Lady realises that the reason why we shall discuss her amendment in such cramped circumstances is the Government's guillotine. It is not the responsibility of the Opposition.
I should like to draw attention to the productivity and time-keeping of our Committee. We have sat for nearly 90 hours, 30 of which have been spent on clauses covering parental rights and parental choice—matters of precious importance to the Secretary of State. We
1224
spent a great deal of time talking about the appeals procedure, which is being introduced in the face of universal opposition from everyone in local government—those who will be most affected by its provisions and by the outrageous expense that will be incurred as a consequence of the system. We have spent time discussing school closures and the provisions uprooting section 13 of the Education Act 1944, and we have given time to the novel and wholly destructive proposal to publish examination results as a means of making a judgment between schools.
In that 30 hours, 16 clauses and three schedules were discussed. That is an average of one and a half hours for each item. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a cheek to accuse us of delay when the average time taken over such important new items was only one and a half hours.
Then we came to clause 17. I understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so resentful of the time that we have taken on this. He shakes his head. Why did he make the speech that he has just made if he is not resentful about our spending a considerable time on clause 17? He knows that the whole teaching trade union movement, the Society of Education Officers and many people in the independent sector, as well as substantial parts of the Conservative Party, both in Parliament and in local government, know the dangers that will arise as a consequence of the implementation of the scheme in clause 17. As a result of that scheme, fractures will occur in both our primary and secondary school systems.
Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman provided us with regulations and specified his exact intentions under clauses 17 and 18, we could have had the technical debates and abbreviated our discussions. We would have had some meat to gnaw. But the Under-Secretary was able to offer us only the bare bones. It was by continual probing and inquiry, the introduction of examples and the reading of letters that we were able to get certain details about the assisted places scheme.
We had to take a long time the Under-Secretary was petent or coy. We him the details

1225
to try to discover them by tortuous probing and questioning. If any people are responsible for the time that we have taken on clause 17, it must be the Government, the Department of Education and Science and the Secretary of State.
We read in The Times Educational Supplement last Friday and in The Guardian on Saturday that after all there is to be no assisted places scheme. Of course, the Minister could have shortened our deliberations by coming to that conclusion at a much earlier date. It would have brought cheers from my hon. Friend and from all sections of educational opinion across party lines.
The Government must acquit us of deliberately or fecklessly wasting time on the Bill. Of course, we have had to concern ourselves with the Under-Secretary himself. I have a great deal of sympathy for him because he was left naked on some of these issues. It was difficult for him. He had to present a bland, unargued and ill-thought-out series of propositions.
The incompetence was not attributable to the Under-Secretary; it is already in the Bill. That meant that he had to bear extensive questioning, though he understood the reasons for that. We also took little detours during our discussions in which the hon. Gentleman spoke of abstract art and the co-operative movement in Lancashire. There were the inevitable touches that the Under-Secretary always brings to the Committee stage.
We have for the first time in parliamentary history had the experience of a filibustering Minister. I do not mind that. The hon. Gentleman is a past-master at it. I have been amazed at his performance. I have sat aghast in admiration at his performance in Opposition. I would not wish to follow his example. I would studiously avoid it, but at the same time I cannot help admire the hon. Gentleman's capacity, both in Government and in Opposition, for extensive comment and irrelevant allusion. I have also admired his wide knowledge of the education system and his ability to allude to the He is the epic Hovis advertisement. able of drawing such allusions Indeed, if we did not know have thought that
1226
he was living in the past. We hope that that is not the case.
Despite the interruptions, prolongations and excursions from the Bill, we cannot acquit the Government of speeding it up. We can acquit the Under-Secretary, because it has been his duty. We can certainly find the whole Back Bench strength of the Government "Not guilty".
Mr. Beith: I trust that what the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said does not imply that the Under-Secretary was anything but helpful in Committee. On many occasions his interventions during our discussion were made because he recognised that he was discovering difficulties in the Bill because of the careful debate in Committee. Time and time again he acknowledged that points that arose had been useful and necessary.
Mr. Kinnock: Indeed he did. The Under-Secretary did not regard the Committee stage as something that filled in time between Second Reading and the Royal signature. He recognised that it was a period for scrutiny and he responded to that requirement. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was right. That was always the approach of the Under-Secretary. We had one long—though not too long—contribution in Committee from the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) that was positively therapeutic. It was almost a matter of interior decoration, because the hon. Gentleman got into such a state that there was a danger of living flesh and blood exploding on the panelled ceiling of the Committee Room. It might have come to that had the hon. Gentleman not been allowed to make his very useful speech. I shall be using that speech for many years to come and I am glad that his Front Bench gave him the opportunity to make it.
The rest of the Tory Back Benchers on that Committee will have great difficulty in explaining two things to their constituents. The first is: where have they been since 13 November? Secondly, why is it that after the confusion of this Committee a new delay will occur in the writing of constituency correspondence, since that appears to be what they have been doing? In the pre-Christmas period there were instances of hon.

1227
Gentlemen not only catching up with correspondence but sending their party invitations. I do not want to call them poodles; they are definitely not poodles. They are a little like the nodding dogs in the backs of cars. Their heads shake, but they are definitely not poodles. Nodding dogs is much more like it, as their frustration becomes more and more apparent.
A couple of weeks ago I had cause to believe it of a Tory Member to whom I choose to refer, for reasons of sensitivity, as "Deep Throat", He came to me and said "Wait until the guillotines are on. Then we will get up and speak." There is not time to say who the hon. Gentleman was. Wild horses, or nodding dogs, would not drag it out of me. We have had a similar reaction from someone to whom, out of a sense of equal felicity, I must refer as "Whispering Grass", who said that even after the guillotine was imposed he might not be allowed to speak.
If ever there were a reason for the Chiltern Hundreds, that is it, because those poor newcomers—the parliamentary virgins—arrived here with the idea that they were going to participate in democracy and become part of the deliberative process. They believed that their acquaintance with the real world outside, their recent arrival and their professional qualifications equipped them to deliberate, as in the contribution of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Green-way). I hope that they will have the opportunity at a later date to make their contributions.
We have arrived at the serious point at which the guillotine falls. We have arrived at clause 22. The guillotine falls on clauses 22, 23, 24 and 25. They are the clauses that refer to school milk, school meals and school transport in England, Scotland and Wales. They are, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the most sensitive and most political clauses. Those are the words he used. Of course, they are of major political impact because they are the clauses that impose a tax on parenthood. They are the clauses that hon. Gentleman say will give freedom to local authorities. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that whatever the Tory-controlled local authorities may have wanted before 3 May, against the background of cuts and continual economic depression and the
1228
many other calls being made on their finances and priorities, they do not want it now. That is the freedom that they do not want. Hon. Gentlemen have given freedom in this Bill as the French and Belgian decolonisers gave freedom. They passed hasty legislation and then abandoned the colonies to their fate. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing to the local authorities now.
When I speak of a tax on parenthood, I mean the extra £60 a year per child that some families will have to find for school meals. In September, local education authorities will increase the price of a school meal by up to 60p. I am talking about the £90 a year that parents will have to find to send primary children to school by bus, and the £133 a year that parents will have to find to send secondary schoolchildren to school by bus. Those are the products of the Bill and of the public expenditure cuts.
If we were to fight from now until the summer, or until next Christmas, and if that fight were to scrutinise and to expose the inconsistencies of the Bill, and to prolong our debates upon the remaining issues, upon the cutting of the pool in further education, upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals for making it possible to recover costs across school boundaries or not to recover such costs, and his proposals for further assistance to private schools in clause 27, we would merely be fulfilling our duty. That duty would not warrant a guillotine. The way in which we have done our duty so far has not warranted a guillotine. The co-operation that we have shown so far does not warrant a guillotine. It is with the greatest delight that I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the guillotine motion.
Mr. Ennals: The Secretary of State referred to synthetic anger. That is a remark that he directed to the Opposition. I have seen about 1,000 people marching through the streets of Norwich to protest against the very issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has been rehearsing. Irrespective of whether there is any synthetic anger or feeling on the Opposition Benches, the public would be extremely critical of us if we did not fight against the Government's proposals. The people despise the Government for the measures that they have introduced.
Mr. Kinnock: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. Whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels about the deportment of the Opposition in this place—he is entitled to his opinion about that, and there are certain words that he has to use on an occasion such as this—it is not our anger that he has to fear. The anger that he should fear is that which he is inspiring through his policies.
Anger is mounting outside the House. The people know that their children are not being saved in the classroom as a result of the Government's public expenditure policies. They know that the tax concessions are being turned into a mockery. They know that the cuts will fall in the most direct form in discouraging them and impoverishing them. That is why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should fear their anger.
We hope that we are giving the right hon. and learned Gentleman warning of that in articulating the feelings of those outside this place. If he does not heed our warning, he will face the much more painful consequences of ignoring us when he has to face the anger of the people.
8.12 pm
Mr. William van Straubenzee: I am sure that I express the commiserations of the whole House when I say to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) that seldom in the history of the House have we heard a final and splendid sentence more effectively ruined by an intervention from a colleague. I see that the hon. Gentleman takes my point. I have little doubt that later there will be some discussion on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman has my fullest understanding and sympathy. With his usual skill he did his best to recover, but the careful sentence that he had ready was absolutely and totally ruined.
In his delightful and charming speech, the hon. Gentleman gave an exhibition of the two qualities that have characterised his leadership of the Opposition in dealing with the Bill in Committee. First, the hon. Gentleman has great personal charm and wit. I do not think that there is any other hon. Member alongside whom I should rather be in the convivial places where we get together than the Hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge gratefully the endless fund of ad-
1230
mirable stories with which the hon. Gentleman has supplied me over the years, even if the audiences upon which I can deploy them are strictly limited.
That delightful and charming quality was present throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech. I acknowledge that it has been present throughout the proceedings in Committee. That has meant, among other things, that, while passions have been strong and feelings have been high, our personal relationships, on the whole, be it night or day, have remained agreeable.
The hon. Gentleman displays a remarkable strategic ineptitude. That emerged extraordinarily well in his speech. He has told the House that in controlling the Opposition team he has permitted a guillotine motion to be moved before he has discussed the most politically sensitive, in his judgment, parts of the Bill. He has conceded to the House that he has not permitted discussion on milk, meals and transport. By his own words he is undermined.
We must get the record right. The hon. Gentleman made a gracious and kindly reference to my part in the sittings motion. In Committee, Opposition Members took part in the general process of finding things to talk about. It was suggested that we should meet on Tuesdays at 4 o'clock. I strongly suspect—indeed, I know—that many Labour Members did not realise that such a motion had the effect of introducing open-ended sittings. The hon. Gentleman seems to be indicating that he did not know that. Very well, he did not realise that that was the effect of the motion.
Mr. Kinnock: I realised that it was open-ended. It was part of the Opposition's co-operation in getting adequate time for debate.
Mr. van Straubenzee: Many marks for gallantry, but the correct motion to move would have been one specifying that the Committee should sit at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and conclude its sitting at a certain hour. Instead of that, there was an open-ended commitment. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were appalled when the Government accepted their proposition. That is what happened.
Mr. Kinnock: If the hon. Gentleman consults the Standing Orders of the

1231
House, he will discover that it is not possible to put a limitation on a motion to meet again at 4 o'clock. By definition, such motions are open-ended.
Mr. van Straubenzee: Exactly. Surely it was on that ground even more foolish to have made the suggestion in the first place.
We are now engaging in a ritualistic dance. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman and his team. I have taken part in such operations in my time. However, a really skilled Opposition—I have taken a junior part in this, too—will so operate that they never quite permit a Government to introduce a guillotine motion. It is fascinating to me that the hon. Gentleman is confidently assuming that there will be guillotine motions on many other Bills.
In part we are discussing a criticism of the hon. Gentleman and his team, and against that background I shall make what I hope will be considered a constructive plea. I must say—one of the few advantages of getting to the stage when one has been in the House for a respectable number of years is being able to say such things—that I am convinced that the time will come when the House will regard this sort of ritual dance—it is a ritualistic dance which ever party is in power—as an anachronism.
I remember a courageous speech on a permanent timetabling provision being made by Mr. Ted Short, now Lord Glenamara. It was the more courageous because he was the Opposition Chief Whip at the time. I acknowledge that any comment made by a member of the Government is the weaker because he is on the Government side. I can claim, and show by published letters, that I have consistently held these views in Opposition as well as in Government.
Our workings in the House depend on understandings. An example of that is the make-up of the Committee whose timetable we are discussing. The Government control the majority on the Committee of Selection. It has a Conservative Chairman and a Conservative majority. In theory, it could select only Conservative Members to serve on the Standing Committee. There would be nothing in Standing Orders to prevent that happening. It would be agin the understanding of the House, and the
1232
House would be outraged. If such a ridiculous idea were ever put forward, there would be sufficient of my hon. Friends together—if I may so arrogantly state—with myself who would not be prepared to troop through the Lobby in favour of a proposition that goes to the root of our understandings.
Is it without bounds of possibility that, in due time, we shall have a Committee broadly analogous to a Committee of Selection—a timetabling Committee of a general sort—that will meet following the agreement of the House to motions such as this? Perhaps by convention it will have a Chairman from the Opposition. Perhaps, by convention, he will be a senior Privy Councillor from the Opposition.
It would be possible for such a body to meet after the Second Reading of a Bill to consider its potence, to apply a particular judgment, to listen to all the arguments—as the Business Sub-Committee does—and to allot time to debate it. I add the proviso that it should, as the lawyers say, give liberty to apply for revision or further time if, during the course of discussions, new matter arises.
The great argument against such a proposal is that time is the only weapon of the Opposition. Tonight we are in the process, in three hours, of demonstrating how shallow is that argument. That process has been eroded over the years. A few years ago, if business stopped at 10 o'clock it was regarded as a monstrous infringement of the rights of the Opposition. Now we would regard it as astonishing if that were not to apply. No one regards it as a restriction on the Opposition.
I forecast that under one Government or another we shall have a guillotine motion which in three hours guillotines two Bills. Opposition Members know that that was not a theoretical possibility in the past. We no longer consider it a terrible argument that the Opposition would find that the principal weapon of time was being removed.
Under the scheme that I am advocating, and have advocated for so long, the Opposition would have more time. That would not be wrong. The hon. Member for Bedwellty put his finger on the matter. He did it wittily. I enjoyed the idea of myself as a nodding dog. I have been

1233
called many things in my time, but never that. I am happy enough and broad shouldered enough to take it.
There is an element of truth in what the hon. Gentleman said. He knows that when one is on the Government Benches one is not encouraged to intervene at length. The former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), is smiling, knowing that in his day he imposed that ruling. That is not good for debate and examination in Committee. It would be far more healthy if we were to pass the timetable motion.
I say to both Front Benches that my ear tells me that, as a result of the last general election, we have on both sides of the House a considerable number of new Members who are fed up with the present Committee system and have been outraged by their experience.
I have had private conversations with hon. Members on both sides of the House, and therefore cannot, and will not, name names, but there are hon. Members on both sides who believe that the way in which we conduct our Committee proceedings is an outrage to good common sense and examination of legislation. We ought to listen to that intake of opinion as well as to the opinion of some of their seniors—seniors only in terms of service—because it would be as well to be ready to respond.
That is my non-contentious plea. Meanwhile, we must deal with the situation as it is, and we all know what it is. The hon. Member for Bedwellty and his hon. Friends were determined that this discussion should take place, whether it was to demonstrate a sign of virility or whatever. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs this debate for that purpose. Be that as it may, it was done so that there would be the scalp of a timetable motion.
When I was in Opposition, there were times when I used to plead passionately that when Governments introduced timetable motions the whole of my constituency would be alight. I went on to the doorsteps and asked my constituents "Have you seen that there has been a guillotine?" They were not in the least interested and thought that I was talking about something more physical. They
1234
were very disappointed when they discovered that it was highly procedural.
The hon. Gentleman may think he has gained some might, but I believe that when he goes to Bedwellty or anywhere else he will find that people are interested in other things. So they should be, because they expect us to get on with our business in a sensible way.
8.26 pm
Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), because at the outset of my brief speech I should like to say something about what he said. In a way, I suppose that we are all conditioned by our experience. I was a Government Whip for a long time and then an Opposition Whip. I must admit that timetable motion debates have never been my particular pastime.
The speeches are very much the same, whether one is in Government or Opposition. After six months in the Whips' office, I was in favour of a timetable for every Bill. I agree with the suggestion with regard to an all-party committee. The Government of the day have the right to get their legislation through so long as they can command a majority on the Floor of the House of Commons. The Opposition of the day have a right, and, indeed, a duty sometimes, to delay and certainly to use all the procedures of the House to ensure that adequate discussion takes place on particular legislation.
What disturbs me is that Conservative Members spend a lot of time going around the country protesting about the amount of legislation. Every Tory argues that there is too much legislation. They preached that to me in the Parliaments of 1964 and 1966 when I was a Government Whip. But I find that, now they occupy the Government Benches, they introduce more legislation than we ever did.
The truth is that in the modern, complex industrial society in which we live legislation will continue to be needed. We must be an organised society and planning is absolutely essential. Therefore, there will always be demands for legislation.
When I was a Minister and visited a local authority, the chief executive officer

1235
always began the day by saying "Minister, send no more circulars, pass no more Acts of Parliament, give us time to consolidate." By the end of the day he had given my private secretary at least 20 things that he wanted doing the day before. That is the state of affairs, and that is what leads me to argue that we in Parliament have a duty to set an example. We must ensure that reasoned argument, persuasion and deliberation on our proceedings leads to satisfactory results.
All too often, as the hon. Member for Wokingham said, the only tool of the Opposition is time. Reasoned argument should prevail. Why, with these views, am I so enthusiastic about voting against the guillotine tonight? It is because I think that the Bill is important. All hon. Members know the importance that I attach to education. We are talking about the quality of life and civilised living. In whatever context we talk about the future, I believe that education must play a key role.
The Education Act 1944 was, in a sense, a consensus Act. It is irrelevant for the Secretary of State to talk about the number of hours spent in Committee in discussing the 1978 Bill. Hours and hours, days and days, weeks and weeks were spent in conferences and in delegations discussing the 1944 Bill. There were many times when we thought that the Bill would not become law, but debate continued outside the House.
I am worried about the present timetable. I told the Secretary of State this morning that I had received four important letters concerning the provisions of the Bill. Those people who wrote to me had obviously spent some time considering their case. They asked me to meet them. I shall have to reply that the Bill will complete its Committee stage within the next few days. We must not only allow time for the Committee stage of a Bill. We must allow time for people with an interest in any legislation to make their representations.
The Bill is important. We cannot exaggerate its importance. In a way, it reverses the trend that was accepted by all hon. Members, and by the education service generally, in 1944. Since then a great deal has been said about equality of opportunity. All hon. Members believe in equality of opportunity. The purpose
1236
of the 1944 Act was to put that philosophy into practice. Labour and Conservative Members differ on the meaning of equality of opportunity. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) will agree with me that equality of opportunity is impossible unless we devote a major part of our resources to the most deprived. We cannot begin to talk about equality of opportunity without, at the same time, espousing the cause of positive discrimination.
These days we hear a great deal about young people dropping out of education. In every part of the country there are many people who have never had the opportunity of dropping in, because of home circumstances, and a number of other reasons. We know that some people have never had the opportunity of getting on the bottom rung of the ladder, never mind making progress. It is because this Bill reverses that philosophy of equality that I think it is a scandal that the guillotine has fallen.
The Secretary of State was honest enough to say that the guillotine is being used because the Bill is urgent. It is urgent in order to fulfil the Tory philosophy of cutting public expenditure. In cutting public expenditure we shall deny equality to the children of those to whom we were supposed to be opening the doors of opportunity in 1944.
The most contentious part of the 1944 Act was the settlement concerning the Church—the dual system, and so on. I have read the biography of William Temple, and I understand that reaching a final agreement was a difficult exercise. I have strong views about the dual system—about segregating children, and so on. But that is not at issue in our debate tonight, nor is it an issue in the Bill. The 1944 Act conferred upon parents the legal right to chose a denominational school. Whether we like it or not, once we have conferred that right, Parliament ought to discuss for a long time and hesitate before it upsets that right.
I notice that the Tory manifesto, in its description of its educational proposals, talks about extending the rights and responsibilities of parents. That is the great Tory aim. The Secretary of State has met, for example, the Lord Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle. No one could say that he has an axe to grind, so to speak, in finding things that are not

1237
there. Sometimes in Opposition we are accused of making political points, and so on. The Bishop is quite convinced, along with other reasonable and sensible men and women, that the provisions of the Act will prevent parents from exercising a choice that was conferred upon them by the 1944 Act.
I share that concern. I live in a county where children in non-denominational schools travel considerable distances to school, and for denominational schools the catchment areas are always much bigger than for the non-denominational schools. The Bill will deny the right of parents to exercise a choice that was given to them by this Parliament. That is a very serious issue. I hear from my hon. Friends who are on the Committee, and I know from reading the proceedings, that discussion on those important matters has not even been reached.
I regard the meals service as an integral part of the education service. I feel very strongly about this. It has a tremendous contribution to make. To suggest that we can scrap the meals service and not affect education is to misunderstand what education is about.
We could all quote things that the Leader of the House said when he was in Opposition, just as we can quote things that were said, when they were in Government, by some hon. Members who are now in Opposition. I feel that the Leader of the House has a duty and a responsibility to the House and to the country to bring forward some of the suggestions that we are making for allowing both Government and Opposition to consider in detail proposals that will have such a profound effect on our children and on the nation generally. I therefore invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the motion tonight.
8.38 pm
Mr. John Farr: I was not lucky enough to be on the Standing Committee, but, having heard some of the exchanges, my feeling is that the 80 hours or so that members of the Committee spent in discussion must have passed very rapidly and in a highly amusing manner. That makes me even more than usually disappointed that I was not selected in this instance.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that a good deal of time had been spent
1238
in Committee in discussing trivia, and no doubt that was the case, but my reason for intervening briefly tonight is to point out to the House that there is a great deal left in the Bill that is not trivial. I hope that the timetable motion will not prevent a proper discussion of what amounts to the heart and soul of the Bill.
To many of us the clause which the Standing Committee has just begun to discuss, that relating to school meals, and the subsequent clauses relating to school transport in England, Wales, and in Scotland—clauses 23 to 25—are vital. Clause 26, which is concerned with day nurseries, is also very close to the hearts of many of us who have followed the subject with great attention for a long time.
The Bill consists of 37 clauses, followed by seven schedules. I hope Education Act, which my right hon. and the debate he will look at the Bill from the point of view of someone who, like myself, is not a member of the Standing Committee and who has some important points which he, or she, would like to raise during subsequent proceedings on the Bill.
On reading the sittings motion on page 2187 of the Order Paper, I see that we are to have the Report stage on 5 February, which is next Tuesday. That allows probably three or four more sittings of the Committee, after which time we must complete the Report stage and Third Reading within two days.
Clauses 23 to 25 are especially important. Clause 23 relates to school transport and dismantles part of the that when my right hon. Friend replies to learned Friend and myself have always thought of as the cornerstone of education in this country. Regardless of whether Committee time was wasted on trivia, adequate time must be given for this clause to be discussed, not only in Committee but in the House. I doubt whether one day spent discussing clause 23 and its implications on Report will be adequate.
I reluctantly accept clause 22 and my right hon. and learned Friend's recommendations on school meals. I have already discussed with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State certain amendments which a number of my hon. Friends and I would like to see made to clause 23. Many of us find ourselves

1239
endeavouring to impress on my right hon. and learned Friend that there is great depth of feeling in rural areas that the Government's proposals in clause 23 are not acceptable and must be changed.
A number of us who are not members of the Standing Committee have been very patient in the expectation that sooner or later the Bill would come back to the House and we would have a chance to voice the fears expressed to us by our constituents. We have been content to let the Standing Committee continue in its own way, in the certain knowledge that we would have adequate discussion on Report, stretching, perhaps, over two or three days. Therefore, it is with a certain amount of foreboding and discomfort that we see that we are to have only one day for Report and one day for Third Reading of what is probably one of the most important Education Acts in the last 15 or 20 years.
Some of us would like to see clause 23 removed altogether.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: It is true that the motion refers to Report and Third Reading, but the two days provided both go to midnight. It is unlikely that the whole day will be taken on Third Reading, and, therefore, the majority of the time will be spent on Report. I should make it clear that although the motion refers to 5 February as the day on which the Bill has to be reported to the House, that does not mean that there is not an interval before Report. There will be an interval for consideration before then.
Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for trying to be helpful, as he always is, but the fact remains that Report and Third Reading have to be completed in two sitting days.
I should have thought that there was a sufficient sense of unease on the Government Benches about the proposals for school transport to make it impossible, in the normal course of events, to complete the proceedings in that time.
The implications of clause 23 are extremely serious. The clause is a departure from the Conservative Education Act 1944. I can illustrate my fears best by referring to a letter that I received recently from three headmasters in my constituency who fear that as a result of clause 23 their schools, which cater for a large number of children coming into
1240
three small towns from surrounding rural areas, will suffer a rapid and considerable fall in rolls. They fear that the new freedom of choice that the Government propose will result in parents taking their children to school in, say, Leicester or Nottingham, where the parents work, rather than paying school transport costs of perhaps £100 or £200 a year for each child. Those headmasters fear that there will be a continuing drain on their school numbers through parents exercising the Government's proposed freedom of choice. The result will be a further drain on the countryside and its facilities and amenities.
Another serious consideration concerns village schools that have been closed on the undertaking that school transport to the neighbouring village would be made available without charge. There has been more than one recent case in my constituency of the closure of a village school being accepted reluctantly by parents on the understanding that adequate education would be provided at a neighbouring village six or seven miles away. Changing the rules of the game after the voluntary undertakings have been given is more than many of us are prepared to accept.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to bear in mind that the average wage of agricultural workers is £66·95 a week, compared with the national average of £101·90. They cannot be expected to afford up to £200 additional costs annually for each child. They are already living in disadvantaged areas where the cost of transport is high, public transport is often non-existent, the number of shops is minimal and wages are low. This further blow could be the death knell for large sections of our countryside.
8.48 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) made a courageous and forthright speech, in many parts of which he could have been describing the problems in my constituency. The fears and anxieties are the same, and it is my hope and prayer that before the Division we can make an impact on the Government, who have seemed so deaf to our pleas so far.
One way in which the hon. Member could make an impact would be to vote against the motion. Although it is possible to argue in the abstract that a

1241
guillotine may be acceptable for a Bill, even though one disagrees with some of its principles, what the hon. Member did was to point out that the motion has deficiencies. I shall refer to another that may cause problems to Conservative Members who wish to pursue amendments, perhaps even to Divisions, if the Government do not listen to the pleas that the hon. Gentleman made so eloquently.
We are dealing with a major Bill, covering many issues. It sets up a new scheme for sending to private schools pupils previously in the State system. It changes the whole pattern of school governors and school managers; it sets up an appeal system for school places; it contains all these provisions about school meals and transport; it has provisions about higher education, further education, grants for education in the Welsh language, industrial scholarships, and so on. The range is enormous. It has therefore been necessary to spend quite a lot of time discussing it.
The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who leads for the Government in Committee, has not stinted himself in taking time, and I do not for a moment criticise him for that, because he has been extremely helpful to the Committee. He has been courteous throughout and has been quick to point out that the debates that have taken place on many of the details have been necessary debates on issues that could present real problems to those concerned. When we have been delayed in our proceedings, it has usually been because there has been some quite difficult problem at stake, such as, for example, that the Government decided at the beginning not to put on the Bill any Minister with immediate responsibility for the issues in question. They put on the Bill, for example, the Ministers with responsibility for higher education and links between education and industry, who are responsible only for limited parts of the Bill. But we did not have on the Bill either the Secretary of State or his noble Friend in another place who has the main responsibility for schools.
That is as nothing to the major omission from the Committee. The Government sent us the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland. The Min-
1242
ister responsible for education could not be found, and he is not here today. With obvious reluctance, which has marked every intervention that he has made in the Committee, the Scottish Health Minister was drafted on to the Committee. In all conscience, the Committee had to spend some time trying to demand that Ministers with the appropriate responsibilities were present at its proceedings.
I recall that when another Bill on education was the subject of a timetable motion the Leader of the House made this observation. He said in the course of his remarks something that I have quoted to him before: that there would not be a guillotine were it not for the incompetence of the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip. He said then:
"The Secretary of State never came any-where near the Committee on this vital Bill, to which he professes to attach so much importance. He not only excluded himself from the Committee but he never once came to the Committee room to see what his Ministers were doing."
I am quoting the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) speaking about a previous Secretary of State.
I could borrow the whole of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made on that occasion for this debate—I hope he would not mind; perhaps he has copyright in it—because the criticism of the Leader of the House then applies wholesale to him in this debate. And, of course, it is true that the present Secretary of State never came near the Committee.
Mr. Kinnock: Is not there one great difference between the current Leader of the House and any previous one? The present Leader of the House has profound religious convictions, which are respected throughout the House, as well as his strong affection for libertarianism, again respected throughout the House, and the clause in the Bill which he is now proposing to guillotine has led to the absolutely unremitting anger of the whole of the Catholic Church and others who believe that when choice is given choice should be fulfilled.
Mr. Beith: Frankly, I am staggered that the right hon. Gentleman is content to remain in the Government after having aroused so much anger among those with

1243
whom he has worked and toiled in the service of God for many years, and I shall refer to that again in a moment. I really want to take a wider point arising from that.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said that as far as he was concerned this was a ritual dance, and he contributed by what he said to the prevailing cynicism about politics and politicians because he made it clear that as far as he was concerned the same speech was made in all of these circumstances, depending upon which side of the House one was on. There is no better illustration of that than that provided by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I thought that I could look to the speech that he made on the occasion I have referred to and to the circumstances of that speech to see in what circumstances a Conservative Government would think it right to apply a guillotine to a Bill. Clearly, it was not the circumstances that applied to that particular Bill, the 1976 Education Bill, so I looked for both the wider principles and the circumstances.
What are the wider principles? The right hon. Gentleman said:
"Of course, it is not the number of clauses which is important but the principles which those clauses enshrine. That is the test of the importance or unimportance of a Bill. A Bill which upsets the settlement for education laid down by the 1944 Education Act—which, whatever its limitations and imperfections, lasted for more than 30 years—and which destroys the careful balance, which has been created by every Education Act since 1870, between central Government and local authorities…is surely a major piece of legislation. Whether one supports it or abhors it, it is entitled to be thoroughly examined and painstakingly assessed and discussed by the House."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1695, 1692–3.]
To what Bill could that statement be more obviously applied than this one? When we talk of the 1944 Education Act we are talking, like the right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong), of the balance between State and voluntary schools, and between State schools and Catholic schools. There is no doubt about the view of the hierarchy in England and Wales that that balance will be destroyed by the proposals in the Bill.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I listen to whatever the hierarchy of England and Wales says, but I am not here to represent them. That is a novel constitutional doctrine. I am here to represent my constituents. The hon. Gentleman should not use me—nor should the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) use the argument because it suits him at the moment—to put forward a ridiculous constitutional doctrine. My responsibility is to my constituents and to no one else.
Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman is right. He has abandoned the mantle of representing Catholic opinion on this issue. We are carrying out that duty. There is no question but that he is entirely at variance with the opinion of those who send their children to Catholic schools and those in country areas. I do not quote him because he is a prominent Roman Catholic. On the contrary, I quote him because from the Opposition Front Bench he opposed a guillotine on a Bill which had constitutional implications which, if anything, may have been less far reaching than those in this Bill. Certainly they were not more far reaching than the proposals in this Bill.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not claim that the content of the Bill is the reason why there is to be a guillotine. Perhaps it is the circumstances. However, he opposed, at that time, a guillotine that was brought forward on a short Bill upon which there had been 136 hours of debate. That is far more debate than there has been on this Bill in Committee. Indeed, it was a Bill to which he had moved 103 new clauses. Far from criticising the Opposition and saying that they had taken up unnecessary time by raising unnecessary issues as he does tonight, he imported 103 new issues into the Bill. It may have been a proper thing to do. However, he cannot now claim that by scrutinising the details of what is in the Bill other hon. Members deserve to have discussion in Committee on vital matters curtailed. The right hon. Gentleman stands condemned by what he said on that occasion.
The Secretary of State said something important in his introductory remarks. Why is there this timetable motion? Why

1245
is there a sudden rush about the Bill? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that any delay in the Bill would put children's education at risk. He said that local authorities would not be able to impose charges for school transport upon country and Catholic children. He said that they would not be in a position to make the savings that he wished to see made on school transport and meals in the current budget. By doing so, he claimed that they would force themselves to make savings in the classroom and thereby put education at risk.
What will he say to those authorities—Conservative-controlled in some cases—that have already said that they will not implement the provisions of the Bill and will not accept his advice to charge country children? Northumberland education authority has indiciated that in the coming year it will not impose a charge for school transport. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to his Conservative friends in Northumberland "No, you must not do that. If you do. I will make you take teachers out of the classroom. If you do, I will make sure that you make savings in other quarters"?
What will he say to the Grampian region, which is represented on the Committee by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has responsibility for health? That authority decided—before the Committee had been sitting for a fortnight—that it would have nothing to do with the provisions of the Bill on school transport. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that his Scottish colleagues will breathe down that authority's neck to see how many teachers they have sacked instead of charging children to come to school? That is what the rush is about. The pressure is on to get savings in transport and meals as quickly a possible and to minimise the amount of discussion upon those matters.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be surprised by the sort of anger that has been aroused. Indeed, the Leader of the House mentioned his constituency—he was right to do so. Many people in his constituency are concerned about the measures. The St. John Paine Roman Catholic school in Chelmsford is worried about the reductions in numbers which will result from school transport charges.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. Of course I have a duty to represent the views of my constituents who happen to be Catholics. As my right hon. and learned Friend well knows, I have done so vigorously, fully and frequently. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Wait and see. That is quite a different role—representing the views of those constituents—from the role that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has foisted upon me of being some sort of spokesman for the Catholic hierarchy. That is not my role.
Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman did not hear my denial. I refute any claim that the right hon. Gentleman has to represent Catholic opinion on this issue. He has come to the House in order to stop us discussing the very issue which is concerning Roman Catholics.
Mr. Kinnock: He has sold them up the river.
Mr. Beith: He has tried to make sure that those of us who wish to represent Catholics in our constituencies are prevented from doing so. There will shortly be a by-election in South end. There are Catholic schools in South end that now fear that these drastic reductions will force them to close. Wherever one looks, one finds the same situation.
I hope that a few Conservative Members will also assume the mantle. We have yet to see. It is we who represent the opinion of country people and of Catholic parents. The Leader of the House wants to rush the Bill through and to curtail any discussion.
As I said earlier, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Members for Harborough and for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and of those others who are concerned to pursue amendments and put forward alternative suggestions. I respect their integrity and determination. During discussion of a previous Education Bill, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party moved an amendment to make a change in the business motion. That amendment was voted for by Conservative Members, including the Leader of the House. The effect of that amendment was to remove a particular limitation from the business motion. I would

1247
have thought that now that the Conservatives are in power they might have practised the principle for which they previously voted. I would have thought that they would have modified future business motions accordingly. We find nothing of the kind. In paragraph 9(1)(c) of the business motion we find, significantly, the unamended provisions.
We all know what happens when the axe falls on a guillotined debate. A string of Government amendments is read out, and without discussion those amendments are put to the vote. That is the end of the matter. Government amendments and those moved by a member of the Government can be put to the vote. The only amendments by Labour Members, Liberal Members or Conservative Back Benchers that can be put to a Division are those that have been fortunate enough to have been the subject of the limited debate.
If an amendment—however acceptable a compromise it may represent and however much it may gain the widest support—is not moved by a member of the Government, it cannot be put to a Division by Mr. Speaker when the guillotine falls. It is almost inevitable that among the amendments that may fall victim, some will be of the type suggested by the hon. Member for Harborough. He will want to vote on a particular amendment that he and a few of his hon. Friends have tabled. The Liberal Party and the Labour Party will put down amendments. However, the only amendments that can be voted on are those that have been moved by a member of the Government. The Government will not move my amendments. They will not move the amendments of the hon. Member for Harborough. They will move their own amendments. Then they will pack up and get off home as quickly as possible. They will get away before the truth dawns.
They are rushing the Bill through in order to sting country parents and Catholic parents. They will make sure that the penalty applies to children whose sole objective is to get to school.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Would that not give an obvious opportunity to the Leader of the House—who has told us so passionately that he has argued for the Catholics—to table a
1248
motion in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and so move it?
Mr. Beith: Without a business motion, the only way to remove those fatal words is for members of the Government to move amendments put down in our names or in the names of Conservative Back Benchers. There is very little hope of that.
I shall be interested if the Leader of the House defies the Secretary of State. I shall be interested if he moves such an amendment as that would be a strange example of the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility. The Leader of the House previously gave ready support to the principle that Back-Bench amendments should be called for Division. He will not give his hon. Friends the opportunity of a Division tonight. I know why. He wants as little discussion on such sensitive issues as possible. The right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State have discovered the most extraordinary vote loser that has ever been found by any Conservative Government. Even in Wales, where there has been flirtation with the Conservative Party, and in parts of rural England, where there has long been allegiance to the Conservative Party, there is deep and genuine concern among parents, who already have enough to contend with.
The hon. Member for Harborough mentioned agricultural workers, and the Bill is constructed to make sure that they do not benefit. There are savings in the Bill for those on family income supplement and supplementary benefits. This is the poverty trap writ large. The farm workers are just above that level, but their children often travel 10 or 15 miles to school. Their village schools were closed and they were told that their children would have transport to another area. Their children are away at school for longer periods and a midday meal is therefore more important for them than for town children. They are the sort of people the Government want to hit in the Bill. They will long have cause to resent this Government.
9.5 pm
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) referred to parliamentary virginity. If we use his yardstick and measure virtue and

1249
virginity by verbal activity, I wonder what definition we should apply to him—a parliamentary "pro" or a Government "groupie"? I do not know. Perhaps he will tell us later.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Education (No. 2) Bill. It is an experience that I would not have missed. It has been at times tedious, exciting, amusing, interesting and useful. The variety is not surprising. We have spent about 82 hours in discussion, which is similar to the number of hours spent in discussing the previous Government's Education Bill in 1976.
Of those 82 hours, many have been spent on points of order. I do not suggest that they were all bogus, but, without exception, they were wordy and time-consuming. Never was a word used when a sentence could be found. Never was a sentence used when a paragraph could be used. If the Opposition had to rewrite the 10 Commandments, they would need not two but 20 tablets of stone.
This motion is fair and proper. Without it, consideration of the Bill would have dragged on and on. The Bill would have taken weeks, if not months, to reach the statute book. It would have prevented this properly and constitutionally elected Government from getting their business on to the statute book.
The obstruction would not have been democratic. It is not democratic for a minority to obstruct the business of the majority. It is not democratic to deprive the majority of their rights. The Government have a duty to treat the Opposition in a reasonable fashion. We have had over 80 hours of debate, which is sufficient, and the duty has been discharged and we have had enough hot air in Committee to refloat the "Titanic". In seeking to spin out the debate and delay legislation, the Opposition are ful-filling their first duty—the duty to oppose. But there is also a duty on them to strike a balance between the need to oppose and constructive opposition. That balance has not been evident in Committee.
There is a clear need to take note of the uncertainties that exist in the country. The debate has not been taking place in a vacuum. Local authorities, teachers and parents are aware of the Bill and of the
1250
problems that certain Conservative Members feel will be created by clause 23. There are uncertainties. It is better that those uncertainties are moved out of the arena and resolved. Local authorities need to formulate policy. They have to make plans for the next school year. I do not see how this can be done unless the matter is clearly resolved and this legislation becomes law.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bedwellty is not in his place. He said earlier today in Committee—this may not be an exact quotation—that the victims of foreshortened debate are those who have to administer the law. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He has grown old in the discipline and service of his party. His experience encompasses many a parliamentary strategem. It ranges over a number of years in the way and method that a Government get their business on to the statute book.
However, it is difficult to reconcile the reputation of the hon. Member for Bedwellty as an up-and-coming, thrusting member of the Opposition, who may be the next but one leader of his party, with the way that he has run and organised the debate in Committee. I believe that he was well aware that sooner or later a guillotine would be imposed. I believe that, in the clear knowledge that he was aware of that and was dragging out debate, the responsibility for foreshortening debate is his and that of fellow Labour Members on the Committee.
9.12 pm
Mr. Gordon Oakes: I shall speak briefly. A number of my hon. Friends, especially those from Scotland, where this Bill also applies, have not yet had an opportunity to speak. On all sides of the House, it is recognised that there are occasions when a Government need to bring in a guillotine for reasons of speed, national importance or the majority that they possess, or because the end of the Session, or the end of a Parliament, is near. A guillotine not only cuts down the Opposition's time; it cuts down the time of the minority parties. As the Secretary of State will have heard, he is also cutting down the time, rights and privileges of his own hon. Friends. A guillotine diminishes the privileges of hon. Members of the House. I wish to put that clearly to the Leader of the House,

1251
who has made the point several times himself on previous occasions. The right hon. Gentleman has to answer it tonight.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State made comparisons between the Bill over which I had charge when I was Minister of State, Department of Education and Science and this Bill. A lot of responsibility for the decision whether to impose a guillotine and the speed at which a Bill proceeds depends on the Minister in charge of the Bill. It is regrettable to hear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman never even attended the Committee. That is a pity. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the Committee when I was in charge of the 1978 Education Bill. It is no use the right hon. and learned Gentleman telling the House that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave out notes on the clauses. I did. Most Ministers now give out notes on clauses to speed debate.
I should like the Leader of the House, in his reply, to state on how many occasions amendments were accepted by the Government and on how many occasions undertakings were given by the Government to accept the spirit of an amendment. That certainly happened under the previous Labour Government at the end of a Parliament. Our Bill began in January and ended in March only because the general election was called. We were then over three-quarters of the way through the Bill.
There were no restraints on the part of the Opposition towards that Bill. I can still hear the words of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) going round and round in my head, because he spoke for hours on end. How did we tackle it? On clause 6 of my Bill, I listened to what the Opposition said and then admitted that there was merit in their argument. Therefore, I withdrew the clause and introduced a new clause and a whole new schedule. We debated that not just for one or two mornings but for several weeks. I did not object to that. It was an important Education Bill and I wanted a consensus. In education we must carry the local authorities along with us, so I did not begrudge the time that it took to reach agreement.
On another occasion the Opposition were suspicious of regulations that I was
1252
bringing in under a particular section. Those regulations would have been subject to the negative procedure. It is the duty of an Opposition to be suspicious of a Minister when they do not know what he is introducing. I did not promise that at some time in the future—God knows when—I would let hon. Members on the Committee see the draft regulations. The Opposition asked for the draft regulations on the Thursday. They got them on the Thursday night, ready for the debate on Tuesday.
On another occasion I admitted to the Committee, and the then Secretary of State, Mrs. Shirley Williams, admitted to the House, that we had made two big mistakes in our Bill in clauses 7 and 11. All Governments make mistakes in Bills. We had misjudged the effect of those two clauses on voluntary schools, particularly Roman Catholic schools, so we withdrew them. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) tabled an amendment to which I added my name. We apologised to the Committee and we did not proceed. If a Government treat a Committee properly, they do not need a guillotine. If the Conservative Government had behaved with that sort of give-and-take spirit, we would not be debating a guillotine motion tonight.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster once referred to me in a Committee as irenic. I did not know what that word meant, so I sent my PPS down to the Library to find out whether the right hon. Member was insulting me or praising me. As it happens, it means a peace-bringer. All Ministers, irrespective of the majority of their Government, must be peace-bringers, not merely to placate the Opposition but to carry on good government.
I remind the House that we have had only eight months of Conservative Government. We are not even half-way through the first term of the first year of the present Government, yet they have the audacity to bring in a guillotine motion tonight. They have had the advantages of a Session that will run from May 1979 to November 1980. We are only in January, yet they are already bringing in a guillotine.
The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends know perfectly well that, not only because of opposition within the Conservative Party and Conservative-controlled

1253
councils but because of the Treasury and the second round of spending cuts, he has no hope at all of implementing clause 17 of his Bill—not just this year but for many years to come. Instead of having week after week of theological argument on that clause, the Government should have accepted the fundamental economic and political facts and withdrawn clause 17 from the Committee. Not only would they have saved time; they would have generated the good will that is necessary to carry along the Opposition and the minority parties on other matters.
Mr. Christopher Price: Is it not the case that the Secretary of State is wasting time because, in their obstinacy, the Government have drawn the clause in a mandatory fashion? It is said that the Minister "shall" draw up and execute the assisted places scheme. When the Treasury finally convinces the Government that the £55 million is not available, they will have to come back to the House with an amending Bill to get rid of it if they are not to be in breach of the law.
Mr. Oakes: I thank my hon. Friend. It is shameful that, after the possibility of change was there at a much earlier stage, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should come before the House and ask for a guillotine, to deprive not only the Opposition but his hon. Friends of the chance to debate the Bill.
Government Ministers should have been much more forthcoming earlier in regard to school meals. It is still not clear in the country whether the gag that the Government are trying to impose on the House will be imposed upon councillors who have children. I know that the Under-Secretary said on 15 January that the Secretary of State for the Environment would make a statement about that. He must make a statement in this House and send a circular to local authorities saying that those councillors who have children have the right, as democratic representatives, to vote on the Bill affecting their children. I would accord them this right as well. Conservative councillors with children at independent schools, councillors who have no children and those who might in future have children should be allowed to vote on the clause 17 provision if it
1254
ever comes before a council engaged on the question of independent schools.
In relation to school transport, I say to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—not as the representative of the Roman Catholic hierarchy—with whom I have shared many platforms and who believes, as I do, in the glorious concept of British education, that Church schools and State schools can happily coexist. That is unique in the world. We do not experience anti-clericalism on the one side and anti-secularism on the other. That is because of the 1944 Act and what went before it.
The clause on school transport effectively deprives parents of the right to send their children to voluntary schools. It especially deprives Catholic parents of their right to choose a religious education for their children, because of the distance of the chosen school from their home. It is no use giving the right of choice when, on economic grounds, we take away the privilege of religious education from parents. That means that we tell parents that they can have a Catholic education for their children if they are rich enough to send their children to school on the school bus.
When I met—as a Minister—with religious objections I bowed down to them and was prepared to say that we had made a mistake. I put that to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is not in any way representing the Roman Catholic hierarchy here. I know of his passionate belief in educational coexistence and in the right of parents to send their children to a voluntary school.
The Bill denies that right. This guillotine is preventing us discussing that right. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in all fairness, to concede that it is shameful that the House should experience a guillotine so early in the first Session of a Conservative Government affecting a Bill that so erodes the liberties and rights of so many people in this country.
9.24 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: I regard the opportunity to speak in this debate as a privilege. There are major events about to happen in Scottish education. These developments have been set out in the Bill, but discussion in

1255
Committee has been devoted largely to English and Welsh education problems. It is true that we have had the presence in Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). As was said of another Bannockburn man, one such man is worth 10 Englishmen. However, that is not sufficient representation for the education structures and councils of Scotland.
We hoped that when the Scottish clauses were reached time would be given for them to be debated at considerable length in Committee and at equal length to the same provision applying to England and Wales.
When we sought on an earlier occasion to have the Scottish parts of the Bill sent to a Standing Committee other than the Education Bill Committee, we received the usual assurance that sufficient time would be given in the proceedings on the Bill in Committee. However, on the eve of the Committee moving on to the Scottish clauses—those concerned with school milk, meals and transport as in England and Wales—the guillotine motion has been introduced.
A number of suspicions must immediately be raised. In a real sense, the Bill has nothing to do with education. There is little in the Bill that advances education thinking or education practice. It is a Bill to assist in the promotion of tax cuts for the rich. It is a Bill to enhance the privileges of those who already seek the opportunities of private education. Therefore, it is a Bill that reverses not only the whole trend of education thinking since the Education Act 1944 but the movement that led up to and brought about the 1944 Act.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I had high hopes. I still hope that the hon. Gentleman will show his opposition. It reflects major opinion not only among education committees but among parents throughout England, Wales and Scotland. Above all, it reflects the views of councillors who are responsible for rural education throughout England, Wales and Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to vote to support the Opposition. I believe that he represents the views of a majority of Conservative Members. They will be able to demonstrate their attitude tonight. Why do not the hon. Members for Lancaster (Mrs.
1256
Kellett-Bowman), for Harborough and for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) act and reject the motion? That would be the simplest thing to do. That would enable the whole Bill to be discussed. They could explain to their constituents their attitude to school milk, meals and transport.
There was an option open to the Government. It is one that has been taken in the past. When a part of a Bill has dealt primarily with England and Wales and has included certain sections dealing with Scotland, it has happened more than once in the past that the Scottish sections have been sent to a Scottish Committee. We asked for that to happen in this instance, and our request was refused. The Government are now introducing a guillotine motion. The effect of that, in the very interests of the Committee, will be to subsume the Scottish clauses within the remaining debates, which can take place over only two or three days, or to cause the Committee to ignore them.
We are not even left with the consolation of time on Report. I agree with the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Harborough that two days is a monstrous period for the Bill to be considered on Report, irrespective of the part of the guillotine motion affecting the Bill in Committee. There should have been extended consideration on Report. The provisions to which I have directed attention concern every Member of Parliament and every parent.
The Government's strategy resembles the sets of toy eggs that may be bought in Russia. As one removes one cover, there appear another and another. As one monstrosity is uncovered here, so one continues to uncover another and another.
Mr. James Lamond: Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor.
Mr. Buchan: No. They are not so much moles as rhinoceroses. It is suggested that Conservative Back Benchers may table amendments or motions to the Bill on Report. However, the Government deprive their Back Benchers of the chance of showing their attitude. It would be open to the hon. Member for Harborough to table an amendment to protect the children of his rural workers. However, only the occupants of the

1257
Government Front Bench are able to move these amendments.
A marvellous opportunity is presented to the Leader of the House. We have heard so much from him in the past about this devotion to education. We have heard so much from him tonight, even in a short intervention. He argued passionately the case for children attending Catholic schools. Let us see some evidence. If the hon. Member for Harborough tables an amendment to protect the children in rural areas, will the Leader of the House give us a guarantee that he will adhere to the passionate words of his intervention and move the amendment? If he does not, he is a humbug. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that "humbug" is unparliamentary. I see that your head is tilted in that way. On the contrary, I am astonished at my moderation.
Local councils throughout Scotland, both Tory and Labour, have asserted that they will not implement the Bill. The convener of Grampian says that no matter what pressure he comes under, he will not implement the Bill. That means that he will either have to go to gaol in default or pay for the services out of the rates. The rates in Scotland are already facing a minimum of a 25 per cent. increase. The intention to pay these services would push up the increase in rates throughout Scotland to 28 or 30 per cent.
If that happens, I do not wish to see any ratepayers' associations coming to my surgery to complain about the level of rates and then driving away in cars with a sticker that says "I love Maggie". Come to think of it, there are not many stickers like that now. I wonder why.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in the full flow of his oratory, but for the sake of the record I must say that to call any right hon. or hon. Member a humbug is an unparliamentary expression. That ruling has been made on many occasions.
Mr. Buchan: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was thinking of the old-fashioned humbug, which was rather sweet.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
9.33.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: People throughout the country, whether town dwellers or in rural areas, accept almost unanimously that the present system is grossly unfair. In my village of Halton, sonic children's parents pay for transport and some receive free transport, even though living in houses next door to each other. That can do nothing but cause ill feeling.
It was with that in mind that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when Secretary of State for Education, set up an inquiry into school transport, which reported shortly before we fell from office on the last occasion.
In the whole of the time that the Labour Party was in Government, it did nothing to remove the anomalies. Opposition Members should be sitting there in sackcloth and ashes. They have no right to criticise us on that matter. Most people—though they accept that the present system is unfair—are not prepared to accept burdens that are beyond their bearing.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she must direct her argument not to the content of the Bill but to the allocation of time motion.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. We are coming to those clauses just as the guillotine is falling. Even with a guillotine, I maintain that it is perfectly possible in Committee to put forward perfectly sensible amendments that will bring justice to the countryside for parents who wish their children to attend a Catholic or Church of England school. We have excellent denominational schools in my part of the world.
Measures should be proposed to alleviate the fears of many parents. They are afraid not so much of the initial charge that would be imposed as of the height to which it might escalate in years to come.
It was with that in mind that I put forward an amendment that stated:
"Clause 23, page 21, line 35, at end insert—(3A) The Maximum charge of the levy for school transport shall not exceed the cost of public transport for 'walking distance'."
The amendment referred, of course, to the cost of public transport in respect of

1259
a child, which in most cases is half. When the Bill is discussed in Committee, it is essential that an amendment of that sort should be introduced. Many children come from large families, and families in the countryside tend to be larger than families elsewhere. I should like local authorities to follow the example of the Lancashire county council, which limits the charges to two children, while other members of the family go free. I do not agree with the rate that the Lancashire county council has set. I believe that it is too high.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are the hon. Lady's comments relevant to the motion before us? It seems to me that they are totally out of order?
Mr. Speaker: I believe that the hon. Lady was about to say that without the guillotine she could not introduce her amendment.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I was seeking to suggest, Mr. Speaker, what should be said in Committee, because, unfortunately, I am not permitted—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is experienced enough to know that with a little ingenuity she could link her remarks to the motion that is before us.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have already said sufficient to send a warning shot across the bows of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Many of us will vote for the motion very reluctantly unless we receive some assurance that the matters that we have raised will be considered by him in Committee and suitable amendments brought forward to deal with the anxieties that have been expressed.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call another hon. Member, but I must inform the House that I understand that Front Bench speakers would like to begin the winding-up speeches at 9.47 pm.
9.37 pm
Mr. Christopher Price: I shall try to co-operate with you in what you have said, Mr. Speaker. However, the change that the Government are
1260
making in the Bill—and the change that will be guillotined by the motion—is only slowly dawning upon the country. After three years of patient negotiation with every education body in the land, between 1941 and 1944, clause 1 of the 1944 Act stated that it should be the duty of the Minister
"to promote the education of the people of England and Wales…and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy".
What the Government are doing in terms of school meals and transport, and what the motion is doing, is to abandon the duty laid on the Secretary of State by Parliament in 1944.
It was quite clear that the 1944 Act covered school meals and transport. It was quite clear that Parliament considered school meals and transport and all the other provisions in the Act as all of a piece in the Secretary of State's duty to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and to undertake a national policy. What the Government are proposing is a massive change, not just to the 1944 Act but to the Acts of 1870 and 1902, as well as the Education (Provision of Meals) Act that was introduced by a Liberal Government in 1906. All those Acts, which were patiently built up over a century, are to be scrapped.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are the hon. Gentleman's remarks relevant to the motion before the House?
Mr. Speaker: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will do what the hon. Lady did, and link his remarks to the motion.
Mr. Price: My point—which you are so sure I shall get to, Mr. Speaker—is that it is those elements of national policy on which it is proposed to curtail debate, both in Committee and on Report. They are elements which no Government, Labour or Conservative, have ever proposed touching in the many Bills on education since 1976. This is a truly revolutionary change, which is dawning on the country only slowly. We receive letters about this change from women's institutes, the National Farmers' Union, and so on. [Interruption.] I have received letters—
Mr. Speaker: I cannot hear these exchanges. I realise that I am lucky, but at the same time I want to listen to the hon. Member.
Mr. Price: I have received letters from organisations of which I have never heard about the clauses that it is proposed to guillotine. But they write to me begging me to act. I know that when the guillotine falls it will be more difficult to do so.
The Secretary of State stated, quite wrongly—he knows nothing about the Committee proceedings as he did not attend them—that the long-winded speeches were made by Labour Members. If he had attended the Committee sessions and listened to his Under-Secretary of State discussing for half-hour after half-hour issues in the Bill, and attempting to struggle through clause 17 and trying to understand abstruse matters such as company law, he would agree that it is necessary to clarify the issue and get the law right. The guillotine will make that impossible.
The guillotine is being brought in at a very early stage in the year. As far as I can remember, no Government have ever used the guillotine in January. It is usual to introduce the guillotine towards spring and summer, when the congestion in Committee is great. The guillotine has been brought in because, for the first time, we have a Government who are contemptuous not only of 100 years of consensus educational traditions but of the traditions of the House.
I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against the Bill.
9.44 pm
Mr. John MacKay: I have much pleasure in speaking after the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), because I have spent approximately 80 hours in following him, hour after hour, in Committee. His speech tonight is by far the shortest speech that he has made. He has treated us to discourses on history and on the meanings of words. He has even taken dictionaries into the Committee and has equally treated us to learned dissertations on the meaning of Latin phrases. It is all very learned and all very time-consuming. Some of the things that I feel to be common sense do not appear to be so when we are in the Standing Committees of this
1262
House, if not in the Chamber. I thought that we were here to discuss the guillotine and not the substance of the clauses still to come.
I shall attempt, in my remaining three minutes, to discuss the guillotine. I am reluctant to see the guillotine being used, but let no one who sits here and who does not sit in Standing Committee D have any doubt where the blame lies. The blame lies with the people who for hour after hour have taken an unnecessary amount of time. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has got what he wanted, which is a guillotine on the latter part of the Bill. I am sure that he would have doubled the length of his speeches, if necessary, in order to get a guillotine.
At the very beginning, we sat for four hours on the sittings motion. Then we had a further hour and 20 minutes on the manner in which the Bill was to be considered. I am a member of another Standing Committee which, within an hour this morning, got rid of a sittings motion. It is an equally contentious Committee, dealing with the Tenants' Rights (Scotland) Bill. Perhaps it has not as many good talkers as Standing Committee D. On one occasion in Standing Committee D we sat all night. For a long time there was a good deal of stalling going on, and then suddenly we went forward at a gallop. Indeed, today we got through more clauses than we have ever managed to take previously in a week, let alone a sitting.
The Minister mentioned Tuesday 15 January, when for three hours and 50 minutes we chased a point of order. I thought that the hon. Member for Bedwellty had made it very well but his hon. Friends thought that he had made it so badly that each of them wanted to do it all over again.
Finally, if anyone doubts that the Committee has been treated to quite spurious points of order, I recommend him—if he is ill and has a long time to spend in hospital—to read the reports of the Committee and to count how many times the Chairman has had to say that something was not a point of order.
9.47 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: I have in the past been involved in a number of timetable motions and the

1263
debates on them, so that I have a certain nostalgic interest in such discussions.
I am especially glad to have the chance of speaking in the debate—and I am very sorry for my hon. Friends who have not had the chance to speak—because of the representations that have been made to me in my constituency. A few days ago I had representations made to me by Catholic constituents and by people from Welsh schools. They came from the whole of Gwent to make their representations. They made an overwhelming case. Many of my hon. Friends have contributed in making their case in the debate today.
The Government will be making a great mistake—to put it at its lowest from their own point of view—if they do not understand the strength of that feeling and how determined we are to try to secure a change in the Bill, even though we know that the operation of the guillotine makes more difficult the chance of getting that change. That is one of the main reasons why we are opposed to this guillotine motion.
References have been made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and the way in which he led the Opposition in Committee. I believe that most of those who made attacks upon him were extremely jealous. It was said by someone in years gone by that it was possible to hear a speech in which there was an Iliad in a nutshell, and I am sure that is the way of my hon. Friend. Many of the speeches that we have heard from Government Members have been the other way round—a nutshell in an Iliad. We have had that from many of those who contributed to our discussions. My hon. Friend put his case strongly today, as I am sure he did in Committee. It would be a great mistake for the Government not to recognise that.
This debate on the timetable motion is different from my experience of many others. There has been no attempt by anyone in the House to quote what someone else may have said about such motions in the past. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made reference to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on merits of a Bill. But on the issue of guillotines the significance of the absence of any quotations from what others have said on previous occasions is
1264
precisely because the bulk of those who have applied their minds to the motion and our discussion recognise how strong the feelings are that have been represented. Such strong feelings have been expressed not only from my right hon. and hon. Friends but from, for example, the hon. Members for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who undoubtedly represented what their constituents had to say.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said, a major alteration in education is being attempted in the Bill. Major burdens will be placed on many families up and down the country, some of them the poorest families, some of them from Catholic communities, and some whose children go to Welsh schools. It would have been far better, and in the Government's own interest, to have allowed a longer discussion to see how these matters could be dealt with. However, we know what will happen shortly when we come to the conclusion of the debate.
Many of those who have entered the Chamber to speak and to vote will not have listened to the whole debate. Therefore, to enlighten them as they drift in, I will indicate to them, perhaps by altering the name of the Bill, the sort of measure this is.
I know that the Bill is described in some quarters as the Education (No. 2) Bill, but that is not correct. It is a combination of a large number of other Bills contained in a general framework. It might be better described as the Free School Transport Abolition Bill, the Poverty Trap Extension Bill, the Hit the Children First Bill, or the Feed My Lambs (Frustration) Bill. It might also be described as the Milestone Unlimited Bill. Any of those titles would be more apposite.
Those who have come late to out discussions and who may drift into the Lobby will be voting for a rough time in their constituencies. They will face difficulties in the weeks to come because they will have to explain why they used their vote for the purpose of trying to prevent adequate discussion of a major change in our educational policy.
I hope that the Government will recognise that they are not dealing with some procedural matter. I know that some hon. Members such as the hon.

1265
Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) believe in having a timetable motion for every Bill that is introduced, or want to regulate the procedures of the House. I have always opposed that, whichever side of the House I have been on. If we proceeded along those lines we would regulate still further the business of the House, so that the Opposition would not be able to put their case.
Though not an absolute novelty, something fresh is created in this guillotine motion. There are exceptions, but generally guillotine motions are required to get highly controversial party measures through the House. There is nothing wrong with highly controversial party measures. I am all in favour of them. They are some of the main transactions that have to be put through the House. Often, they can be put through only with the assistance of a guillotine, but with this motion, more than any other guillotine motion that I can recall, the purpose is not to stifle the Opposition. It is much more to stifle Conservative Members.
Those Conservative Members who have spoken bravely in the debate have the remedy in their own hands if they wish to avoid the charge that they have assisted in applying a gag to themselves. No one knows for certain whether they will have that remedy later. Once the guillotine has fallen, there is no certainty that they will be able to press to a vote the issues that concern them. They will have forfeited that opportunity. I urge them to consider the matter carefully.
Our debate has been not the formal exchanges that sometimes take place on guillotine motions but an expression of the anger felt throughout the country that the Government should be seeking to force through clause 23 and other clauses in the manner that they have adopted.
I hope that we shall have a sufficient response from Conservative Members who wish to sustain proper debate and to ensure that they have the chance to speak for their constituents. If they do not exercise that right, they will have to bear the responsibility for the increased bus and school meal charges and the increased charges that are to be placed on the community in general. Now is the time that we decide. I hope that Conservative
1266
Members will join us in the Lobby to defeat the Government.
9.57 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): No hon. Member likes guillotine motions, and I am no exception. Anyone who believes in parliamentary government, which is government by discussion, must regret the curtailment of debate.
When the closure and guillotine procedures were introduced in the House in the 1880s, they were strongly resisted by both the libertarians and the traditionalists, but in face of the obstruction of Government business by Irish Members at that time the House voted to change its procedures and to curtail the untrammelled right of debate.
Hon. Members accepted then, and they accept now, that some limitation is necessary on absolute freedom of debate—closing an open end, as it were—because otherwise Parliament would be reduced to impotence and no Government would be able to get their business through.
I was interested in the constructive suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) that the further reform of a timetabling committee should be considered. That would be a drastic change because time is the principal weapon of any Opposition, but I think that the suggestion should be considered further, though it can hardly be disposed of at the tail end of this debate.
I was also interested in the points made about children in rural areas and Parents who want a denominational education for their children.
Of course, these are points for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science who has ministerial responsibility in this sphere. But I want to take up the points that were made by the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and others on the position of denominational schools. Let me make it plain that under the Government proposals a local education authority will continue to be able to help parents—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Education (No. 2) Bill (Allocation of Time), the Residential Homes Bill [Lords], the Child Care Bill [Lords] and the Foster Children Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Question again proposed.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: A local education authority will continue to be able to help parents with arrangements for getting their children to school, but of course that authority will be able to charge for whatever services it provides at its discretion, subject only to the requirement that free home-to-school transport must be provided for a pupil if he is attending the nearest appropriate school, the school is more than walking distance from home and the parents receive supplementary benefit or family income supplement.
May I make it quite clear that it is not the Government's intention to do anything which could be regarded as discriminating against families whose children attend Church schools as a matter of religious conviction. Although the law does not require the local education authority to provide assistance if there is a nearer appropriate county school, in practice the policy of the Government and the local education authorities has been that free travel arrangements should be made where this has seemed reasonable. It is the view of the Government that such families should be treated no less favourably than they would have been had the child been attending the appropriate county school.
Information about the way the local authorities plan to use their new powers suggests that transport now provided free will not be withdrawn and that the same charge will be applied whether the school is a county school or a voluntary school. My right hon. Friend is able to say—
Mr. Beith rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: No. I have a limited amount of time and there are a number of points I want to make. The
1268
hon. Gentleman has had his say. Will he please wait for me to finish this important point?
I have discussed this matter with my right hon. and learned Friend. He will listen during Committee stage to all the points that are made and he will consider bringing forward an amendment at Report stage if he thinks it necessary to ensure that there can be no discrimination against children attending denominational schools.
Mr. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that local authorities could do the reverse, by making no charges for Roman Catholic pupils, having had to introduce charges for pupils attending State schools who live at a distance from the schools?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: What I am suggesting is that the attitude of the Government on this point is reasonable and flexible and that we do not expect any change in practice.
May I get back to the subject of the guillotine? Speaking as a parliamentarian, I regard the guillotine as a necessary evil. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must let me continue.
Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman is being nasty.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not being nasty; I merely want to develop my argument. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
I put it no higher and no lower than that. Of course, no Government should resort to a guillotine lightly. That is so. It is certainly true, too, that the case for its employment should be clearly proved and that there should be clear evidence that reasonable time has been allowed for discussion. In a sentence, I do not believe that the House should proceed on the basis that the guillotine is a stranger to its procedures. Those are not my words; they are the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Shadow Leader of the House speaking on one of the many guillotine motions in which he has been involved.
Mr. Kinnock rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears that the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Both you and I, recognising the importance of the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made in the first five minutes of his speech, did not interrupt him on a matter of order when his words were totally irrelevant to the guillotine motion. I tried to interrupt him at that time but he would not give way. I shall continue to interrupt him now.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am unmoved by that threat, Mr. Speaker.
An important point was raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and I answered it on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Any reasonable person would have trought that that was a right and proper way to do so and would not wish to get involved in a general debate on the substantial issues that are involved—
Mr. Kinnock rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears that the Minister will not give way. He has been called to address the House, he has the Floor, and he is not giving way.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Of course, the point should be pursued. However, the place to pursue it is not in a guillotine debate but in the resumed Committee stage.
Mr. Kinnock rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are beginning to become disorderly. If the Minister does not give way, he must be allowed to continue to make his speech.
Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I earnestly regret my course of action, especially in view of the brief time that is left for the debate. However, the right hon. Gentleman cannot make an important statement and run away without being cross-questioned on it. That is the sort of thing that causes disorder.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: In general, Labour Governments have been traditionally much more eager to resort to guillotines than Tory Governments. [Interruption.] That is true. The evidence is there. Over the last 20 years, Labour Governments—
Mr. Walter Harrison: Look at the number.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am looking at the numbers and I see that that has been the case over the last 20 years. However, a beneficial side effect has been the embarrassing number of quotations from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) which could be distributed impartially on both sides of the argument—I make that concession to him. Such is his agility that, had we command of the time machine of H. G. Wells, it would be perfectly possible for the right hon. Gentleman to carry on the whole of the debate by himself. It would be like a parliamentary game of Chinese ping pong. First, we would have him saying that he sees
"a Labour Government as having a right and a duty to legislate against any attempts to frustrate us in the end from exercising our rights of legislation…of course, it is a particular illustration of the malice, folly and absurdity into which right hon. and hon. Opposition Members place themselves that when we exercise those ancient rights it is cheating and when they exercise them it is freedom."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1543]
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said when he was speaking in favour of a guillotine on 20 July 1976.
Mr. Foot: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman's speech is greatly improving as it goes along. I hope that he will keep up that standard until the end. He might feel that I am being intensely out of order, but I wonder whether he will answer some of the questions that have been put in the debate. I suggest that, instead of devoting the rest of his time to quoting my speeches—gratifying though I know that would be for the whole House—he should take his courage in both hands and try to answer the question that was put to him directly earlier in the debate. That direct question was about how the Government will behave when the guillotine falls—if it does—in respect of enabling some Conservative Members to have the chance to press their motions to a vote. Let him answer that part of the debate instead of giving us that which he has prepared so carefully beforehand.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman is very skilled at seeking to distract attention from his own inconsistencies. The principal point of his argument has been that this is yet another different occasion. He implies that this

1271
is a very special occasion and that the guillotine should be resisted.
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks have not been dictated by any intellectual consistency. Emerson said that
"consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
Nothing as demanding as intellectual vigour has determined the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. Something much more comfortable than that has determined his attitude, namely, the side of the Chamber that he happens to be sitting on.
In fairness, I shall briefly turn to the right hon. Gentleman's understudy—the hon. Member for Bedwellty. We are assured by the press that he is the contemporary and up-to-date version of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. He has been described by one newspaper as a "carbon copy" of the right hon. Gentleman. That is largely a matter of taste. Personally I prefer the original. However, history does not repeat itself. If history did repeat itself, the right person to quote would be Karl Marx. He declared that, if history repeats itself, it is first as a tragedy and then as a farce.
Under the generalship of the hon. Member for Bedwellty, the Committee proceedings were rapidly reduced to a farce. That constitutes the justification for the guillotine. It is true that he did not do it all by himself. He was helped by several other "copies" who were misled by his leadership. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) played his part. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) played his part also. They were aided and abetted by other hon. Members, with the result that 82 hours of debate had gone by before the guillotine was suggested. At that time they had got only half-way through a short Bill of fewer than 40 clauses.
I suggest that that was due to the incompetence of the hon. Member for Bedwellty. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham puts forward a more sinister interpretation. He says that it was done from intent. Whatever the motivation, the responsibility lies fairly and squarely upon the hon. Gentleman's shoulders.
Mr. Kinnock: As regards matters of responsibility, will the right hon. Gentleman—after all his platitudes about not
1272
treating children who attend denominational schools in a discriminatory way—answer a substantive point? Will it still be the case that parents who have not had to find substantial fares for their children to travel to school will now—as a result of the Bill and of the Goverment's action—have to pay £90 to send their children to a primary school and £133 to send their children to secondary schools? For the first time in the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech".] Will the Leader of the House answer a question instead of putting on a pantomime performance for the distraction of his hon. Friends?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have made it plain that discretion will be given to local authorities as to whether they impose charges. Secondly, we have every reason to believe that there will be no discrimination against children who attend denominational schools. That answers fully the point raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty.
If I may return to the subject matter of the debate, which is the guillotine, the hon. Member for Bedwellty must have known that his Government imposed guillotines on Bills of equal importance after a shorter period of time. Therefore, he knew that the amount of time was limited. He also knows that at least 12 hours were spent in Committee on points of order and related sittings motions, all of which time could have been devoted to the substance of the Bill.
He knows, too, that he spoke at inordinate length. He told us tonight that he is fond of his own voice. That is a minority taste, but he is perfectly entitled to his view, although it is apparently not shared by his right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who rose and ruined him in the middle of his peroration. It is the best example of a perforated peroration that I have ever seen. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his resilience. He came up from beneath the wave with yet another peroration between his teeth.
The Opposition must bear a share of the responsibility for their total lack of proportion—their obsession with the assisted places scheme.
I have listened to the entire debate. No case has been made out in principle or

1273
practice for voting against the motion. I admire to some extent the appearance of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale at the Dispatch Box to oppose the guillotine. I do not know which to admire most, his courage or his gall. At any rate, on guillotines he speaks with authority. It is advice from an expert. It was the right hon. Gentleman who walked away with the supreme challenge cup—a record unequalled by any other Leader of the House before or since: five guillotines on a single day in July 1976. That

Division No. 147]

AYES

[10.15 pm.

Adley, Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Hayhoe, Barney

Altken, Jonathan

Critchley, Julian

Heddle, John

Alexander, Richard

Crouch, David

Henderson, Barry

Alison, Michael

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Dickens, Geoffrey

Hicks, Robert

Ancram, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Arnold, Tom

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Aspinwall, Jack

Dover, Denshore

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

du Cann, Rt Kon Edward

Hooson, Tom

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Hordern, Peter

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Durant, Tony

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Bell, Sir Ronald

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Bendall, Vivian

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Eggar, Timothy

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Elliott, Sir William

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Best, Keith

Emery, Peter

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Eyre, Reginald

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Biggs-Davison, John

Fairgrieve, Russell

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Blackburn, John

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Blaker, Peter

Farr, John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Body, Richard

Fell, Anthony

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

King, Rt Hon Tom

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Knox, David

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Lamont, Norman

Bowden, Andrew

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Lang, Ian

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Braine, Sir Bernard

Fookes, Miss Janet

Latham, Michael

Bright, Graham

Forman, Nigel

Lawrence, Ivan

Brinton, Tim

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lawson, Nigel

Brittan, Leon

Fox, Marcus

Lee, John

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Brooke, Hon Peter

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Lester, Jim (Beston)

Brotherton, Michael

Fry, Peter

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Loveridge, John

Bryan, Sir Paul

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Luce, Richard

Buck, Antony

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Lyell, Nicholas

Budgen, Nick

Glyn, Dr Alan

McCrindle, Robert

Bulmer, Esmond

Goodhart, Philip

Macfarlane, Neil

Burden, F. A.

Goodhew, Victor

MacGregor, John

Butcher, John

Goodlad, Alastair

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Butler, Hon Adam

Gorst, John

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Gow, Ian

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Gower, Sir Raymond

McQuarrie, Albert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gray, Hamish

Madel, David

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Greenway, Harry

Major, John

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

Marland, Paul

Channon, Paul

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Marlow, Tony

Chapman, Sydney

Grist, Ian

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Churchill, W. S.

Grylls, Michael

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mates, Michael

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm & Ew'll)

Mather, Carol

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mawby, Ray

Cockeram, Eric

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Colvin, Michael

Hannam, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Cope, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Mayhew, Patrick

Cormack, Patrick

Hastings, Stephen

Mellor, David

Corrie, John

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Costain, A. P.

Hawksley, Warren

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

is the record of the right hon. Gentleman.
Right hon. and hon. crocodiles—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation of time to Bills).
Question put accordingly: —
The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 255.

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Raison, Timothy

Tebbit, Norman

Miscampbell, Norman

Rathbone, Tim

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Moate, Roger

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Thompson, Donald

Monro, Hector

Renton, Tim

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Montgomery, Fergus

Rhodes James, Robert

Thornton, Malcolm

Moore, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Morgan, Geraint

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Ridsdale, Julian

Trippier, David

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Trotter, Neville

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Mudd, David

Rost, Peter

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Murphy, Christopher

Royle, Sir Anthony

Viggers, Peter

Myles, David

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Waddington, David

Neale, Gerrard

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Wakeham, John

Needham, Richard

Scott, Nicholas

Waldegrave, Hon William

Nelson, Anthony

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

Neubert, Michael

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Newton, Tony

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon sir Derek.

Normanton, Tom

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Waller, Gary

Onslow, Cranley

Shersby, Michael

Walters, Dennis

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Silvester, Fred

Ward, John

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Sims, Roger

Warren Kenneth

Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

Skeet, T. H. H.

Watson John

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Speed, keith

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Parkinson, Cecil

Speller, Tony

Wells, Bowen Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Parris, Matthew

Spence, John

Wheeler, John

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Whitelaw Rt Hon William

Patten, John (Oxford)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Whitney, Raymond

Pattie, Geoffrey

Sproat, Iain

Wickenden, Keith

Pawsey, James

Squire, Robin

Wiggin, Jerry

Percival, Sir Ian

Stanbrook, Ivor

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Stanley, John

Wolfson, Mark

Pink, R. Bonner

Steen, Anthony

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Pollock, Alexander

Stevens, Martin

Younger, Rt Hon George

Porter, George

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Stokes, John

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

(Prior, Rt Hon James

Stradling Thomas, J.

Mr. Anthony Berry.

Proctor, K. Harvey

Tapsell, Peter

NOES

Abse, Leo

Cowans, Harry

Foulkes, George

Adams, Allen

Crowther, J. S.

Fraser, John (Lambeth Norwood)

Allaun, Frank

Cryer, Bob

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Alton, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Freud, Clement

Anderson, Donald

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

Dalyell, Tam

George, Bruce

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Davidson, Arthur

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Ashton, Joe

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Glnsburg, David

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

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Golding, John

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)

Gourlay, Harry

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

Graham, Ted

Beith, A. J.

Deakins, Eric

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Dempsey, James

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Bidwell, Sydney

Dewar, Donald

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Dixon, Donald

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Dobson, Frank

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur(M'brough)

Dormand, Jack

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Bradley, Tom

Douglas, Dick

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Haynes, Frank

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Dubs, Alfred

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Dunnett, Jack

Heffer, Eric S.

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Eadle, Alex

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Buchan, Norman

Eastham, Ken

Home Robertson, john

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Homewood, William

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

Hooley, Frank

Campbell, Ian

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Horam John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

English, Michael

Howell, Rt Hon Denis(B'ham, Sm H)

Canavan, Dennis

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Howells, Geraint

Cant, R. B.

Evans, John (Newton)

Huckfield, Les

Carmichael, Nell

Ewing, Harry

Hudson Davies Gwilym Ednyfed

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Field, Frank

Hughes, Mark(Durham)

Cartwright, John

Fitch, Alan

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Fitt, Gerard

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Flannery, Martin

Janner, Hon Greville

Cohen, Stanley

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Coleman, Donald

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

John, Brynmor

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Forrester, John

Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

Conlan, Bernard

Foster, Derek

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

1276

1277

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Silverman, Julius

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Newens, Stanley

Snape, Peter

Kerr, Russell

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Soley, Clive

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Ogden, Eric

Spearing, Nigel

Kinnock, Neil

O'Halloran, Michael

Spriggs, Leslie

Lambie, David

O'Neill, Martin

Stallard, A. W.

Lamborn, Harry

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Steel, Rt Hon David

Lamond, James

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Stoddart, David

Leadbitter, Ted

Palmer, Arthur

Stott, Roger

Leighton, Ronald

Park, George

Strang, Gavin

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Parker, John

Straw, Jack

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Parry, Robert

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Litherland, Robert

Pavitt, Laurie

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Pendry, Tom

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Penhaligon, David

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

McCusker, H.

Prescott, John

Tilley, John

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Tinn, James

McElhone, Frank

Race, Reg

Torney, Tom

McKay, Allan (Penistone)

Radice, Giles

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

McKelvey, William

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Richardson, Jo

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Maclennan, Robert

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

McMahon, Andrew

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Weetch, Ken

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Wellbeloved, James

McNally, Thomas

Robertson, George

Welsh, Michael

McWilliam, John

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Magee, Bryan

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)

Rooker, J. W.

Whitlock, William

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Rowlands, Ted

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Ryman, John

Wilson, William (Coventry, SE)

Meacher, Michael

Sandelson, Neville

Winnick, David

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Sever, John

Woodall, Alec

Mikardo, Ian

Sheerman, Barry

Woolmer, Kenneth

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Young, David (Bolton East)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Short, Mrs Renée

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Molyneaux, James

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Mr George Morton and

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Question agreed to.
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:
Committee
1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 4 February 1980.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 4 February may continue until 11 pm whether or not the House is adjourned before that time and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 5 February 1980.
Report and Third Reading
2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceed-
1278
ings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the

1279
Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be moved to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.
Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted days
7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those Proceedings.
Conclusion of Proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair:

1280

(b)any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal
12.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Education (No. 2) Bill; "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

RESIDENTIAL HOMES BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I remind the House that this is a straight consolidation measure, where all that can be discussed is the question whether the law should be consolidated by the Bill in question.
10.32 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill consolidates certain enactments relating to the registration, inspection and conduct of disabled and old people's homes and residential homes for mentally disordered persons, and to the provision by district councils of meals and recreation for old people.
The Bill has been considered by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation of Bills. In the Committee's fourth report, made to the House on 14 November 1979, the Committee said that it was of the opinion that the Bill, as amended, was pure consolidation and that there was no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn.
It follows from the fact, as reported by the Joint Committee, that this is pure consolidation and that it makes no change whatever in the existing law. It is a part of the continuing process of consolidation of the statute law carried out under the auspices of the Law Commission, as are the next two Bills on the Order Paper, on which I hope to say a word in a moment or two. I commend the Bill to the House.
10.34 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I want to speak against the consolidation by the Bill because it perpetuates an unsatisfactory situation. I think that there must be great disappointment on both sides of the House that the Bill is only a tidying-up measure.
There is a concern about private old people's homes which should, in my view, have caused the Government to bring forward not a consolidation Bill but a Bill that would institute much tighter controls over private old people's homes.

1283
I would like to quote from the last edition of The Sunday Times, which will illustrate the—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House when Mr. Speaker made his announcement. The only issue that may be discussed is whether the law should be consolidated by the Bill or whether it should be left to be expressed in a number of different statutes.
Mr. Foulkes: I appreciate the position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker did me the courtesy of explaining it to me personally, as I had indicated my wish to speak on Second Reading. Mr. Speaker explained the position to me in advance of his public announcement in the House.
I speak against consolidation because it will perpetuate an unsatisfactory situation. Surely that is a good ground for speaking against consolidation. If I can argue satisfactorily to the House that the present position is unsatisfactory, I hope that the Minister will think again about consolidation. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take the Bill away and return with a new measure that does not merely consolidate but deals with the issues that I intend to raise.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that the law should be changed. He can argue only that certain measures should be left on the statute book as at present.
Mr. Foulkes: It is my intention to demonstrate that by mere consolidation an unsatisfactory situation will be perpetuated. We should not agree to consolidation for that reason. If you listen to my argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will find that the matters that I raise are in order.
It was alleged in the most recent issue of The Sunday Times that two of those running old people's homes under the present regulations that we are being asked to consolidate
"lied to local authorities about their London old people's home…to avoid registration and inspection."
Secondly, it is alleged that they
"kept patients in the home against their wishes and prevented friends and relatives from seeing them alone."
1284
Thirdly, it is alleged that they
"posed as 'expert nurses', administered drugs…although neither of them has recognised medical qualifications."
The article continues:
"To some extent it was the weakness of the law on old people's homes, roundly criticised by the coroner last week".
That was the coroner dealing with the particular case to which I refer. If a coroner is criticising the present law and saying that it is unsatisfactory, surely it is wrong for us to go through the procedure of giving the Bill a Second Reading and consolidating measures that are manifestly unsatisfactory.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the effect of not accepting this consolidation measure would be to leave existing measures unconsolidated, there does not seem to be much that anyone can do to remedy the matters to which the hon. Gentleman is drawing attention. Is there any point in listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, however elegant and persuasive it may be?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order. I have tried to explain to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) that the Bill does not change the law. It merely consolidates a number of statutes. The hon. Gentleman cannot now argue for a change in the law, and that is what he is attempting to do. However much he may wish to see the law changed, this is not the moment to advance that argument.
Mr. Foulkes: I crave the indulgence of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am saying that the Bill is taking the time of the House on Second Reading, and will do so when its later stages are considered, when that time could be spent dealing with an issue of extreme importance. If the Bill is withdrawn—that is what I am suggesting—and the Government introduce a measure that tightens up the regulations, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will speed its passage. That would lead to an improvement.
In a written answer that I received today from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) also received, the hon. Gentleman stated that he could not usefully add to

1285
the reply given by his right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on 11 December 1979. That reply stated:
"The review of the arrangements for the registration and inspection of private and voluntary homes for old people, the disabled and persons suffering from mental disorders is continuing."
It says:
"I hope to be able to put forward proposals for consultation during the course of the forthcoming year".—[Official Report, 11 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 579–80.]
The position is far too serious for us to wait. I hope that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may be, but it has nothing to do with the measure that we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman must stick to what is on the Order Paper and not argue for a change in the law, however desirable that may be.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I have made my feelings felt. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to think about them and withdraw the Bill.
10.41 pm
Mr. Reg Race: I am concerned also about the Bill as a consolidation measure. We should not have a consolidation measure before us. We should consider the National Assistance Act 1948 and its application to the 21,500 who are presently in private sector old people's homes. We should consider ways of improving the law. The consolidation measure merely brings together the worst aspects of the present law.
The worst aspects are twofold: first, the aspects referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) and, secondly, the real problem of the employees in residential homes who, on many occasions, have no proper trade union recognition rights.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He is arguing the merits of a case and not whether the two statutes should be consolidated. That is the only matter that we are concerned with at the moment.
Mr. Race: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the last opportunity in this Parliament for the House to discuss a measure about residential homes. It is crucial that we
1286
discuss a measure that will change the law rather than consolidate it. That is why I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire that the Bill ought to be withdrawn and replaced by a Bill that gives rights to trade unionists in residential homes and further rights to those who are incarcerated there, often in absolutely deplorable conditions.
10.43 pm
Mr. John Morris: My hon. Friends, drawing on their experience, have drawn to the attention of the House certain failings in existing law. Obviously there are difficulties, within the rules of order, to canvass the issues that they would have raised on another occasion. They have made their points moderately, and the House should listen to them.
There should not be consolidation on this aspect of the law without, first, or at the same time, dealing with the matters raised by my hon. Friends. That is the matter in a nutshell.
Without in any way wishing to fall foul of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friends have ventilated their grievances. They have brought to the attention of the House matters that they regard as important. It would facilitate business if there were an indication from the Solicitor-General that he will consider the matters that have been raised.
10.44 pm
The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall comment on those matters. In the short history of this Parliament I have already said more than once that it is a great pity that hon. Members do not know more about the process of consolidation. It is a self-contained and useful process. It is a process in which a committee of experts does a useful job for us, thus enabling us to implement this tidying-up process without any change in the law and at very small expense in terms of the time of the House.
Two of the hon. Members who have spoken have, I think, shown further evidence of that lack of knowledge, but perhaps that is forgivable in the case of new Members who take a little longer to find these things out. However, I was more surprised at the intervention of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). He knows that the only

1287
choice before the House is whether we should leave these provisions of the law spread about two separate Acts—and two separate parts of one of those Acts—or whether we should put them into one Act where, good, bad or indifferent, they can be ascertained more easily and speedily by those who are interested. That is the sole question before the House.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that, just as he must know that I cannot deal with any other aspect of the matter. That is the question before the House. When the House faces the right question, I believe that it can come to only one conclusion, which is to give the Bill a Second reading.
10.46 pm
Mr. John Morris: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Iam sure that the Solicitor-General wants to assist the House. I also want to facilitate the business. But he must not come here and lecture my hon. Friends time after time when he is introducing consolidation measures.
If Conservative Members want to get home early, they must teach the Solicitor-General a lesson when they retire from the Chamber, otherwise there will be a
1288
series of occasions when they will be here for a very long time indeed.
Without being immodest, I can say that I have been here for several years, and I know the nature and the meaning of consolidation measures of this kind. However, the point that has been raised is whether on a particular aspect of law there should be consolidation at all.
I know that the Solicitor-General wants to help the House to get his hon. Friends home as early as possible. I know that he wants to get home as early as he can. Therefore, I hope that in future he will not come to the House in such a patronising manner and try to teach my hon. Friends lessons but rather will say sympathetically that their points will be considered by the appropriate channels and that in due course he will either be able or unable to deal with their points. With respect, that is a speedier way—not necessarily a better way—of ensuring that hon. Members get home early.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Newton.]
Committee tomorrow.

CHILD CARE BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
10.49 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Again, this is a consolidation Bill. It consolidates certain enactments relating to children in the care of local authorities and voluntary organisations in England and Wales. The Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills in its third report, made on 31 October, reported that it was of the opinion that the Bill, as amended, was pure consolidation and represented existing law. It makes no changes whatever to the existing law. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Newton.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

FOSTER CHILDREN BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
10.51 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I can move the Second Reading even more briefly in this case, the considerations being similar to those in the previous two Bills.
Again, this is a consolidation Bill. It consolidates certain enactments relating to the fostering of children by private individuals in England and Wales. The Joint Select Committee in its third report to the House on 31 October 1979 reported that it was of the opinion that the Bill, as amended, was pure consolidation and represented existing law. It again follows that it makes no changes whatsoever in the existing law. I commend it to the House.
Mr. John Morris: I listened closely to the words of the Solicitor-General. He said that the Bill makes no changes in existing law. I do not think that that is wholly accurate, because it brings into force some of the provisions of the Children Act 1975 which are not yet in force. That is the distinguishing feature. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Solicitor-General will correct me.
The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, I shall be happy to look into that point. The only difference of which I am aware is a minor improvement that represents not a change in the law but an improvement in the way in which it is expressed. The Committee reported that the Bill made no changes and that it was pure consolidation. I shall certainly look into the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and write to him about it.
Mr. John Morris: This is an important point—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I was going to call another hon. Gentleman first. There can be one reply.
10.54 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The mere fact that a provision is not yet in force does not mean that it is not the law of the land. Power is given to the

1291
Minister in the Children Act to bring certain sections or measures into force, and presumably the Shadow Attorney-General is referring to that. If I am right, there is no merit in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I understood that previously he was angry, or to some extent irritated, by the impressive manner with which my hon. and learned Friend introduced one of the earlier measures. He might well stand in shame at making a point that appears to me to be in unutterable ignorance of the procedures of the House and the effect of legislation. He ought to give us an apology.
10.55 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has just said. Bills often provide that at some future date a provision will come into force, when the Minister so states or requires. My hon. Friend is quite right. As soon as the measure passes through the process in Parliament, it becomes the law. The fact that its operation may be postponed for a few months does not in any way detract from the truth of what my hon. Friend has just said. Therefore, I am bound to say that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is wholly wrong and, like my hon. Friend, I hope that he will apologise to the Solicitor-General.
Mr. John Morris: With the leave of the House, I should like to attempt to apologise in my own way. When I am told that I should be ashamed, naturally I look at my position to see to what degree I should show contrition. When I put my point to the Solicitor-General, at first he seemed to be totally unaware of it. In good faith, as he told us, he was putting before the House the words that it makes no change in the existing law—full stop. I was not bringing to the attention of the House a matter out of my own head, without having studied the matter. I relied, indeed, upon eminent legal sources and on the way in which it has been put elsewhere.
The way in which it has been put is that the Bill
"makes no changes in the existing law, except that it brings into force some of the provisions of the Children Act 1975 which are not yet in force."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 July 1979; Vol. 401, c. 1630.]
1292
Presumably there is a reason why it was put in that way, with a comma, followed by the words
"except that it brings into force some of the provisions of the Children Act 1975 which are not yet in force."
The source of that authority—first, that there is no change in the law and, secondly, that there is the one exception referred to—is no less a person than the Lord Chancellor, in introducing the Bill in another place. On that ground, on reflection, I do not think that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will press me to don my sackcloth and ashes and show contrition—unless he wants me to do it in tandem with the Lord Chancellor. I would be perfectly willing to consider doing that.
Mr. Lawrence rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are not in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman is not permitted to make two speeches.
10.58 pm
The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that I may have been perhaps too brief in my comment on what the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said. It seems that one cannot win—one is either too long or too brief—but one must keep trying.
We sent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a copy of the Bill and of the evidence, and of the report of the Joint Committee, in advance of these proceedings. If there had been a point on which he wished to speak to me, I should have been very glad to speak to him about it. He now raises a very technical point, as he is perfectly entitled to do. I must deal with it as best I may. I believe the answer in law to be that which I have given to the House.
Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Having regard to the second thoughts that the Solicitor-General is now having about this matter, will he have second thoughts about his answer to me yesterday, in which he made the most disgraceful and disparaging aspersions about the value of The Times Law Reports?
Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is utterly irrelevant and is another reason why the

1293
Opposition spokesman should apologise to the House for wasting our time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was about to say to the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) that his point has absolutely nothing to do with the measure.
The Solicitor-General: It is also a little surprising that the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) should refer to an intervention by himself which ended with his being rebuked by Mr. Speaker, but let that pass. It has nothing whatever—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Could we get off this subject, Mr. Solicitor-General, and back to the Bill?
The Solicitor-General: I would have been happy not to have got on to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not having second thoughts; I was adding to what I had said in the hope of helping the House. Had the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon wished to discuss this point with me, I would have been happy to do so. I shall be happy to do so after these proceedings if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes. I must advise the House that this is a pure consolidation matter. It has been certified as such. I think that the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and Grantham (Mr. Hogg) adequately deal with the points raised on technical matters.
My advice is that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Newton.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

CLOSE COMPANIES (INTEREST PAYMENTS)
11.2 pm
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): I beg to move,
That the draft Income Tax (Excess Interest As Distributions) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.
This order increases from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent. the limit enshrined in section 285(4) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.
The House will recall that if a close company were to pay interest to a director who had a material interest in that company—roughly defined as 5 per cent. or more of its equity—or to the associate of a director, and if such interest is in excess of the prescribed limit, the excess is to be treated as a distribution with disadvantages, to which I shall refer.
First, the company will not be able to deduct that excess as a charge on income for corporation tax purposes. Furthermore, the excess will be subject to advance corporation tax. The original measure, which contains the first limit, dates back to 1965 and was designed to evade what was then thought to be a possible measure of avoidance whereby directors and their associates would suck out of the companies in which they were interested, by way of interest, sums that would more properly be regarded as distributions or dividends.
In 1969 the limit was 8 per cent., which related to a bank rate of 8 per cent. In the Finance Act 1974 it was raised to 12 per cent., to keep it in line with a bank rate of 12 per cent. Now that the minimum lending rate is 17 per cent., it was thought appropriate—I hope that I shall carry the House with me on this—that the limit should be raised to 17 per cent.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Why is MLR at 17 per cent.?
Mr. Rees: That is a different question, to answer which would take me into fields of economic policy that it is not appropriate for me to debate now, though I am always happy to debate with the right hon. Gentleman, who has profound knowledge. Indeed, he perhaps has more experience than I have. He sat for many

1295
years in the room that I am now privileged to occupy at the Treasury.
Those are matters that lie outside this modest order. It does no more than to adjust the limits that previous Governments, of whatever complexion, thought should be adjusted to keep them in line with the prevailing minimum lending rate and bank rate. I hope that on that basis the House will feel able to approve the order.
11.6 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister of State has not dealt at all with the reason why the rate is going up from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent. We all appreciate the technical reasons for the order—that from time to time the rate must be examined, because money paid out of a close company can sometimes be dressed up as interest instead of being a distribution. We understand that quite well. But the question to which the hon. and learned Gentleman should have addressed himself—and did not—was the reason why we are being asked to increase the rate to 17 per cent.
The Minister said that it was not within his province to answer that question. However, it is the very reason for the order. If it were earlier in the evening, and more hon. Members were present, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would be pressed more on the question why the order is being introduced. Why is he wasting the time of the House if there is no particular meaning to the increase?
The Minister knows very well what the reason is. He tried to ignore it, but it clearly is that this Government, through their economic and financial mismanagement, have created a situation in which we now have a minimum lending rate of 17 per cent. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself said that the rate required for this rather technical order generally followed bank rate or the MLR. It is now following an MLR of 17 per cent., which has been created by this Government.
It is only right, even at this late hour, to make it quite clear that we are being asked to increase the rate to 17 per cent. because of the inflationary effects of the Government's policy. I repeat what we have said before in the House, that the main reason for our high interest rates is
1296
not technical, having to do with monetary targets and borrowing requirements, although they are subsidiary to it. The main reason why we are being asked to sanction an interest rate of 17 per cent. is that the Government have deliberately put up inflation since they came into office by at least 8 per cent., and perhaps even more. Before long, inflation will be running at 20 per cent.
If we have an inflation rate of 20 per cent., we cannot have an MLR much below 20 per cent., whatever theories, philosophies and views we have about monetary targets, monetary control or anything else. The two must go together.
This little order is a by-product of the Government's financial mismanagement—their deliberate abrogation of their primary duty to control inflation. Instead, they have taken deliberate measures to put up the rate of inflation. That has put up interest rates, with the result that we are being asked to pass an order to change the rate in this technical area from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent.
The other reason, subsidiary to the inflation point, is that the Government, having put up inflation deliberately, as I have described, reduced the monetary targets. We have inflation going up and the monetary targets coming down. With the need to sell Government stock and to control bank lending, interest rates must inevitably be higher, and now we are suffering a 17 per cent. MLR.
It is instructive to note that we are concerned here with close companies. This is a technical taxation point. Most close companies are merely small private companies. They are the kind of small businesses that hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches were championing in Opposition, but now, in Government, they seem to accept with a certain amount of equanimity the high interest rates that are killing the very small businesses that they were apparently very concerned about in Opposition.
The small companies that we are concerned about here will now be able—I do not deny that they should be able to do so—to pay interest rates of up to 17 per cent. on money lent to them by participators. I remind the House that that money will now go out as interest, whereas if interest rates had been lower that

1297
money could have been kept in those companies for investment, for ploughing back, and for improving the potential and the growth of those companies.
The Minister of State has not told us why it is necessary to bring forward this order now and when the order will come into operation. There is no date on it because, obviously, until the House approves the order no date can be included. But what is the point of bringing the order forward now when we are going to have the Budget in less than two months' time? Why on earth is it necessary, within less than two months of the Budget, to rush through this measure to increase the interest rate from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent.? It could well have waited until the Budget.
I hope that if the Minister of State catches your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will tell us what is the purpose of doing this at this time. The question is pertinent, because until the House knows why it is necessary to raise this rate it is very difficult to know whether or not to approve the measure.
We are told by Government Ministers, and we constantly read in the financial press, that interest rates are coming down; the recession is upon us, the Government have got full control of borrowing and are going to cut public expenditure in all directions, and the natural consequence is that interest rates will come down.
If that is so, what is the point of sanctioning a 17 per cent. MLR when the object of the work that the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Minister of State will be doing in the next few weeks, on public expenditure—getting a firm control of it and producing their five-year plans and monetary targets—is to reduce interest rates?
I ask the Minister of State to tell the House why it is being asked to approve 17 per cent. and enshrined it in an order on enactment. The background to interest rates is, of course, inflation and borrowing and monetary targets, so I must ask the Minister of State to be a little more forthcoming with the House and tell us, for instance, what the Government's assessments are of the rate of inflation, because this is crucial to intrest rates. We were told that towards the end of
1298
this year the rate of inflation might come down to 14 per cent.—I think that is the Treasury forecast. Is that still the Government's estimate? Was that the estimate when this order was discussed in the Treasury? Some people believe that it will be much higher than 14 per cent. by the end of this year. Indeed, it is going to rise to 20 per cent. or more by the middle of the year. If the Government get it down to 14 per cent. by the end of this year, I think that they will be very lucky. I would have thought—the fact that we are being asked to approve a 17 per cent. equivalent to MLR is an indication that the Government agree with me—that the Government will be very lucky if they get inflation down to much less than 20 per cent. by the end of the year.
Again, I think that we should be told something about the public sector borrowing requirement. What is the Government's assessment of the borrowing requirement for next year. If it is going to be lower, why on earth is this order necessary? I remind the House that the 12 per cent. remained effective for about four years. Is the Minister of State now intending that this rate of 17 per cent. should remain effective for four years?
I think that we should be told what the assessments are. Perhaps the Government have no idea what the PSBR is going to be next year—that would not surprise me—but the Financial Secretary has been making very learned speeches in the City explaining these matters, so the Government must have some idea. Will the Minister of State tell us what the PSBR will be? It will be £9 billion this year, so perhaps it will be £9½ billion next year. Who knows? I do not suppose that the Government know exactly.
Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to give the House the information that the right hon. Gentleman requests, even if he were minded to do so?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is not exactly a point of order for the Chair. The reply that the Minister of State gives is a matter for him.
Mr. Davies: I am surprised by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). PSBR is not a State secret. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is one of a group who want four-year targets published for the PSBR. The Minister must have come to an assessment. If not, why bring forward the order? Why put 17 per cent. in the order if no assessment has been made about inflation, interest rates, the PSBR and monetary targets? The Minister owes it to the House to give an indication of the working behind that figure of 17 per cent. Many people want to know. If the Government believe that we are stuck with 17 per cent. MLR for two, three or four years, it is important for the House and people outside to appreciate what is happening.
I hope that there will be some indication. Will the PSBR remain the same? Will it be £9 billion? Will it be £9·5 billion? I do not ask for exact figures. Will it be higher? There is a school of thought that during a recession—this Government have certainly caused a recession—it should be increased. Perhaps it will be £11 billion next year. Who knows? The other component for determining the figure of 17 per cent., apart from the inflation rate and the PSBR, is the monetary targets themselves. I do not ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to provide those.
If we are talking about a PSBR next year of £9 billion, monetary targets of between 7 per cent. and 12 per cent. and an inflation rate of close on 20 per cent. by the end of next year, it makes sense for the Minister to bring forward the order. If we work back from 17 per cent. and assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not produce another order in six months' time and that 17 per cent. will be the going interest rate for some time to come, we have a PSBR of between £9 billion and £9·5 billion next year, an inflation rate of nearly 20 per cent. by the end of next year, and a monetary target of between 7 per cent. and 11 per cent., or possibly less. It may well be that that is the Government's assessment and that is why the hon. and learned Gentleman is enshrining in the order an interest rate of 17 per cent.
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bring another order forward after the Budget, when cuts in public expenditure
1300
have been made to reduce the 17 per cent. rate, or is he envisaging that we are stuck with 17 per cent. MLR for some time?
11.17 pm
Mr. Peter Rees: With his customary adroitness and eloquence, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has sought to enlarge a debate on what is essentially a rather modest order into an examination of an area of Government economic policy. Of course, I am happy to debate with him or with any other hon. Member the validity, advantages and solidity of the Government's economic policy. I do not know whether I should be in order to do so, but I am always happy to respond to the right hon. Gentleman. I know his deep experience, skill, acumen and application to these measures.
The right hon. Gentleman asks for the reason for the order. It is because on all past precedents established by Administrations that he, no doubt, supported—I do not recall whether he was in the House in 1969, but he certainly was in 1974—they felt it right, as we do, to keep the limits in section 285 in line with the bank rate or the minimum lending rate. I do not recall that on either of those occasions it was felt necessary to justify the Government's economic policies. Nevertheless, I feel robustly confident about the Government's economic policies.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the prospects for interest rates. I emphasise at once that to establish the reason for this order it is unnecessary for me to convince the House that interest rates will remain at present levels for any length of time. It is a question of doing an elementary measure of justice to those involved in close companies.
The right hon. Gentleman asked where we stand in relation to the small business sector. We stand where we have always stood—unlike the Labour Party. The Labour Party wishes to grind small businesses into the dust. It has no place for small businesses in its mythology. It likes large businesses, whose arms it can twist. Eventually, it can nationalise them. We believe in small companies. The example that we have selected tonight is that of close companies. Perhaps it is a narrow, more specialised

1301
corporate instrument, but we believe that to treat those businesses and their directors and shareholders fairly it is necessary to adjust the rate.
That is our philosophy, and I state it with pride. I hope that I have stated it with sufficient clarity to convince the House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not convinced.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the prospects for interest rates. Since the increase in minimum lending rate, three-month rates have averaged about 17 per cent. However, the yield in money market rates has been on a downward slope beyond those three months. That indicates a market expectation of a cooling in short-term rates. Perhaps I do not command the enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman. Presumably, he would like to see the minimum lending rate creep up yet further. He is a prophet of doom.
Let us look at what has happened. My right hon. and hon. Friends have stressed that there should be a prospect of lower interest rates. Government policies reduce both the rate of inflation and monetary growth. However, the timing of any fall in that rate must depend on several factors. Of course, we need to be sure that monetary growth is under control.
The right hon. Gentleman should consider with a blush the vagaries of the monetary policy that was pursued by the previous Labour Administration. He was a distinguished member of that Government and presided over that policy. Of course, we warmly commended the actions that he took under pressure from the International Monetary Fund. We were less enthusiastic about his actions in the run-up to the general election. He has pure fiscal and monetary principles. I hope that one day he will stand up boldly and proclaim that he is a monetarist. There are gradations of monetarism. Basically and philosophically, he is not so remote from this Administration in his approach to monetary policy.
We have all read the synopses of Lord Underhill's report in the press. We know the pressures under which the right hon. Gentleman worked prior to the general election. Mercifully, the Government are not under such pressures. Therefore, we
1302
shall not relax monetary pressures until we are convinced that inflation has been squeezed out of the economy.
I am a little diffident about enlarging the ambit of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, you have been kind enough to treat my intervention with some indulgence. I hope that I can discuss this important question as we shall come back to it again whenever we debate general economic affairs. I also hope that we shall have an opportunity, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to debate the White Paper on expenditure. At about the same time, we shall have an opportunity to debate the Budget. We can then examine the broad and important questions of economic policy.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to address his mind to one question. Why bring forward the order within six weeks of the Budget? Surely, if the Budget and the public expenditure exercise—the cuts of £2 billion that the Prime Minister seeks—have been so successful, he will be able to bring forward an order with an interest rate of 15 per cent. or 14 per cent. If that exercise has been successful, interest rates should fall. Perhaps the Government are not very confident about a fall in interest rates.
Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that it is over two months since the minimum lending rate was put up. He will recall that there have been other consequential amendments. For example, we put up the rates of interest on unpaid tax in early January. I do not recall the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends making a great palaver about that exercise. He reads too much into what is basically a simple and elementary measure of justice to the small company sector.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that he is concerned about the small company sector. If he did, I should admire his candour. Indeed, if he does not rise on this point I shall think the less of him. We know where his heart lies—with the big battalions that he and his hon. Friends below the Gangway feel that they can manipulate when they are in power. They feel that they can twist their arms more readily and that they are more susceptible to pressures from the trade union movement. They feel that at the

1303
end of the day they may even be able to nationalise them. That is not our approach.
Let us not get the problem out of perspective. It is a very small—one might almost be disposed to say technical—measure, but it is not entirely technical. It accords a measure of justice to the small company sector.
We recognise that Administrations that the right hon. Gentleman supported have been very ready to adjust without overmuch explanation. We have accepted the adjustments. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to make a mountain out of this relatively small measure. It is a measure of justice. It allows people to take out by way of interest from close companies without fiscal disadvantages.
The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends below the Gangway wish to cram on to the small company sector every kind of fiscal disadvantage. That is one of the great divides between the two sides of the House. We do not share that philosophy. There has been a change since 3 May. One of the small symptoms of that change is this order.
We need not spend over-long on the Government's fiscal and monetary policies. They are well known. I almost feel disposed to apologise to the House for having to elaborate on our monetary policies. We take a firm and robust view.
It is not for me to speculate—indeed, how can I?—as to when it will be possible to bring the minimum lending rate down. The right hon. Gentleman and the City can speculate, but let us wait until circumstances make that propitious.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to point out that we are only two months away from the Budget. I do not feel that this small measure need wait two months. The circumstances are propitious. They justify it. On that basis, I hope that the House and the right hon. Gentleman will feel that it is entirely appropriate that we should introduce it to the House now and will allow it to pass without any demur or Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Income Tax (Excess Interest As Distributions) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.

EDUCATION (TAYSIDE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
11.28 pm
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I raise this debate on the Adjournment out of serious concern about the declining provision for education and out of worry over the effects of the recent curtailment in the number of teachers and the quality of education in Tayside region. I also have fears about the effects of the next round of education cuts, especially in the light of the outdated but sinister needs survey conducted by the Treasury that has received so much publicity.
The argument that I wish to develop is twofold. First, Tayside regional council has handled education in a rather catastrophic manner. It has gone far further than the Government suggested. The council has supported cuts. It has gone ahead with cuts in staffing that other regions have not attempted. There is real doubt whether the standard of education in Tayside. and particularly in Dundee, can be maintained. I wish to ask the Minister whether he will use his influence, or constraint, to prevent further disruption in the education services.
My second objective is to show the Government the harm that can be done by ill-considered and unjustified cuts. I have no idea, especially after the debate to which we have just listened, what nature of hell's brew has been concocted by the Treasury for the Budget. What is known is that Tayside regional council was thinking of a 7·8 per cent. budget cut in real terms in the education sector. Already, in the region, particularly in the city of Dundee, substantial public reaction has manifested itself, apart from reaction among the teaching profession. One parent in my constituency stated:
"Whatever happens to children now will very seriously affect them for the rest of their lives. We cannot expect them to fight their own case. So we must do it for them."
Last Thursday there was a one-day strike in the city of Dundee, which meant that 25,000 out of the 32,000 pupils at Dundee schools lost their education for the day. The cause of the strike was that the regional council, without consultation, had rushed ahead with cuts in staffing. Unlike the Minister who called

1305
for staffing cuts, early this month, through wastage, Tayside region went ahead and terminated the short-term contracts of 130 teachers. Seventy-three of them worked in the city of Dundee.
Only two other local authorities, so far as I am aware, have attempted to make cuts. They are Strathclyde and the Borders. Both have contented themselves with cuts in ancillary matters. None has attempted making staff cuts. It was this factor, together with lack of consultation, that provoked a dispute in relation to Greenfield primary school at Whitfield, in my constituency, and subsequently the one-day strike to which I have referred.
All that members of the staff received was curt notes of dismissal a few weeks before Christmas. The regional council showed no thought for the interests of the children affected, let alone the teachers whose jobs were being lost.
The effect of the cuts made as a result of the termination of those appointments was real. The EIS has said that 27 of those teachers have since been reinstated, but 20 have been transferred compulsorily to other schools. As a result of the changes, virtually every primary school in Dundee and some primary schools in Perth and Kinross and Angus have had to make mid-session changes in timetabling and class organisation. In some schools, the changes have been drastic. One school had to telescope 19 classes into 16 and most of its pupils returned in January to find that they had new classmates and new teachers.
In many schools, composite classes—that is, mixed year groupclasses—had to be formed for the first time. Visiting specialist teaching was seriously reduced. Educational priority area schools had their staffing advantages whittled away. In one school, at least, special provision for the teaching of immigrant children was entirely removed. What worries me considerably is that 13 teachers in remedial subjects lost their jobs. This means that children, backward in education, have lost the opportunity of catching up with their peers in the same age group.
I am informed that between 1,800 and 2,000 children in the city of Dundee have been affected by the changes. I should like the Minister to indicate the position
1306
of the 30 posts under the circular 991 scheme designed to provide for additional staffing in schools in deprived areas. These 30 posts are funded by the Government under the rate support grant arrangements at least until 31 March 1982. They form part of the national staffing standards in the primary schools. By its decision to phase out these posts, and by absorbing the teachers concerned into its normal school staffing, Tayside regional council has departed from national staffing standards and may well have forfeited the rate support grant that it would have received in respect of those posts.
The chairman of the education committee apparently was under the impression that the rate support grant was available under circular 991 and could be transferred to normal primary staffing, but the EIS takes a different view, and I should like to know the actual position from the Minister.
The effects of the cuts were recognised by the director of education, Mr. David Robertson. I wrote to him on 14 December 1979 asking what was likely to happen, and I received a reply on 14 January in which he sent me a copy of the report that he had sent to his education committee. In that report the director said that his purpose was to advise the committee that there had been a substantial reaction to the recently imposed expenditure cuts. The effects of these were beginning to be felt and the public had become sensitised to the possibility of further cuts in the education service during the 1980–81 financial year. He said that there had been protests, including requests for staff whose fixed contracts had not been renewed to be re-engaged from teacher organisations, school councils, school staffs, parent-teacher associations, individual teachers and parents, community councils and other groups. When education officers had been asked to account for the expenditure cuts, the explanations had been given along the lines of a rationale, a copy of which was sent to me.
The director of education went on to say that the main burden of the protests had been in relation to the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts. This had caused
"considerable disturbance with changes of primary class teachers in mid-session, and the reduction of support from visiting teachers of music, needlework, art and physical education."

1307
There had also been complaints about larger classes, composite classes, reductions in curricular options, increased teaching loads for promoted staff, less remedial help for less able pupils, increased timetabling difficulties when staff were absent, less staff release for in-service training, alleged erosion of educational standards and insufficient consultation. That was the director of education emphasising and repeating some of the things which the EIS had already said.
There is also clear evidence that Tayside has been run by a group of educational philistines who apparently place the education of young people at a low level of priority, regardless of the fact that a sound education is one of the main factors which will help to rescue the Tayside region, particularly the city of Dundee, from the economic doldrums in which it is at present.
Although the region denies that it is the second lowest spender on education, a recent analysis by Mr. J. K. Morrison, printed in the Dundee Courier on 24 January, brought out certain facts. First, all departmental spending, bar education, has risen faster than either the total regional budget or the cost of living index, and central administration has been far and away the most extravagant spender.
Secondly, within the education budget, administration costs have risen faster than all the others. Thirdly, the greatest savings have been made on supplies such as textbooks. In this area there has been a 26 per cent. increase compared with the total educational budget increase of 48 per cent. I have noticed that myself. My elder daughter, who attends a school in my constituency, does not bring home textbooks as I did when I was young. She gets duplicated sheets. Apparently this is customary throughout the region now because the amount of expenditure on textbooks has not kept pace with inflation. A survey has shown that there has been a 100 per cent. increase in the cost of books, but expenditure on them has increased by only 26 per cent.
Mr. Morrison has drawn the conclusion from this study that the proportion spent on education by Tayside is declining. He said that at the start of regionalisation when the different education authorities were amalgamated into one, the total expenditure was 60·4 per cent. However,
1308
at the end of the period of the study it had declined as a total of the budget to 57·7 per cent.—a very substantial drop. If one-half of 1 per cent. had been taken from central administration—[Interruption.]—I hope that you will check the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser), Mr. Deputy Speaker. If he were interested in the subject he should have sought an Adjournment debate himself. Had one-half of 1 per cent. been taken from the central administration costs, it would have avoided this mid-sessional dismissal of fixed-term contract teachers and averted the strike and the overall effects that have reduced educational provision in Dundee.
It is not surprising to me that in these circumstances the Tayside education committee has begun a rethink. It now wants to approach the policy and resources committee with a view to restoring the budget for 1980–81. So far we have been talking about the very abrupt and quite unheard-of changes that have taken place in the middle of a session. It now wants to shield the service from the worst of the cuts.
The committee is trying to pull back as a result of the protests from the community in Dundee and other parts of the Tayside region. I think that it is time for the Government to make clear where they stand in relation to education in the region. I know that the Minister has savaged Lothian regional council, but he must accept that the Tayside regional authority has gone far beyond even the target that was set by his own Government. To make mid-sessional changes of that order is quite unheard of in educational practice. The disturbance to the education of the children, to which I have referred, as a result of the regional authority's action and that of his own Government—if they have given encouragement to Tayside region by their general policy—is the responsibility of the Government.
I want, here and now, to hear from the Minister that, in view of the fact that there may be further disturbances if action is not taken in relation to the problems that have emerged, he will try to persuade the Tayside regional authority to reinstate the teachers who have lost their jobs and to maintain the educational budget. What the Minister

1309
is attempting, in general political terms—in a year when £2,090 million will be paid from the Scottish sector of the North Sea in oil revenues to the Treasury—together with the Tory-controlled local authorities is to allow the educational provision in Tayside to deteriorate and to allow the same thing to happen in other parts of Scotland.
In view of the sums of money—I know of the provisions of the Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill and I know that this is a Treasury estimate—that will be coming in, I ask the Minister to dissociate the Scottish Office from the general policy of the Government. I ask him to stand up for Scotland in this instance and also to make sure that the level of education in Tayside does not diminish for the reasons that I have given. I ask him also to prevent further disturbance to the education of many thousands of children who depend on a good education to give them a first-class start in life.
11.42 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for raising the question of education on Tayside at this time. It is a pity that in the last couple of minutes of his speech he drifted into the nationalist propaganda that he, amazingly, still seems to believe in, in terms of North Sea oil revenues and other general economic matters.
The problems and difficulties that the hon. Member has set out with his customary clarity enable me to focus on two topics that are important to Tayside and to Scotland as a whole. These are the general economic situation, its implications, particularly for education, and the problems and opportunities presented by the sharply declining number of pupils in our schools. That is something to which I thought the hon. Gentleman might have addressed himself during the last 15 minutes.
In dealing with the general economic situation, I can do no better than echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in his speech on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order on 16 January. The extremely difficult economic situation against which the problems of Tayside are to be seen is set out in the opening
1310
paragraph of the White Paper "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1980–81", Cmnd. 7746. The White Paper notes the long-term deterioration of the British economy and points out that under the previous Administration public spending plans were increased on assumptions about economic growth that were—and can now quite clearly be seen to be—quite unrealistic.
As a first step in bringing current expenditure under control, my right hon. Friend asked all authorities in Scotland to review their spending and to ensure that actual expenditure was held to the level assumed in the rate support grant settlement for 1979–80, which was, of course, the responsibility of the previous Administration.
Mr. Bill Walker rose—
Mr. Fletcher: He warned authorities at the same time that if they failed to heed his advice they would have difficulty in adjusting their programmes to the more realistic levels of expenditure that he had in mind for 1980–81 and future years. For 1980–81, after extensive consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, my right hon. Friend set current expenditure relevant for RSG at only 3 per cent. below the figure planned by the previous Administration.
Mr. Ernie Ross rose—
Mr. Fletcher: I shall give way in a moment. There are one or two matters to which I should like to address myself.
Mr. John Home Robertson: From a prepared speech.
Mr. Fletcher: Yes, in my response to the prepared speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. It would have been an even more prepared speech had it been prepared by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
Within that figure there was a reduction in expenditure on education. That is the largest single programme and clearly cannot be excluded from the Government's expenditure considerations. The most important consideration to take into account here was the continuing decline in the school population. It would be

1311
irresponsible for the Government to propose increases in total expenditure having regard to such an obvious and steady decline in school numbers.
Staffing ratios in Tayside reveal clearly that there is no education crisis. The local authority is endeavouring to match its expenditure and its revenue. That might seem extraordinary to some Labour Members, but surely it is a most sensible thing to do. The attempts of the local authority to do that are in no way damaging the education provision in Tayside, as the pupil-teacher ratios for Tayside clearly illustrate.
Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—
Mr. Fletcher: No. I must reply to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Wilson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does so.
Mr. Fletcher: Yes, I shall. I shall indicate that in primary schools at September 1979—these are the latest available figures—there was a pupil-teacher ratio of 20·3 to 1 compared with 21·1 to 1 at September 1978. Over that 12 months there was an improvement in the primary schools. The number of teachers employed at September 1979 was sufficient to meet the basic staff complements recommended in circular 1029, plus a flexibility factor of 16·4 per cent. The flexibility factor for primary schools in Tayside was 16·4 at September 1979 compared with the national average of 18·3 and an overall factor of 10 per cent. for which provision was made in the RSG. Therefore, it was 6·4 per cent. above the flexibility factor which was calculated and introduced into the RSG for 1979–80 as part of the previous Labour Government's order.
Mr. Wilson rose—
Mr. Fletcher: In secondary schools the pupil ratio was 14 to 1, the same as at September 1978. It is irresponsible to claim that there is an education crisis in Dundee. I know that there are some in Tayside who think that there is political advantage to be gained by stoking up the impression that there is such a crisis. However, it is an untrue assertion. The figures that have been collected from all the local authorities indicate clearly that it is a disservice to the regional authority, which can look after itself, and a
1312
disservice to the hon. Gentleman's constituents to stoke up the idea that there is an education crisis in Tayside.
Mr. Ernie Ross rose—
Mr. Fletcher: There is concern among teachers in Tayside that there may be redundancies during the coming year. If the number of teachers in service in Scotland as a whole in 1979–80 had been more closely in line with the numbers planned for that year and provided for in the RSG order, I would not have expected any difficulty. The figures that I revealed earlier clearly confirm that point.
Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that while in Opposition the Conservative Party made it quite clear what its intention was if it came to Government? During the general election it made a strong point that public expenditure would have to be cut. Is it not rather cynical that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who contributed to the fall of the previous Administration, should raise the matter in the House?
Will the Minister take the opportunity to dissociate the Government from the remarks of the finance convener of Tayside regional council, in the social work department, that it was the declared intention of the Administration not to attain the level of grant allowed by the regional council? Will he advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of those remarks, and advise him that he should ensure that the Tayside regional council attains the level of expenditure allowed by the Government?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): In fairness, I must point out that this is the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) could hardly expect me to criticise the local authority for taking a prudent view of its expenditure in relation to its revenue. The hon. Gentleman is right that the hon. Member for Dundee, East did, to some extent, bring the Conservative Party into Government earlier than might have been anticipated.
It might be suggested that there is an inconsistency between maintaining that

1313
authorities must make their own decisions and determine their own expenditure priorities and then suggesting to them that they must reduce teacher numbers and thereby lower their staffing standard.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a little cynical of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) to make those points when he campaigned that Scots should make decisions in Scotland? Tayside is making decisions on education for Tayside.
Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is our policy that local authorities should be able to make these decisions in matters of education. The Bill that we debated earlier today—the Education (No. 2) Bill—extends the powers of local authorities to make decisions relating to their expenditure priorities.
Provided that authorities keep within the expenditure limits set by the RSG order, I agree that it is open to them to determine their expenditure priorities among services and within services as they think fit. But the proviso is an important one. Moreover, in a position where primary pupil numbers are falling steadily, it appears to reflect an unusual sense of values for teacher numbers actually to increase and to reflect, with a national pupil-teacher ratio of 20·3 to 1, staffing standards substantially in excess of those recommended in SED circular 1029. The ratio required in 1979–80 by these standards was a national one of 22·1 to 1. The difference between the two ratios accounts for about 1,900 teachers. I have said on a previous occasion that that is a cost of about £15 million, which is a significant part of the Scottish education budget.
The recommendations in the circular were made after extensive consultations both with authorities and with teachers' associations and were in line with the previous Government's expenditure plans for 1979–80. There is really no truth in the suggestion that there is an educational crisis in Tayside because of Government policy or that there is an educational crisis in any other part of Scotland.
The only educational crisis that we are facing is that a number of local authorities are not facing the expenditure implications for which they are
1314
responsible. They are not looking after the interests of their ratepayers as they should.
Certainly, the Government are doing everything in their power to persuade Scottish local authorities of their own responsibilities. In making their decisions, they must face up to decisions that are sometimes a little difficult and unpleasant. They should not duck those issues and leave them for central Government while they spend money in what they consider to be a popular way, although often it is in a spendthrift way.
It would be misleading to imply that adherence to the standards recommended in the circular to which I have referred would result in a lowering of standards or that there is some law of nature which provides that the size of classes must automatically go on getting smaller every year, even in times of severe economic difficulty when it is imperative to achieve a reduction in public expenditure by every possible means.
In fact, we have provided a more favourable pupil-teacher ratio in 1980–81 than was planned for 1979–80 in order to offset the staffing difficulties that obviously result from declining rolls. That point was made clear when the RSG order was presented. The hon. Member for Dundee, East shakes his head, but it is a fact that we have made provision for a more favourable pupil-teacher ratio in 1980–81 than was planned for 1979–80 in order to offset the staffing difficulties to which I have referred.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in the debate on the RSG order that where the basics of education are concerned—that is, the classroom work in our schools—we plan to maintain standards and to make sure that the local authoriites have the financial provision to maintain standards. Opposition Members have made some reference to the Education (No. 2) Bill. If cuts have to be made in education, which, as I have already said, is the largest spender of funds, surely it is wiser—difficult as those decisions might be—to make savings on the peripheral areas of education rather than on the classroom itself.
All expenditure reviews that have taken place have been to make sure that the classroom itself is protected. There is,

1315
therefore, both the scope and necessity for local authorities such as Tayside to bring their staffing levels within the agreed ratios. They can do that without damaging education standards and with out people in the area encouraging scaremongering and other types of activities that do nothing either for education or for the work that the local authorities have to do, whatever their political colour.
1316
In considering questions of expenditure nationally, we would expect Members of Parliament to encourage local authorities to be responsible in their spending. From that point of view, I cannot really imagine what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Cystic Fibrosis (Research)
  Cystic Fibrosis (Research)
  Universities (Research)
  Universities (Research)
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Inner London
  Inner London
  Bradford
  Bradford
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Arrested Persons (Statistics)
  Arrested Persons (Statistics)
  Red Army Choir
  Red Army Choir
  Parish Council Elections
  Parish Council Elections
  Totalisator
  Totalisator
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Immigrants (Police Questioning)
  Immigrants (Police Questioning)
  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Trade Unionists (Grants)
  Overseas Trade Unionists (Grants)
  Bolivia
  Bolivia
  Aid
  Aid
  LICHFIELD
  LICHFIELD
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  ECONOMIC POLICY
  ECONOMIC POLICY
  FRASERBURGH
  FRASERBURGH
  MAY DAY PUBLIC HOLIDAY
  MAY DAY PUBLIC HOLIDAY
  SLOUGH
  SLOUGH
  TAMESIDE
  TAMESIDE
  TUC
  TUC
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  NURSES AND MIDWIVES (PAY)
  NURSES AND MIDWIVES (PAY)
  OSLO
  OSLO
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  CABINET MINISTERS
  CABINET MINISTERS
EMPLOYMENT
  Public Employees
  Public Employees
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Farm Safety
  Farm Safety
  Unfair Dismissal and Redundancy Claims
  Unfair Dismissal and Redundancy Claims
  Greater London Council Area
  Greater London Council Area
  Jobcentre, Liverpool (Advertisements)
  Jobcentre, Liverpool (Advertisements)
  Lost Working Days
  Lost Working Days
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Skillcentre (Doncaster)
  Skillcentre (Doncaster)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Handicapped and Elderly Persons (Telephones)
  Handicapped and Elderly Persons (Telephones)
  Coastal Vessels (Surveillance)
  Coastal Vessels (Surveillance)
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
WALES
  Bridgend (Unemployed)
  Bridgend (Unemployed)
  Wales TUC
  Wales TUC
  Handicapped and Elderly Persons (Telephones)
  Handicapped and Elderly Persons (Telephones)
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
DEFENCE
  REME Properties (Bordon)
  REME Properties (Bordon)
  Missile Sites (Gainsborough)
  Missile Sites (Gainsborough)
  Land and Barracks (Shoeburyness)
  Land and Barracks (Shoeburyness)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Guaranteed Prices
  Guaranteed Prices
CIVIL SERVICE
  Official Report (Index)
  Official Report (Index)
  Manpower
  Manpower
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Library
  Library
ENERGY
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Gas Prices
  Gas Prices
  Gas Industry
  Gas Industry
  Commercial Fast Reactor 1
  Commercial Fast Reactor 1
  Pressure Water Reactors
  Pressure Water Reactors
  Oil Import Tax
  Oil Import Tax
  North Sea Oil (Licences)
  North Sea Oil (Licences)
  Nuclear Installations (Health and Safety)
  Nuclear Installations (Health and Safety)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Professor Yuri Orlov
  Professor Yuri Orlov
  Guyana (Prime Minister)
  Guyana (Prime Minister)
  Yugoslavia
  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Paul McCartney
  Mr. Paul McCartney
  Deep Sea Fishing (South Atlantic)
  Deep Sea Fishing (South Atlantic)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Corporate Taxation
  Corporate Taxation
  Exchequer and Audit Act
  Exchequer and Audit Act
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Capital Allowances (Shops and Warehouses)
  Capital Allowances (Shops and Warehouses)
  Estate Duty (Property in Lieu)
  Estate Duty (Property in Lieu)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
TRADE
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Cutlery
  Cutlery
  Insolvency
  Insolvency
  Airports (Construction)
  Airports (Construction)
  Car Tyres
  Car Tyres
  Holiday Caravans and Chalets
  Holiday Caravans and Chalets
  Building Societies and Insurance Companies
  Building Societies and Insurance Companies
TRANSPORT
  Disabled Persons (Orange Badges)
  Disabled Persons (Orange Badges)
  Bedford Western Relief Road
  Bedford Western Relief Road
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  M25 (Swanley—Sevenoaks)
  M25 (Swanley—Sevenoaks)
  A30
  A30
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
  Motorways (Construction)
  Motorways (Construction)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Optical Charges
  Optical Charges
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Industrial Dispute (Benefits)
  Industrial Dispute (Benefits)
  Expenditure Cuts
  Expenditure Cuts
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Abortion Law Reform
  Abortion Law Reform
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  MIND
  MIND
  Rampton Hospital
  Rampton Hospital
  Vaccine-damaged Children
  Vaccine-damaged Children
  Elderly Persons (White Paper)
  Elderly Persons (White Paper)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Elderly Persons (Care)
  Elderly Persons (Care)
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Secure Psychiatric Units
  Secure Psychiatric Units
  Medium Security Units
  Medium Security Units
  Accident and Emergency Services (Bromsgrove and Redditch)
  Accident and Emergency Services (Bromsgrove and Redditch)
  Additional Heating Allowance
  Additional Heating Allowance
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Local Authority Social Services
  Local Authority Social Services
  Elderly Persons (Residential Accommodation)
  Elderly Persons (Residential Accommodation)
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Geriatric Beds (Southampton)
  Geriatric Beds (Southampton)
  Severely and Terminally Ill Patients
  Severely and Terminally Ill Patients
  Health and Hospital Services (North-West)
  Health and Hospital Services (North-West)
  Electricity Discount Scheme
  Electricity Discount Scheme
  Patient-General Practitioner Ratio
  Patient-General Practitioner Ratio
  Consultant Surgeons (Shrewsbury)
  Consultant Surgeons (Shrewsbury)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Staffordshire)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Staffordshire)
  Benefit Claimants (Forms)
  Benefit Claimants (Forms)
  European Community (Reciprocal Medical Care)
  European Community (Reciprocal Medical Care)
  Voluntary Organisations
  Voluntary Organisations
  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Fuel Prices
  Fuel Prices
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Benefits (Payment)
  Benefits (Payment)
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Latchkey Children
  Latchkey Children
  Handicapped and Elderly Persons (Telephones)
  Handicapped and Elderly Persons (Telephones)
  Foetal Cell Development
  Foetal Cell Development
  Medical Research
  Medical Research
  Road Accidents (Hospital Fees)
  Road Accidents (Hospital Fees)
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  Warren Farm Road Health Clinic
  Warren Farm Road Health Clinic
  Accident Fees
  Accident Fees
  Pregnancy Advisory Service
  Pregnancy Advisory Service
  Dependent Handicapped Persons
  Dependent Handicapped Persons
  Health and Personal Social Services
  Health and Personal Social Services
  Steel Industry Workers (Benefits)
  Steel Industry Workers (Benefits)
ENVIRONMENT
  Rateable Value Limits
  Rateable Value Limits
  Housing Improvement Programme
  Housing Improvement Programme
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Local Authority Housing Departments (Employees)
  Local Authority Housing Departments (Employees)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Christchurch (Flood Compensation)
  Christchurch (Flood Compensation)
  Building Access (Handicapped Persons)
  Building Access (Handicapped Persons)
  Control of Pollution Act
  Control of Pollution Act
  Building Regulation Procedure
  Building Regulation Procedure
  Afan Borough Council
  Afan Borough Council
  Fair Rents
  Fair Rents
  Public Construction Projects
  Public Construction Projects
  Housing Investment Programme (Liverpool)
  Housing Investment Programme (Liverpool)
SCOTLAND
  Robroyston Hospital
  Robroyston Hospital
  Canniesburn Hospital, Bearsden
  Canniesburn Hospital, Bearsden
  Woodilee Hospital, Lenzie
  Woodilee Hospital, Lenzie
  Dog and Game Licences
  Dog and Game Licences
  Handicapped Persons (Telephones)
  Handicapped Persons (Telephones)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

THE POPE'S APPEAL FOR DISARMAMENT
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 congratulate Pope John Paul II on his New Year appeal to all nations to end the nuclear arms race during the 1980s and assure him that they will co-operate with the Vatican and United Nations Member States to achieve the fulfilment of this aim.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government welcome Pope John Paul's expression of concern about the arms race. We have made clear our continuing commitment to work internationally for realistic and verifiable measures of disarmament.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that many of us who are not Catholics revere the Pope for his leadership in this matter? Is there not hope, with millions of Catholics in the world, for the fulfilment of General Eisenhower's prophecy, that the time will come when the peoples will so demand an end to the arms race that Governments will be compelled to agree? It has been announced today that Her Majesty the Queen is to meet the Pope in Rome in the autumn. Would she convey the congratulations of the Government to the Pope?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I share and agree with what the noble Lord said about the Pope. I am not a Catholic either, but I have the highest
670
regard for him, as the noble Lord does, and I certainly share the hope that general disarmament can one day be achieved. But we think the way forward is by selective and effective measures which, above all, can be properly verified, and so far while that has not proved impossible it has proved very difficult. With regard to the Queen's forthcoming visit to Rome, the audience which Her Majesty will have with His Holiness will be entirely private and I cannot forecast what will take place between them.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to ask His Holiness the Pope what his opinion is of the example we are setting by spending £1,000 million on modernising the Polaris missile fleet?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that a Geneva committee is considering the recommendations of the Special Assembly of the United Nations and will be reporting in 1982 to the United Nations, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will support in that committee the proposals for disarmament which have been made in order to fulfil the Pope's hope?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we will support any proposal which is likely to be effective and which can be properly verified.

MAY DAY AND PUBLIC HOLIDAYS
2.40 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend that there will continue to be a public holiday on May Day.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, there is no regular bank holiday on May Day. The first Monday in May is a bank holiday. The Government have no plans to alter it.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer,

671
but is it not true that this day represents International Labour Day, which is best known and epitomised by the march through Moscow of all their armed might demonstrating their ability to destroy the world, including the Labour unions, and is it not therefore a singularly inapt celebration to hold?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am not quite prepared to concede to my noble friend, or to any Marxist, the monopoly of May. May is a time when we should all be able to enjoy ourselves regardless of our political complexion.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is perfectly ridiculous to have three public holidays in a period of eight weeks, most of which, if one looks at the records, are extremely wet? One then does not get another holiday for three months, or another one after that for four months. Is it not time that we brought a bit of common sense into the arrangements for public holidays?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I will take the noble Baroness's opinions into account, but I would point out to her as a stern European, as all Members of the Liberal Party are, that almost all European countries observe a public holiday at the beginning of May.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to be helpful to the House by burying this old blue herring of a chestnut by publishing in the Official Report a full list of the countries throughout the world which celebrate Labour Day on 1st May and, in doing so, pointing out specifically that some of the most Left-wing countries in the world, such as Argentina, Brazil and Chile, celebrate it?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot congratulate the noble Lord on his choice of metaphors, but, as I pointed out, there is in fact not a holiday on Labour Day in this country; there is, however, a bank holiday on the first Monday in May.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, can the Minister confirm or deny the rumour that the Government had
672
thought of transferring this holiday to Primrose Day but that none of them could remember when Primrose Day was?
The Earl of GOWRIE: I think that is a yellow herring, my Lords.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, does the Minister not think that if the questioner took this Question to Lord Denning he would achieve his objective?

EASTERN EUROPE: DISCRIMINATION IN POLICY
2.42 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: 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 give an assurance that measures taken by the United Kingdom, our NATO allies and other like-minded countries to bring home to the Soviet Union the seriousness of the invasion of Afghanistan, will not be indiscriminately applied to the Soviet satellite countries in Eastern Europe.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): Yes, my Lords; that is our present policy in consultation with our NATO allies and with the Nine.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am grateful for that encouraging reply. Does it mean not only that the Kremlin's sins will not automatically be visited on the formerly independent countries of Eastern and Central Europe, but that among them too there is a clear case for discrimination based perhaps on the degree of support they give to the Soviet Union and the extent to which they comply with their promises under the Helsinki Final Act; and should not such a policy be reflected in the provision of credits, for instance to Poland, whose Government measures are very well known in both respects and whose shortage of hard currency is very severe indeed?
Lord CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords; we have noted differences of emphasis in the support of the Eastern European

673
countries for the Soviet Union's action in Afghanistan, and we shall reflect that in our policy towards them.

THE BBC'S RUSSIAN LANGUAGE COURSE
2.44 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm that the Treasury have not made special monies available to the BBC for teaching the Russian language on television.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I so confirm.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that these broadcasts portray the Soviet Union in such a favourable light that they actually extol the virtues of Communism and as a result help to persuade certain people to support the Olympic Games in Moscow? Secondly, is it not time that the whole of our country supported our Prime Minister and the President of the United States in these matters?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I have not seen the programme to which my noble friend is referring. However, the BBC has editorial responsibility for the content of its programmes within the general rules prescribed by its charter and licence agreement. In the exercise of this responsibility the BBC acknowledges a duty to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord BELSTEAD: Well, my Lords, in this case the BBC decided to proceed with a series entitled, "Russian Language and People", but, as your Lordships may have noticed, the BBC is reported to have shelved another series entitled, "Journey through Russia". I really am certain that these are matters for the BBC, not for the Government.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that these programmes were decided on prior to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and that they have in no way been altered since that invasion?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I understand from the newspaper reports that these programmes were filmed and planned long before the Afghanistan invasion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinner will be available tonight.
RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX BILL
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Cockfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.47 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Suspect or potential witness may he required by constable to identify himself]:
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: In opening this Committee stage of the Bill I should like to point out that there are a number of amendments in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Wigoder. My noble friend is, I understand, detained elsewhere but may be able to be here later in the afternoon. Before I embark upon the amendments in detail, I wonder whether it may be permissible for me to make a few general comments in order both to put our amendments in the proper context and to draw to your Lordships' attention the difficulty that we have experienced in preparing the amendments which we have thought appropriate.
During the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on several occasions went out of his way to emphasise that Clauses 1 to 6 of the Bill, which are the clauses with which I and my noble friends are particularly concerned, derive from the second report of the Thomson Committee, which was published in 1975. As reported at column 14 of the Official Report of 15th January, 1980, the noble Earl said that he acknowledged that some of the matters contained in the Bill, in particular these early clauses, Clauses 1 to 6, would arouse controversy. However, he said this:
"…our proposals differ only in detail from"
the Bill which was introduced by the Labour Government in the last Parliament; and he went on to say:
"…both are firmly based on Thomson recommendations".
Elsewhere, he reinforced that point. At column 15, for example, he said:
"The first two clauses …are derived from the recommendations of the Thomson Committee in its second report".
Then, at column 17, dealing with Clause 2—that is the clause which gives these new powers of detention and interrogation to the police—he said:
"This is a necessary power recommended by the Thomson Committee …".
I draw your Lordships' attention to that matter, if I may, because what the noble Earl did not tell us on that occasion was that in a number of ways, some of
676
them of very considerable importance, the Bill in fact departs from the recommendations of the Thomson Report. What is more important is that in every instance where it departs from the recommendations of the Thomson Committee it reduces or abolishes the safeguards which the Thomson Committee had considered essential for the protection of the rights of the subject; and some of these safeguards were safeguards which the Thomson Committee itself described as essential. In the course of our deliberations on this Bill this afternoon and this evening I shall be seeking to draw attention to the many occasions on which this Bill indeed departs from the Thomson Committee recommendations, either by whittling down the safeguards that the Thomson Committee proposes or, indeed, by abandoning them altogether.
In the course of the Second Reading debate the noble Earl also spoke in somewhat severe terms of some of the people who have expressed anxieties about this Bill, and, if I may, I would quote to the Committee the words he used at column 18:
"Taking the provisions in Clauses 1 to 4 generally, I want to emphasise strongly from the outset that, despite the misguided assertions of various vociferous groups and individuals in Scotland, these are provisions limited both in nature and in time, and no more than are essential for the police in their functions of investigating and preventing crime".
I have to say that when the noble Earl speaks in that way about the people who have expressed concern about Clauses 1 to 4 and the powers which are given to the police under them, not only is he disagreeing with the people whom he describes as a vociferous and misguided group but he is also disagreeing with the unanimous recommendations of the Thomson Committee, who made it perfectly clear that they regarded it as essential that the further powers which they sought to give to the police should have safeguards built in for the protection of the rights of the accused or the suspect.
I am taking leave to mention these general matters at the outset for three (I suggest) important reasons. The first of them is that, in my humble opinion, the first eight chapters of the Thomson Committee's Report are a singularly useful and cogent argument on the question which has perplexed us all for many years:

677
the question of where you draw the line between the powers to be given to the police and the rights of the individual. Secondly, I do not myself dissent from the general proposition that in some important respects the powers of the police both in Scotland and in England and Wales are less today than they ought to be—are not, indeed, adequate. We live in a changing world, and it would be an odd thing if, in this world of high technology and the rest in which we live, the powers which were given to the police 50 or 100 years ago were sufficient to deal with the problems of modern crime. Therefore, I do not dissent from that view; and I am certainly not one of those who joins in a general condemnation of the recommendations of the Thomson Committee.
The necessity to give additional powers to the police in the pre-trial period is all the greater because in Scotland, as I understand it, you cannot take anybody into detention without arresting him; and, as a result, unless you employ irregular means there is no way in which the police in Scotland can legally interrogate a suspect without first of all charging him—and then, of course, all the safeguards about cautioning and the rest come into effect. Therefore, whatever may be the situation in England and Wales, I am satisfied that, on balance, it is probably necessary that certain additional powers should be given to the police in order to enable them legally to interrogate people who are still in the suspect stage and who are not yet arrested.
Finally, I should like to say that I also readily accept the general premise on which the Thomson Committee recommendations are based. If the Committee would agree—and this will conclude what I have to say, I think, in general upon this matter—I would quote from the introduction to that part of the Thomson Committee Report dealing with the procedures before trial. This was the way in which they saw their task—and I am quoting now from paragraph 2.02 of Chapter 2 of the committee's report. There they quote with approval what was said by Lord Wheatley in a case in 1967, when he said:
"While the law of Scotland has always very properly regarded fairness to an accused person as being an integral part of the administration of justice, fairness is not a unilateral consideration. Fairness to the public is also a legitimate consideration, and in so far as police officers in the
678
exercise of their duties are prosecuting and protecting the public interest, it is the function of the court to seek to provide a proper balance to secure that the rights of individuals are properly preserved, while not hamstringing the police in their investigation of crime with a series of academic vetoes which ignore the realities and practicabilities of the situation and discount completely the public interest".
They went on, on what is one of the major themes of the whole report, certainly so far as the early clauses of this Bill are concerned, to emphasise that what they were trying to do is something we have all been trying to do for a very long time, and that is to strike a fair balance between the duties of the police in trying to prevent and indeed to detect crime, on the one hand, and the rights of the individual citizen, on the other.
It is on this account that I and, I think, my noble friends feel very considerable concern when we find that the balance which was proposed and set out in the Thomson Committee Report—a balance which they arrived at after long consideration, and which they arrived at unanimously—has not been maintained in this Bill; and, indeed, that when the balance has been tipped, as it has been tipped, it has always in this Bill been tipped in favour of additional police powers and against the safeguards which the Thomson Committee thought were essential.
I draw attention to this general matter for a particular reason. Perhaps I may explain this difficulty to the noble Earl, whereupon, I am sure, he will appreciate it. When we came to the task of devising what amendments we thought were suitable to this Bill and to these clauses, there were two ways in which the matter could have been approached. One of them would have been to propose amendments which would put back into the Bill the safeguards which Thomson recommended and which have been omitted. That is what we have attempted to do in Amendments Nos. 10 and 20. Those are two examples of the way in which we have by amendments tried to put back in the Bill what Thomson recomended.
But we are faced with this situation. Supposing that the Government reject those amendments and refuse to put back these safeguards into the Bill or, if there were to be a Division on the matter, we were voted down, what else can we do except to propose amendments

679
to the text of the present Bill which would cut down the powers which are given under it to the police? On Thomson's own argument, unless those powers are cut down and if the safeguards which Thomson provided are not provided, then we shall have a Bill which is very different from that which the Thomson Committee intended. I apologise for the length of that introduction. I hope it may serve to shorten what I have to say at a later stage of the Committee.
I now turn to Amendment No. 1 and, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 1 to 9 with the exception only of Amendment No. 2. All these amendments are directed to one simple point. In passing, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who has been good enough to make some detailed amendments to my amendments to make them more intelligible.
What does Clause 1 of the Bill provide? It provides a new power whereby where a constable—mainly, I understand, in the street—sees an offence being committed or considers that an offence has been committed, he shall have the power to do two things. He shall have the power to detain and make to stay with him any person he suspects of having committed that offence, and also he is empowered to require that person to provide his name and address and to give any explanation that he may have to offer upon the matter which has aroused the constable's suspicion. The clause then goes on to do something quite additional to that. It goes on to provide that not only may the constable temporarily detain a suspect but he may also temporarily detain anybody who he thinks may have useful information about the suspected offence; and that, roughly, is the person whom I would regard as a witness—a perfectly innocent person, on the face of it, but one who happens to have been present or who happens, in the constable's view, to be in a position to give some useful information. The constable is entitled to require that person to give his name and address.
It goes further than that; because he can not only require that the witness stays with him until the witness himself has been identified, but can use reasonable
680
force to restrain the witness and to keep him by his side. If the witness (this wholly innocent person, as it must be assumed) either fails to give his name and address or gives an inaccurate name and address or fails to remain with the constable "without reasonable excuse", as the Bill says, then, in those circumstances, not only does the witness commit an offence for which subsequently he can be fined but also he is open to immediate arrest and to be taken into custody.
At the Second Reading of this Bill I sought to use an illustration of how this power could be used. I took the case of a police constable who comes across a vehicle that he thinks to be parked in an improper place. Because this clause applies to any kind of offence whatever—from murder down to a parking offence—in those circumstances the constable could turn to somebody, perhaps some old lady, who happens to be standing about and who may have seen the way in which the car was parked, and say to her, "I want your name and address". She may give it or she may not. He can then go on to say, "Not only do I want your name and address but you are going to stay here until I have had the opportunity to verify that what you have told me about your name and address is true". As I tried to point out at Second Reading, there are two possibilities. One is that the person complies, in which case he or she stands around until the police constable thinks fit to release him or her or has had an opportunity to verify the accuracy of the statement of identity; or the person may say—and, surely, reasonably and properly so—"I do not want to stay around here. I do not want to get involved in this. I had nothing to do with it. I have an urgent appointment and I do not want to stay with you here for as long as you care to detain me". If the person says that, he is open to immediate arrest and could be taken into custody for no better reason than a failure to give the information of identity or a failure to stay with the constable while he requires it. Indeed, the constable can seize the old lady, using reasonable force, and say, "You are going to stay here until I choose to release you"
I do not think that the implications of this part of the Bill have been properly comprehended even by the Government

681
themselves. There was the other day a letter from Mr. Rifkind written from the Scottish Office in Edinburgh to the New Statesman in which Mr. Rifkind was highly critical of an article which had been written by a Mr. Ditton. In that letter he said:
"Mr. Ditton is now in a position to see his own mistakes by examining more closely the provisions of the Bill but perhaps I ought to correct some of his more glaring distortions".
Then Mr. Rifkind goes on to say:
"A potential witness could not be detained. All that the Bill allows a constable to do is to keep a witness with him for the purpose of obtaining without reasonable delay his correct name and address".
That is transparently inaccurate because if the person does not comply with the police demand that person can be detained and arrested. If there are any misunderstandings of the purpose of the Bill, and of this clause in particular, the misunderstandings are not confined to those who express concern about the Bill. It is perfectly true—I do not attempt to dispute this—that in general the powers which are given to the police under Clause 1 are not very different from those which were envisaged by the Thomson Committee. I concede that at once. I admit there may be circumstances—they are exceptional—where proper police inquiries may be frustrated by the refusal of a witness to give his own particulars and to allow those to be investigated and confirmed.
The Thomson Committee used only one illustration to justify what they were recommending so far as witnesses are concerned. They took the case of a commotion or assault taking place in a dance hall. They pointed out that on such an occasion it might not only be important to take the names and addresses of those suspected of the assault, but also helpful if the names and addresses of other people present were taken. I concede at once the validity of that. It would be helpful in such circumstances for the police to have this right to demand the identity of persons and to arrest them if they do not give it.
I would judge that in the vast majority of cases the police are in no way frustrated by a failure of potential witnesses to give information about their identity. I said on Second Reading—and I repeat it now—that in some 40 or 45 years' experience of
682
practice in the magistrates' courts in this country I can remember no occasion when the police have complained that they have been unable to perform their proper function by reason of the fact that a witness refused to identify himself.
The question I ask about this amendment is: is it really worth it to provide these draconian powers over witnesses of this kind—something we have never seen before in our criminal law history—incurring all the animosity and odium which that is likely to incur for the purpose of dealing with the very few exceptional cases where there is difficulty in identifying a witness? We in the West Country are fortunate in having a very distinguished chief constable, Mr. Alderson—not to be mixed up with somebody of a similar name in Manchester. One of the splendid things and triumphant successes which have met the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall is what he calls his policy of community policing. He has emphasised over and over again that the police cannot satisfactorily perform the duties which are their responsibility unless they have the confidence and the trust of the community as a whole.
What is the point of giving policemen powers to say to a wholly innocent person: "If you do not tell me who you are and allow me to check up, I am going to arrest you"? What is the purpose of doing something like that? I suggest that for a very small gain under this provision which I seek to remove we are going to do irreparable damage to the trust and confidence which should exist between the police and the public. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am sure that the Committee is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for having very helpfully, in moving his first amendment, given some background to the reasons for the amendments which have been placed on the Marshalled List by him and his noble friend Lord Wigoder concerning the first few clauses in the Bill. I was glad to hear him say—because this is something which is common to most of us, judging from the speeches on the Second Reading and other comments that have been made—that he recognises that some additional powers are needed by the police in Scotland. It is important that

683
that should be registered and that is something with which I agree. I also agree that it is an exceedingly difficult and delicate matter to find precisely the right balance in formulating the new powers and also then in managing to draft them in a Bill with the greatest clarity. So we have a difficult task in trying to make sure that the first five or six clauses in the Bill are as right as we can get them.
The noble Lord referred particularly to the Thomson Committee and to Clause 4. Another body, the Scottish Council on Crime, consisting of 24 very distinguished persons of great experience from all walks of life in Scotland and with the noble Lord, Lord Hunter—a prominent and well-known Scottish judge—in the chair, also submitted a report in its memorandum of March, 1975—
Lord FOOT: I wonder whether the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt. I said at the outset that my amendments were directed to Clauses 1 to 6, and that of course includes Clause 4. But the noble Lord may have realised that I have suggested no amendment to Clause 4 of this Bill. The powers of search under that clause are right and correct.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am very glad to have elicited that, because the noble Lord will find that he said in his remarks at one point "Clauses 1 to 4". That made me realise that he has clearly addressed himself to everything that has been produced by the Thomson Committee, but he may have not realised—as is stated in the Bill—that the Bill is founded on the reports of other bodies as well. I felt that I must say something on behalf of the Scottish Council on Crime, because I had the responsibility of bringing the council into existence and appointing it in 1972. It reported to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and he wrote a very polite foreword to the report and congratulated the council upon its work and commended it for the study of everyone concerned.
The contents of Clause 4 are very similar to the recommendation in that report—on page 46—which, after having considered the balance between the need for police powers of search and the question of intrusion into the freedom of the individual, came down very
684
definitely in favour of powers of search. Simply for the record, if for nothing else, because the noble Lord has referred to one report and also to Clauses 1 to 4, I thought that this should be mentioned as well.
3.19 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: We are not dealing with Clause 4 at the present time; we are dealing with the Thomson Committee recommendations. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned the Thomson Committee. I set it up; but when I go to the Printed Paper Office I cannot even get a copy of the report. That is the paper on which the most important matters are dependent, and it will be pleaded by the noble Lord the Lord Advocate, or the noble Earl. Lord Mansfield, in support of what they say. My noble friends on this side and the other side of the Committee will have to take for granted that what they are saying is right, because the report is not available; it is out of print.
This is a major change in Scottish law and it may well lead to a change in English law as well if all these matters are acceptable to our noble friends. The point is that we are dealing with it for the first time. The other place has not dealt with it. They have broached another Bill which is not exactly the same as this, and so there has been some discussion. As a matter of fact, in the other place there was a Motion on the Order Paper complaining that this was being dealt with by your Lordships. If it is going to be dealt with by us, we ought to have had the benefit of the Second Report of the Thomson Committee. There are three reports and the one we are concerned with here is the second one, particularly as regards these particular clauses.
I want to deal purely and simply with the amendment before us to delete Clause 1. paragraph (b). I also have an amendment to that as well which follows through to page 2, subsection (2), and another amendment proposing an alteration to subsection (5). What I am concerned about now is not the power of detention in respect of someone who is reasonably suspected, which is a subjective judgment by one policeman. In fact, I wonder how the drafting of this is going on, because we start with one policeman

685
and then we talk about "the policeman". I presume it is that policeman who has got to do all this work on his own. That is what the law says and it is the law we are making, so I hope that somebody is looking at the drafting in respect of all this. But my concern is for, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said, the witness. This is new. What the Thomson Committee says in this area—and it is a shame that I should quote this Committee and no one can verify it—is:
"We recommend that the practice of inviting persons to the police station should be regularised".
The police have no power to do this at the present time, but they are doing it. They go on:
"We are convinced that it will continue if the law remains unchanged".
They will do it anyway, and it can be controlled only by being recognised and made subject to clearly defined limits. There is an argument in relation to that but that is a relation to detention. This does not apply to a witness.
What is going to happen to the witness? He must give his name and address and he must wait while the policeman verifies that name and address. It may well be that someone like an old-age pensioner mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will have his pension book with him, but I do not know whether that is going to be verification. A motorist, of course, may have his driving licence; but it is not up to what they think is reasonable, it is up to "the policeman".
Then there is something in the drafting that a person has:
"…to remain with the constable during such time as the constable may find necessary—
(i) to note that name and address and any explanation proferred;".
Does that apply to the witness as well?-because the basis of holding a witness is that in some way or another he can help the police. But that explanation may take some time, and I can remember a number of cases where it has taken quite a long time. Even a fortnight ago a case came to my notice of a person who was awakened in the middle of the night and asked to go out and verify that it was his car. Having done so and having assured them that the car had not been broken into, opened and nothing taken away, he went back to bed and was awakened again and told that a report was wanted. The police wanted to
686
take the car away for fingerprints. It was only after some argument that they agreed he could take it to his local police station and not be deprived of it for three or four days. There is a tremendous amount of inconvenience involved in this; this is being done without power.
What will be the attitude of the police when they have this power? Is it necessary and is it desirable? It is fair enough to say perhaps that they should give their name and address. Most people would. But then the question of waiting arises. A person may be pressed in relation to business. It is not up to him whether he thinks his excuse is reasonable: it is up to the police. But the police can detain him, using force—and this is in the majority of cases at the present time where people are quite prepared to help the police. What will be the result of this? Not only can they use force but the man can be fined up to, I think, £50 and arrested on the spot. I think this is going a bit far. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Foot, would agree with me, but my amendment leaves out this as it affects the witness and in respect of using force and of being liable to a fine and summary conviction.
When we come to the question of witnesses and co-operation for the police, I do not think we will get it by this kind of legislation. We have the obligation to put name and address, yes. But then you go to the question of allowing a policeman to use force to detain a witness, and then there is further fear in relation to a fine of £50 and immediate arrest—and remember, after all, that this is done. The witness cannot be compelled to give evidence in support of the police. In many cases the result of this treatment is that he will not give evidence in support of the police. I hope that the Lord Advocate will look at this from a practical point of view and think again, certainly about (2)(a), the amendment to subsection (2) and the insertion of "(a)"in line 23, page 2, which is limiting this to the question of the person detained on suspicion. I think the treatment of witnesses here is quite unjustified and will be counterproductive.
3.27 p.m.
Lord GALPERN: I am sure that noble Lords will know full well that it is universally accepted that every police force

687
in the country is suffering from a deficiency in numbers, and it is generally recognised that if the police forces can be brought up to what is regarded as proper strength the incidence of crime would be substantially reduced. The most recent cutting I have of this aspect of the matter concerned the chief constable of Inverness, who said that due to their additional police presence the number of break-ins was beginning to show a significant decline.
If it passed into law, what effect will this clause have upon the utilisation of the members of a diminished police force? I can quite envisage a situation where, in one of the housing schemes, a gang of youths will get together—six, seven, eight or 10 of them—and one will create a bit of a disturbance to distract the attention of the policeman who is passing by; and all the other members of that group are potential witnesses, according to this particular clause. Therefore, the policeman is charged with the duty of going round all the other nine, taking their names and addresses, checking their identifications—and all this refers to a situation where housebreaking is going on, pre-arranged, in the same area while the policeman is busy confirming the names and addresses of all these witnesses at the same time as they have arranged for a housebreaking to take place when the policeman is no longer available.
The whole factor, in my opinion, rests on the fact that we should reject this particular clause or at least support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, because it is going to deploy a diminished police force in doing work which is inimical to the best interests of the general populace. Therefore, I hope we shall be able to reject it this afternoon.
3.30 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD: I have tabled my intention to move that the whole of Clause 1 be deleted, but since by far the most sweeping, innovatory and objectionable part of Clause 1 is covered by the various amendments which have been put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I think it is appropriate that the greater part, at least, of what I have to say about Clause 1 should be said upon the noble Lord's amendments.
688
I suggest to the Committee that the power given in Clause 1 to detain possible informants or possible witnesses to an offence constitutes one of the most immensely far-reaching powers of surveillance and control over our lives which has ever been given to the police in these Islands. It is wholly unwarranted, because when the request is made in reasonable circumstances to a citizen to give his name and address the citizen will normally give it, if he has information to give or is ready to be helpful. But if for some reason he is not ready to give his name and address—for example, because he thinks the request unreasonable, because he does not want to be involved, because he is a little drunk, because he is out with a girl friend or for whatever reason he may have in his mind—then it is not going to profit the police anything to have that name and address in their notebooks, because the citizen is not likely to be particularly helpful to them.
In the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, I posed a number of questions and I make no apology for posing them again, in the hope that they may get some kind of an answer from the Government Front Bench, which they certainly did not get on Second Reading. First, what are the circumstances in which this power is to be exercised? Is it right that it can be exercised in respect of any offence, be it parking, be it illegal drinking after hours, be it obstructing the highway, be it on a picket line, be it selling newspapers or something of that kind? To judge from the drafting of the Bill, that is right.
Secondly, what has to be in the mind of the police officer before he uses this power? As drafted, the Bill says that this request can be made of anyone "who the constable believes has information". There is no requirement as to reasonableness on the part of the police; there is no requirement as to the seriousness of the information or as to the kind of information. It is a blanket power. It is no good the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government, saying that the power will be used only in reasonable circumstances, because if powers are given to police officers they will lawfully use them. The whole history of the granting of new powers short of arrest is that, in the event, they are used far more upon those who are innocent than upon those who are guilty.

689
One has only to look at the statistics of searches under the Misuse of Drugs Act powers, or at charges laid in consequence of the Prevention of Terrorism Act powers to know that any such powers given to the police inevitably impinge far more upon those who are wholly innocent than upon those who are at all guilty.
Then one moves on to the next question. How is this detention for verification to be effected? How long is it likely to take? What do the police have in mind for verification of someone's identity? What steps is it proposed they should take if a driving licence is produced—which may not be good enough for the policeman because it could be stolen—or if an address is provided which turns out to be a real address, but it may not be that the person before the police officer is, in fact, the person who lives there? There is only one sure way of ensuring that some verifiable proof of identity is provided, and that is to require people to carry identity cards with photographs upon them, as we do when we enter the Houses of Parliament. Is that the direction in which the police would have us go? Otherwise, I fail to see—and I ask the noble Lord who is to reply to tell us—how it is proposed that this detention for verification is to work.
Finally, I asked on Second Reading what was to become of the vast amount of information which could be obtained by the use of this power. All kinds of names and addresses could be put into police notebooks in consequence of the use of this power—all those who frequent a particular club where some disturbance has broken out, all those who were to be found on a picket line or all those who were attending some public meeting where there was some kind of an offence committed. We know well that the powers of the police to store information, and then to have it readily obtainable through the use of computers, is growing all the time. The police themselves say that detection is largely a question of having the right information at one's disposal. I challenge the noble Lord who is to reply to tell us that information about people's names and addresses, obtained in certain circumstances—if the police think it proper and useful—is not to be stored up on a computer and used to their detriment, if the need arises.
690
Before I sit down, I would address only one plea to my noble friends on the Front Bench. I urge my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock and my other noble friends to support the amendments which the noble Lords, Lord Foot and Lord Wigoder, have put down. The amendments which have been put down by my noble friend Lord Ross do not go to meet the evil which he himself recognised was likely to flow from this new power. That is because, if the amendments of my noble friend Lord Ross alone were taken up, one would have a situation where the police could lawfully require a person to remain and to give his name and address, but they would not be able to use force or have any particular sanction if the person refused, which is rather an absurd position. It is much better that the whole reference to potential informants should be excised from this clause, if the dangers to which he and I have both adverted are to be avoided.
3.38 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I may respond from this Bench to what my noble friend has just been saying, and deal with matters generally. I think we are in some difficulty as a result of being asked to take nine amendments together when the merits of the amendments are simply not the same. First, owing no doubt to difficulties in obtaining copies of the report referred to, the matter is perhaps not yet as clear as it might be, and I hope by quotation from the second Thomson Report to make the matter clear. The Thomson Committee was set up in 1970 and deliberated for a total of some seven years, but after nearly six years it produced the second Thomson Report which is the one giving rise to this part of the Bill. It dealt with the detention of suspects, and that is largely covered by Clause 2. It dealt separately in Chapter 6 with the detention of witnesses, and I should just like to quote from Chapter 6 in the absence of copies of the report. It stated:
"We do not propose to alter the law so as to require a person to give a statement to the police, but we agree with most of our witnesses, including the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, that there should be a legal duty on anyone the police reasonably believe to be a potential witness to give his name and address. Failure to do so or the giving of a false name and address should be a statutory arrestable offence"

691
That was the unanimous report of an extremely distinguished committee which contained a number of people who have never had any connection whatsoever with either the police or the prosecution service. On the basis of that unanimous recommendation, when we were in government we introduced provisions to allow the detention of a witness for the purposes outlined in this clause. It is right that I should say that. Those who look at the Bill which was introduced in the last Parliament by my honourable friends in another place will see that our powers were along these lines.
It has been said, and said with some cogency, that these powers can be abused. Your Lordships have been given the example of an elderly lady being arrested and of force being used upon her because she declines to give her name or because her name cannot be checked when a tragic offence has been committed. Of course, all things are possible. All powers given to the police are capable of being abused, but if we do not give sufficient powers to the police the absence of power causes a situation from which abuse can grow.
The whole thrust of the Thomson Report was this: let society make a judgment as to what is reasonable and proper in the circumstances; then let the law define the position—what the powers of the police shall be—and then let the courts ensure that those are the powers which the police have and that they do not abuse them. I have the utmost confidence that when the powers are sufficiently defined the courts will have no difficulty and no hesitation in ensuring that the police are kept within the limits of the powers which we in Parliament have defined. That is the intention of the Thomson Report. In my submission, it is an intention which we can accept. We can say: "Of course these powers can be abused, but they will not be". In case they are abused, I have put down an amendment suggesting that in three or four years' time Parliament should look again at these clauses so that if at that stage it is found that the powers have been abused they can be taken away.
There is only one difficulty with which I am left in relation to the first amendment. I am afraid that to some extent one has to look at the nine amendments separately.
692
The first amendment relates to the deletion of paragraph (b) in subsection (1) of Clause 1. I would invite your Lordships' attention to the wording there, which follows similar wording in Clause 1(1)(a). This wording permits a constable to require a person to stay with the constable in order that the constable may take a note of his name and address and verify the name and address. But where is it that the constable may exercise this power? If I may quote from the Bill:
"any…person whom the constable finds at that place…"
that is to say, at any place where an offence is being committed, the locus of the crime; that is all right—
"…or at any place where the constable is entitled to be …"
Now that is going very far. Certainly it goes further than our Bill proposed and it also goes further than the Thomson Committee proposed. Because where is a constable entitled to be? I live in a nice street in Edinburgh called Cluny Avenue. If a constable comes to my door, knocks on it and says, "A crime has been committed in your street; can I come in and speak to you?" I will certaily admit him into my house. He is then entitled to be in my house. If he finds my son, or my guest, or my son's guest, or anybody else in my house, then the constable, under this clause, is in a place where he is entitled to be. He could then demand the name and address of any person who is there and could require him to remain with the constable for long enough and he would be entitled to use reasonable force. I think that that is going unnecessarily far.
Our Bill suggested that the constable could exercise this power at the locus of the crime or in any public place. The only place mentioned in the Thomson Report is a dance hall, which is a public place. One would have thought that the Government might have been content with that rather than with the much wider power.
The other thing which is slightly odd about this is that there is no restriction about time. When a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence, which may have been committed six months before, and he finds any person in any place where the constable is entitled to be, he may detain that person. This is extremely

693
widely drawn. However, I suppose that the police can properly be trusted, in the light of my general observations, not to abuse this power, though it may be that the Government ought to look again to see whether it can be more tightly drawn in order that it may give effect to what the Thomson Committee recommended.
I would not, in the circumstances, support these nine amendments. However, I should like very briefly to express my views upon each of them once we come to each. I think that the noble Earl may find that it is necessary to do the same.
The EARL of MANSFIELD: Just to clear up a possible doubt, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said at the opening of his remarks that he was not speaking to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Lord FOOT: I was not speaking to Amendment No. 2 because that deals with another matter. However, while I am on my feet, may I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that the effect of my Amendments Nos. 1 to 9, excluding Amendment No. 2, is simply to remove altogether the witness from the exercise of these powers. That is the whole purpose of my amendments and that is the extent to which they go.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I should like to comment on this group of amendments which we are discussing. In moving them, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, made, as always, a moderate and reasonable speech. I do not think that on many occasions in the past I have differed substantially from the central thrust of the noble Lord's speeches on matters of this kind, but I am bound to say that today he did not carry me with him, largely for the reasons which have been given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. However, I very much agreed with what the noble Lord said about the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, in the light of a particularly objectionable attack which has just been launched upon him. Anybody who knows anything about community policing in Devon and Cornwall—as does the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and I am glad to say that I know something about it, too—regards the statement which was recently made on this matter by an honourable gentleman in another place as particularly mischievous and as
694
bearing absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the facts.
I apologise for the fact that I am going fairly wide of this group of amendments, although a number of other speakers have already done so. I think that the issue before us today raises a matter of substantial importance and also questions of great difficulty. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has alluded to one or two of these in the speech which he has just made. I accept that it is essential to give adequate protection to the criminal defendant or to a person who is in the kind of situation which is envisaged in Clause 1 of the Bill. The question, however, is how do we keep a reasonable balance between the rights of the accused and the need of society to ensure the conviction of the guilty? It is exceptionally difficult to get this balance right.
Some people, I know, believe that the powers which are already available to the police—the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, confirmed this in the speech which he made—are both harsh and oppressive. Many others, including inevitably a very large number of people in the Police Service both in England and Wales and in Scotland, regard their present powers as seriously inadequate. It is only fair for me to say at the outset that I tend to lean towards the second of these two views. I hope that my own dedication to the cause of civil liberty is at least the equal of that of any other Member of your Lordships' House. However, I believe that there are significant dangers in allowing the situation to which I have referred to continue. In many respects, I believe that the powers available to the police are inadequate. The matter is dealt with in this Bill so far as Scotland is concerned, and of course the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure is at the moment looking at the question of the powers available to the police in England and Wales.
Everybody who takes the view which I have just expressed would accept, I hope, that any change in the law of the kind which seems to be envisaged in this Bill must be justified by substantial evidence. I believe that so far as this Bill is concerned that evidence in most respects is available in the reports which have formed the basis of the Bill. I am bound to admit that I was a little puzzled, as

695
perhaps a number of other Members of your Lordships' House also were, by the letter which appeared in The Times today from the President of the Glasgow Bar Association, Mr. Desmond Queen. He wrote, if I may quote him:
"The incorporation of recommendations from so many committees in one Bill (arguably the most important piece of legislation on matters criminal in Scotland this century) causes justifiable concern. That concern—despite the reported remarks of Lord Mansfield—is vociferous but by no means misguided".
I should now like to say two things about that letter in The Times First, why should there be any concern that so many recommendations of various committees should be incorporated in one Bill? It seems to me to be both right and sensible that this should have been done and, in any event, people really cannot have it both ways. Normally—and I am glad that we have here my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, who always takes a very keen interest in matters of this sort—the complaint is made, and sometimes justifiably, that recommendations made by committees are ignored by Governments. Now the complaint appears to be that recommendations are made and then are acted upon by Governments.
The second point made by Mr. Queen is that the concern to which he referred is vociferous. That does not surprise me in any way. I fear I am no longer surprised by the fact that many who regard themselves as radicals become Conservatives overnight when any proposal is made to change the criminal law. I was at the Home Office between 1966 and 1967 as personal assistant to the then Home Secretary, and I recall from that period of about 21 months the fierce row which was provoked by our decision to move away from the principle of unanimity in jury trials. I should tell the Committee that there was powerful evidence to justify that action. Not only were trials being aborted after weeks or months as a result of the refusal to convict, on absolutely overwhelming evidence, by a single incorrigible juror, but we also knew that a number of sophisticated criminals were becoming expert in tampering with juries. Nevertheless we found fierce opposition to that proposal. We were opposed both outside Parliament and within it.
696
The Committee has just heard a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in which he said that the recommendations in this Bill are among the most far-reaching—I think he used rather more extravagant language than I am using—that have ever been put before Parliament. That is what was said about the proposals which we put forward to another place and to this House at that time. A former President of the Law Society said that our proposals were based on the insufficiently considered hunches of a few eminent men and arose from—and I quote—"a state of near hysteria". The civil liberties organisation said that the public confidence in the administration of criminal justice would be badly shaken if the principle of unanimity were abandoned. Then, The Times said:
"Confidence in the justice of criminal proceedings can only be impaired by the abandonment of a principle of unanimity in a society which has known no other for 600 years".
In Parliament we were fiercely opposed by Members, perfectly justifiably according to their views: from Members on the Government side of the House and also from many Conservative lawyers. But I am glad to say that we received the doughty support of the present Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone.
The change was made. I think it is only right to recognise what actually happened as a result of these changes, and it is highly relevant because exactly the same predictions of imminent doom are being made so far as this Bill is concerned. Did English justice as we knew it come to an end overnight? Of course not. All the wild predictions of disaster were proved to be almost entirely baseless. I know of no one who now seriously suggests that we should turn the clock back and return to the principle of unanimity. As I have said, exactly the same exaggerated claims are now being made both in Scotland and here; and, if I may say so, a fair illustration of that was the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in speaking on Clause 1 of this Bill. And I think they will prove to be equally misplaced. What is suggested so far as the overall proposals in this clause are concerned I consider to be generally sensible and worthwhile. I certainly would not at the moment wish to take any view on the

697
matters raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on the drafting of this clause, where indeed there may be some significant justification for the points which he has made.
In conclusion on this particular amendment, replying to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, if it is said, as I understand it was by the noble Lord, that in the whole of his experience as a lawyer in this country he has never known a case where a witness has refused to give his name, that only proves one thing and that is that presumably this power will not be used in Scotland at all and therefore no particular problem arises from it. But if I may say so to him, a very large number of police officers, in England and Wales and in Scotland, would in fact disagree with him. They would say that this is a significant problem, and I believe it is right to deal with it in this Bill. Broadly speaking, I think Clause 1 is about right and I certainly propose to support it.
Lord FOOT: Before the noble Lord sits down may I correct him. I said no such thing. I did not say that in the course of my experience as a lawyer I had never come across a case where anybody had ever refused to give his name and address. Of course I said nothing so stupid. What I said was that I could not recollect any case in which the police had complained that their proper activities had been thwarted by the refusal of a witness to give his name and address.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: All I would say to the noble Lord is that I do know of a great deal of evidence that the police have been thwarted. I had a great deal of knowledge of this when I was a Minister in the Home Office for five years.
3.58 p.m.
Lord WHEATLEY: I had not intended to intervene at this stage. I was waiting with some expectation to hear what the justification was for this clause from the Government Front Bench, but no doubt we shall get that in due course. Basically all that I have heard are reasons why this power should not be granted, as against the general proposition that there are justifiable reasons for its being there. I intervene at this stage to indicate one
698
reason which in my personal experience could justify the inclusion of Clause 1(1)(b). That is an experience on the Bench which now extends to 26 years, so I can pray in aid a certain amount of experience of these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, was good enough to quote a passage from my judgment in the case of 1967, which was the basis, I think, on which Thomson proceeded and I would commend to the Committee the basis on which this House proceeded. As has been pointed out, the problem is defining with clarity and exactitude—and in this I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that it is a problem for the draftsman because I think it is only the principles which we can enunciate and it is for the draftsman in due course to give effect to these principles. But why can it be said that Clause 1(1)(b) is necessary when trying to strike this balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of the community?—because basically we must look at the functions of the police as people who are acting in the interests of the community and in the interests of the law-abiding citizens in the community.
Every rule of law in a civilised country encroaches to a certain extent on what have been called personal or civil liberties. Even the Ten Commandments do that. The antithesis of that is anarchy. I think it was properly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that as civilisation proceeds and society develops different considerations may have to be applied at different times. We have to consider this matter at a time when, unfortunately, there is an ever increasing growth of crime at all levels.
What are the difficulties that confront the police? They are many. But may I tell your Lordships that my experience, so far as witnesses are concerned as they have appeared before me in the courts of Scotland, is that the two chronic diseases are not heart trouble or lung cancer, they are myopia and amnesia. The police are constantly being faced with the difficulty of getting evidence—not evidence necessarily for a conviction, but evidence in relation to the offence that has been committed.
The other difficulty, again foreshadowed by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is the unwillingness of people to get involved. This

699
is a tremendous problem. I remember presiding over a murder trial, and the murder took place in a public street in Edinburgh where a bingo session had just erupted. The place was full of people and a most brutal murder was carried out; the man died after being kicked and kicked by three young hooligans. Of all that mass of people the only person who intervened, and the only person who was prepared to come forward and give evidence, was a young married woman aged 21. The rest of the citizens just did not want to become involved. I think perhaps the main justification for Clause 1(1)(b) could well be that it will enable the police to involve at an early stage people whose names and addresses they know as witnesses and not let them just pass into the night because they do not want to become involved.
There are many other reasons, but I think we have spoken long enough on this matter. I think on principle this is justifiable, but whether further safeguards need to be built in is a matter for your Lordships' consideration, and I trust that the Government will have regard to what has been said in that regard.
4.3 p.m.
Lord HALE: I only wanted to seek information. The discussion, and in particular the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, referred to very violent crime, and one can understand the argument in that connection. It is a great pleasure to hear his voice and see him here again. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, twice referred to the place of the crime. I do not know what is the meaning of the word "crime" in Scottish law; I know it was always rather different from English law in all these connections. My noble friend Lord Foot, if I may be permitted to say so with sincerity, did say that this applies to every offence, even to breach of bye-laws if you have them. It applies to parking a car; indeed other speakers have described this as applying to parking of cars. I can well understand these powers in relation to the bombing in Birmingham and I would think that they would be very desirable. I think the clause could possibly need redrafting with regard to the one policeman when it comes to dealing with serious crime involving a substantial number of people; it cannot be done by one policeman.
700
The noble Lord who spoke with such distinction for the Home Office under the Labour Government referred, I thought rather irrelevantly, to the discussion on the majority verdict of the jury. That largely concentrated on the way it was sprung on the House. with assurances that it had the support of many anonymous judges. I remember the criticism. But I must make this one correction while I am. so rarely, on my feet; speakers on this side were complaining of not being able to know a word that the committee had said, because the report was out of print and had already apparently been secured by those concerned from the Library or from other institutions. We do not particularly support the bringing of a long report as an example of the wisdom that is to be incorporated in the first four clauses of the Bill, without being enabled to know what the wise men said about it. I do think that the question of what is a crime and the question of the necessity of some very considerable restriction on the exercise of the new power of arresting witnesses, which has been practised with great dissatisfaction in many other countries, are matters that should be carefully examined, and that is why I intervened before the noble Earl on the Front Bench rose to reply.
4.6 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: It is common ground that the police at the moment have not got this power. It follows that to give them the power to detain, and if necessary in certain circumstances arrest, people who are not only wholly innocent of any offence but may not even have been witnesses to any offence, is a very substantial diminution of our existing civil liberties. That does not end the case against it, but we ought to recognise that that is a fact. Therefore, the question arises: what justification can be put forward to your Lordships for taking the action which is now proposed in Clause 1(1)(b) of the Bill?
So far, having listened to the discussion in the Committee, there has been only one attempt to justify this startling proposal, which came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley. He postulated a situation in which there may be a number of youths gathering round when some offence of violence is being committed. The police arrive on the scene and they

701
cannot get any co-operation from the youths who are there. It is seriously suggested that if the police have the power to detain those youths and if necessary arrest them, they will suddenly find they have on their hands a whole series of willing witnesses who otherwise would not have been available. It is quite inaccurate to postulate anything of the sort. The straightforward fact is that in that situation all that the police will achieve is a good deal of between themselves and the bystanders they detain for this purpose, who may not have seen anything anyway. Those from whom they get the name and address will, when it comes to making a statement, if experience is any guide, with remarkable unanimity not have seen anything at all that went on. The suggestion that this proposal will enable to be brought forward witnesses who were otherwise not available, is really quite fanciful in the light of experience. If people want to help the police they will help the police. They should help the police. But it is idle to pretend that they can be compelled to help the police and to make statements assisting them in the way that this clause contemplates.
The only other Member of your Lordships' House who supported the Bill in its present form was the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. He had to because this clause was something he was prepared to bring forward himself in the last Parliament, and the only argument he can put forward is that he was prepared to do that and that it is in the report of the Thomson Committee.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene to say why I had to support this proposal? I argued, within Government, in favour of putting these provisions into our Bill. That is the reason I support them—from conviction, and not because I happen to be trapped, as it were, on the Front Bench with a published Bill. The reason that I decided at that stage to support their inclusion in the Bill was that I am humble enough to recognise that when a distinguished committee like the Thomson Committee makes these recommendations unanimously, then it is something that the Government ought to support. That is the reason I gave, and I also support the reason which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, gave. However, it is not
702
because I am trapped on the Front Bench having to support something on which I am not persuaded.
Lord WIGODER: If I may say so, that is one of the saddest observations that I have ever heard fall from the lips of a distinguished Law Officer. To say that he felt obliged to support something because it appeared in the report of a distinguished committee is, in fact, to suggest that your Lordships should abrogate your duties altogether, and that any committee report must go through because the committee has reported it. I repeat that there has not been a single word so far uttered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, giving any reason in support of the proposal in the Bill, except that some other committee happens to recommend it. I suggest to your Lordships that he does feel himself trapped and that he does feel himself obliged not to support my noble friend's amendment. I can only hope that noble Lords who sit on the Benches behind him will realise the difficulty in which he is and will allow him on this occasion to go alone, from his Front Bench, hand in hand with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, into the Lobbies.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I should like to intervene to defend my colleague. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said something which is not what we have just heard my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey say. Surely it is important to stick exactly to what he said. My noble and learned friend on the Front Bench said that he supported this from conviction and was supported in his conviction by the fact that a distinguished committee agreed. I am no expert on this matter, but the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has entirely misrepresented what my noble and learned friend said.
Lord WIGODER: I am sorry, but I return to the observation as I am asked to do so. I entirely accept that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said just now that he supported this from conviction. However, that is not a reason, and I venture to suggest that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has still not given a single reason, a single logical argument, as to why he prefers what is in the Bill to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Foot.

703
There is just one other matter that I should like to raise at this stage before the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, replies to this debate. I should like, very simply, to ask three questions to which I invite the noble Earl to reply. First, will he agree that there is no such power in English law and never has been? Secondly, will he agree that, although the English police force is not slow to claim additional powers, this is one power that it has not been very active in claiming? Thirdly, if that is right, what has gone wrong in Scotland? Is the noble Earl seriously saying that his fellow countrymen are in some way below standard in their sense of moral obligation when it comes to helping the police in their inquiries in matters of this nature? Or, if they have the same standards of assisting the police in Scotland as we do in England—and we can manage perfectly well without this power in England—will he explain succinctly why it is necessary in Scotland?
4.14 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I do not stray from what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said, but only one person has attempted to justify it. May I, with great humility and deference, support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley; and, frankly, I do so for very similar reasons. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who spoke in terms of great reasonableness, which was not quite the note he used when speaking on Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said that this power is wholly unwarranted. What is the power? It is the power, in the last resort, to compel a witness to give his name and address. Perhaps I may give a similar illustration to that given by the noble Lord. Many years ago I was concerned with a murder trial in Glasgow. The man had a penknife inserted into his jugular vein. The evidence was that the blood was out a yard from his neck. No one saw who did it. Of course, there was a reason for that. In those days there were bodies of people in Glasgow who were very violently antagonistic one to the other.
It may well be that since the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, has become the Lord
704
Provost, those practices have ceased. I do not know; it may be that the situation has wholly changed. However, there is a double reason. First, people will not want to come forward and give evidence against a body of people who are slightly violent in their way of life. Secondly, it is probably easier for them to give evidence if they are compelled to do so by the police and under the strain of possible arrest. I would not differ with the view that such a course needs careful guarding. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is wrong in saying that a witness can be detained in terms of Clause 2. I do not think that he can be detained, but I agree that he can be arrested in the ultimate resort. However, I think that we are narrowing the circumstances, possibly with additional safeguards, when these powers may well prove to be absolutely necessary.
Lord BROWN: The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, about my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey were unfortunate, but I do not rise to comment on that. I merely wish to point out that this debate has been characterised by a high degree of exaggeration. I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who stated that any witness forced to give his name and address would be a useless witness, that many people looking at an event taking place—an offence or prospective offence—will not offer their names and will go away rather than risk the trouble of having to attend as a witness. But, having given their names, and having been asked to attend as a witness, they will behave like citizens. It is a gross exaggeration to suggest that anyone whose name is forcibly taken would necessarily be an unreliable or reluctant witness.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: I too had not intended to intervene at this stage, but stung by what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said a moment ago about lack of support for the clause, I ought briefly to indicate my support. I agree very much with my noble and learned friend Lord Wheatley and with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. One of the great difficulties about this region of the law seems to me to be that, if the police powers are inadequate, it is inevitably a temptation for them to exceed their powers and to act illegally. That is a serious

705
difficulty. I was a member of the Royal Commission on the Police, which reported in, I think, 1962. One of the lessons which I bore in mind from that was that if the police are not given adequate powers they are invited to exceed their powers, and that leads to all sorts of difficulties and objections.
It seems to me that broadly the clause is about right. There may be need for rather closer definition as to whether the power to detain a witness is to be available for any offence or whether it ought to be restricted to the more serious offences, and there may be some other restrictions. But, in principle, it seems to me to be about right.
I am sorry to have to differ, as I do rather pointedly on this, from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. But the scene he drew of a street brawl with a lot of youths who must have seen the murder or assault committeed is, I think, a scene which is all too common in some of the Scottish cities. At the moment of the assault or a few minutes after, the probability is that a good many of the youths are drunk or half drunk. If they see a policeman coming or a police car approaching, they will run off and be entirely unco-operative. If one can stop them and at least get their names and addresses there is some hope of following the matter up the next day when they are sober and one may find that they have something to say.
It has been suggested that this is a sort of draconian power to hold old ladies in the middle of the night on a cold street or to get people out of a bed to identify a motor car or some such thing. It is a little ridiculous. It is only a power to make sure that we have the name and address. If one can get people out of their beds there is a strong probability that one knows their address. I do not want it to be supposed that I am entirely uncritical in this whole area. I have suggested one or two amendments later to improve the Bill, but it seems to me as regards this matter that the clause is about right, and I should like to support it.
4.20 p.m.
Lord RENTON: I too had no intention of intervening in this debate, but having heard the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I feel bound to remind him of a case in which I had the pleasure and advantage
706
of leading him at Hertford Assizes. The case concerned a punch-up at a dance hall on a Saturday night. He will recollect, as other members of our profession, whether on the Bench or still at the Bar, will recollect, that on such occasions the police are in a great difficulty. In the case in question they were lucky because they were called along pretty soon, and once they had established themselves at the exits from the dance hall they managed to prevail upon some of the other young people to help them with their inquiries.
But it seemed to me such a disadvantage to the police in those circumstances. It has seemed to me on many occasions since then, and I am sure to many Members of your Lordships' House, that the police have their hands tied behind their backs because neither in England nor in Scotland have they the power to ask even innocent bystanders for their names and addresses when they have reason to hope that they would be good witnesses. Therefore, I feel bound to support the main intention of Clause 1 of this Bill. I do, however, share the doubt expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, as to whether it is necessary to have the power to force these people to the police station once they have given their names and addresses. To that minor extent I would ask my noble friend to consider that particular point which is raised by the two simple amendments of Lord Ross of Marnock.
Lord WIGODER: Would the noble Lord, Lord Renton, correct me if I am wrong? I think I remember that case. The police did manage without this power and there was a conviction of the guilty people. Is that right?
Lord RENTON: Yes; and I explained how, by chance and by the police establishing themselves at the exits because they happened to have been called there soon enough, they got a number of the other young people who were present to give evidence. But one can imagine many similar circumstances in which they might have had no witnesses at all.
4.22 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: May I preface my remarks on these amendments by saying that I have found this an interesting and fascinating debate, in which your

707
Lordships' Committee has been seen at its best. A number of different viewpoints on what is admitted to be a difficult subject have been brought forth. Before I go to the amendment I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foot, by setting the scene, so to speak, and saying that ever since this Bill has been published the Government have listened carefully to all the comments that have been made. In particular, attention has been paid to remarks made by noble Lords and noble and learned Lords on Second Reading.
The noble Lord criticised me for the content of some of my remarks in my Second Reading speech. I have no complaint about that. The point I want to make at this early part of the deliberations of the Committee is that the Government are not approaching these matters in any doctrinaire sense at all. I would further emphasise that our minds are not closed to suggestions for changes and possible improvement to the Bill. We are committed to the principles of the Bill. There is no doubt about that at all. But, as I have said, it is our intention to examine carefully indeed suggestions for modification and improvement which may be made by any noble Lord.
Turning to this debate, there has been reasonable unanimity that the powers which the police have, certainly in relation to suspects, are inadequate. I was going to say, "even the noble Lord, Lord Foot", but that would be offensive of me. If he had not said it, I was going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that if the police are not granted extra powers to enable them to carry out their work, what suggestions would he make? In fact, I have not been put in that position because the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and most noble Lords who followed him, conceded—and there was a remarkable measure of agreement—that in fact for years the police have been trying to clear up offences with, in effect, one hand tied behind their back.
I was powerfully reinforced in this submission to the Committee by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. Incidentally, I was glad to see him in his place after the weather conditions in Scotland had been reported to me. I think we are fortunate. I am also glad to see the noble Lord, Lord
708
Harris of Greenwich, whom I admired so much when he was sitting in this position in the Home Office in the last Government.
It is a difficult question. I readily concede that to get a police force which is able to go about its duties in a reasonably efficient way, and to reconcile that with the liberties and the freedom of the individual, is by no means easy. How, then, do we keep a reasonable balance except by setting up these various committees, or bodies, to inquire into the state of the law, to read their reports when they produce them, and, when there is parliamentary time, to seek to put some, or all, of their recommendations into force? If anybody complains about the number of different measures in this Bill— and I appreciate that it covers widely differing subjects—all I can say is that Scotland does not enjoy a great deal of parliamentary time. In the lifetime of this Government, particularly in the legal sense, we have enjoyed more than for some time. However, we have to take such opportunities as we can find and make of them what good use we can.
So far as these amendments are concerned—and I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was not speaking to Amendment No. 2—they seek, in effect, to remove a potential witness from the scope of Clause 1 of the Bill. If his amendments were agreed, a constable would not be entitled, or would not have the power, to require a potential witness to give his name and address, and would not have the consequential powers on that. I have listened with considerable care to the anxieties which have been voiced by noble and learned Lords in this matter of potential witnesses. I accept that it may be undesirable to subject a potential witness to the same compulsion as a suspect faces under Clause 1.
On the other hand, and balancing out in the way I have been trying to illustrate, I believe that a potential witness may reasonably be required to give his name and address to a policeman. Indeed, I would argue that he has a moral duty to do so if he is in a position to help. I see no oppression in reinforcing that moral duty by making it a legal obligation. This in fact was the recommendation of the Thomson Committee in its second report, on page 26, paragraph 6.02.

709
Having said that, in the light of the speeches made on Second Reading, the amendments tabled for consideration today and the anxieties which have been voiced, we have been considering, and will continue to do so, how these two objectives might best be met. If I say to the Committee that what I would like to do is to take the matter away and possibly redesign the clause to permit a constable to require a witness to give his name and address but not to require him to remain in the constable's presence, I hope that such a change would prove acceptable: to your Lordships.
The question of a sanction in the case of a totally uncooperative witness is a difficult one and one which deserves more thought: but on the understanding of what I have said so far—that the Government will bring forward amendments at a later stage—I hope I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to withdraw this and the other amendments at this stage. Before resuming my seat, I would say to various noble Lords, who have questioned whether it is right that these provisions should apply to any offence, that I have taken that point on board, too, and will examine it. I cannot give any promises or undertakings, but we will see what happens.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before the noble Earl concludes on these matters, may I ask him what his provisional view is on the question of the time of the offence? As the Bill is drafted—and I direct attention to the opening words:
"Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed or is committing an offence"
—that postulates that there may be an offence in the past, and there is no restriction as to the time. It is just conceivable that under the Bill a constable may use these powers to detain as a witness a person who might be said to have witnessed an offence or crime some six or 18 months before, so I hope the noble Earl will undertake to look at that point at the same time.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: This is the "give a dog a bad name" point, if I am not mistaken. I will certainly look at that.
Lord FOOT: I am enormously encouraged not only by what the noble Earl
710
has said in reply, but also by the way in which he has expressed himself as being willing throughout the passage of the Bill to look at the arguments which are advanced and that his mind is by no means closed. I regard that as a very considerable advance and a great concession, and I look forward to being able to conduct the rest of this debate in Committee on that basis.
I hope the noble Earl will agree that when I advanced my general propositions in the beginning and referred to these amendments, I was showing a sense of moderation and was not unwilling to recognise that there is a problem here. I was glad to hear the last words of the noble Earl when he indicated that he might be prepared to consider taking on hoard the proposal made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, that possibly one could insist on this right to obtain from a witness his name and address in cases of serious crime. I should not have thought it was beyond the powers of the draftsmen, if the Government were willing to make that concession, for some amendment to be framed in those terms.
I had intended to say something in reply to some of the other points that have been made in this debate, but in view of what the noble Earl has said I do not think I need do that. I wish only to correct two matters. May I make it perfectly clear that, so far as I am concerned, as I said at the beginning, I do not think the present powers of the police are sufficient? So far as suspects are concerned, I think there is a strong and cogent case for enabling the police to demand the identity of somebody who is thought to have committed certainly a serious offence, but the situation, as I hope I have explained, in the case of the witness is to our minds quite different.
The only comment I would make is in regard to some words spoken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Renton, and I wrote the words down at the time. He said, speaking of the case in which he and my noble friend had been involved, that the police had no power to ask a person for his name and address. I am sure the noble and learned Lord said that inadvertently because today, whether we are in England, Wales or Scotland, the police have every right to address any sort of question they like to the public. What they do not have is the power to require

711
that the witness shall reply. I mention that only because I would not like this matter to be disposed of under any misunderstanding of that kind.
I shall be very happy to comply with the noble Earl's suggestion and withdraw the amendment. I hope the opportunity may be given to us on these Benches and to others who have taken part in this debate to consult with the noble Earl as to what amendments might be acceptable to the Government. With the leave of the Committee, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.37 p.m.
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 19, after ("time") insert ("not exceeding half an hour").
The noble Lord said: This is a different matter and I wish to say at the outset that have inadvertently misled the Committee about my amendments; when I said at the outset that Amendments Nos. 1 to 9 were all concerned with the question of the witness, I overlooked the fact that I should have excluded Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I apologise for that, but I do not think the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who understands the situation, will have been misled. I will therefore speak to both amendments, which are concerned with the proviso in Clause 1, at the same time.
The general effect of Clause 1 is that,
"Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed or is committing an offence"
then he can require the name and address of the suspect, he can require any explanation the suspect has to give and he can require the name and address, as the Bill is now drawn, of any potential witness. It goes on to say that he can require that person, whether it be the suspect or the witness:
"… to remain with the constable during such time as the constable may find necessary—

(i) to note that name and address and any explanation proffered; and

(ii) to verify that name and address".

Following is the proviso with which I am here concerned:
"Provided that the requirement to remain with the constable shall cease to apply if there is unreasonable delay in obtaining such verification".
My anxiety about that proviso is the uncertain terms in which it is phrased. What does "unreasonable" in these circumstances mean? Does it mean unreasonable delay from the point of view of the policeman? Is he negligent in getting on with it? Or does it mean unreasonable delay from the point of view of the person concerned, the person who may have an appointment, the person who has been stopped and told, "Stay here"?
Whether one looks at the matter from the point of view of the policeman, or from the point of view of the individual concerned, one may arrive at entirely different conclusions as to what a "reasonable time" is. Or does it mean—and this is another possibility—what would be regarded as unreasonable by the reasonable man? These are not lawyers' points, because as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, reminded us only a short while ago, when one is dealing with citizens' rights. police powers and so on, one of the important points is that one should express oneself with precision so that everybody knows where he stands.
In my amendments I am proposing that at line 19 there be inserted a requirement that the person should remain with the constable for such time
"not exceeding half an hour as the constable may find necessary."
Then, in my Amendment No. 3 it is proposed that we delete the whole of the proviso so that there is struck out the area of uncertainty as to what is reasonable and there is inserted a fixed period of time so that everybody knows where he stands.
I suggest that there are serious problems in leaving the matter in the vague way it stands under the proviso as drafted. In the past we have had bitter experience—have we not?—in Acts such as that relating to the breathalyser test of the appalling consequence which follows if one drafts legislation which is uncertain in its effect and which can be interpreted in a dozen different ways. Is not this proviso just such an error? Consider the position if it is to be said that at some point the delay in checking the identity of the individual becomes unreasonable. On any test which may be applied there must be a point up to which it is reasonable and thereafter is unreasonable.

713
What happens if a person is detained for a longer period than he thinks reasonable? Has he an action for false arrest or false imprisonment? If he has, the action presumably lies against the chief constable.
Whenever anybody stops a suspect or a witness and says, "Stay here while I check your identity and your particulars", it is surely unreasonable that the person stopped might at some later date be able to challenge that by way of an action for false imprisonment taken against the chief constable.
I only want to avoid the kind of difficulties which might arise, and I should like to remind your Lordships— or such of your Lordships as have had the opportunity of seeing the second report of the Thomson Committee—that their recommendation in this matter was rather different from the one which has been adopted by the Government. Their recommendation is contained on page 277 of the report. It is recommendation 8. They said:
"No person should be detained elsewhere than in a police station"—
and that of course is the circumstance with which we arc concerned here—
"for longer than is necessary for the following purposes:
a. asking for an explanation of suspicious behaviour"—
that is not material on this matter—
"b. taking name and address of detainee and, where it can be done rapidly, for example by radio, verifying these".
It is perfectly apparent from that—is it not?—that what the Committee had in mind was that if the address could not quickly be verified, it was unreasonable that the person should be detained. The words of the Bill to which I have referred certainly do not match the intention of the Thomson Committee. Here again I am sure that the noble Earl will be moderately reasonable. I should be perfectly happy if he were to indicate at this stage that he is prepared to look at these words, too, to see whether some greater precision can be given to them. I beg to move.
Lord GALPERN: I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is proceeding on the basis of one detainee, or one witness. Let us suppose that there is a fight and there are 10 or 12 witnesses. How does
714
the noble Lord relate detention of no more than half an hour to the obtaining and then the verifying of the addresses of 10 possible witnesses?
Lord FOOT: That is a perfectly good example of what I was trying to say. What is reasonable in the circumstances? If one is dealing with nine people, the period may he quite different from that which would be reasonable in relation to one person—
Lord GALPERN: But the amendment says no more than half an hour.
Lord FOOT: Yes, the amendment says not exceeding half an hour; that would mean that the policeman would have to get on with it. But I see no great hardship in that; it does not take one more than half an hour to ask for a person's particulars. It may take one more than half an hour to check them, but, after all, why should the person be kept there indefinitely if there is some particular difficulty in checking his identity? Let us suppose that the person who is stopped is a visitor from the Channel Islands or the United States of America and he does not have with him anything with which to identify himself. Is it going to be suggested that it is reasonable to keep him there for such time as is necessary in order to communicate with the police in the United States or in the Channel Islands?
If the police know that when they ask for the name and address of a suspect or a witness they must get on with it and that, unless they have been able to verify the particulars within half an hour, they must let the man go, I suggest that that will he a perfectly useful discipline and will not be a serious interference with the job that the police have to do. I beg to move.
4.47 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: So far as the half hour period is concerned it is a somewhat arbitary period, and it may be rather difficult to deal with the matter in that way. But I follow the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in his drawing attention to the standard which was put forward by the Thomson Committee, though in a slightly different context. The context of paragraph 8 on page 277 of the report really relates to the detention of a suspect rather than to the detention of a witness, but

715
a fortiori it must apply to the witness because the witness is not suspected of anything at all. So one can see the propriety of that. I would simply remind the committee that when the Bill which we introduced was brought before another place it contained not the standard enshrined in this proviso, but the standard of necessity. The wording there in relation to the police power of detention was:
"for as long a period as is necessary for the constable to obtain"
the name and address. Then under subsection (4) of Clause 1 it was provided that:
"The period mentioned in the said paragraph…shall include such time as is necessary for the verification by the constable of the name and address given to him, where such verification can speedily be obtained."
That was certainly designed to cover the type of the case where the witness was living in the Channel Islands, or circumstances of that kind; or indeed the case where the witness gave an address but no telephone number: or indeed the case where the incident happened perhaps very late at night and the possibility of checking simply did not exist.
So I urge the Government when they are taking back the clause to consider whether one can depart from the very subjective standard which this proviso contains and go a little nearer towards the more objective standard which we put into our Bill. I would invite the Government to look at the matter in that sense.
Lord GIFFORD: I hope that the noble Earl when he replies to the amendment will answer the questions which I put a few moments ago. What steps is it envisaged will be taken by the police in a case where the person whose name and address is given either has no identification papers at all on him, or his identification papers are for some reason suspect? If the noble Earl is coming to the Committee asking for these powers to be approved, he must have information from those who say they are necessary—and, in particular, the police administration—as to what sort of steps are likely to be taken in order for this verification process to take place.
I am bound to say that, judging by the only similar process of which I have any experience in England, it could be many hours. It very frequently happens that
716
people are arrested for minor offences, taken to the police station and charged, and the only reason which holds up their being given bail is the verification of their address—the police need to be sure that the address they have been given is one which is genuine. People are sometimes detained for hours while a police officer goes round to the address given to verify that such-and-such a person lives there. To "verify", which is the word used, means to establish the truth of something, and in this case that cannot possibly be done without substantial inroads being made into the time and convenience of the people, whether they be suspect or witness, to whom this requirement has been addressed—unless or until, perish the thought!, there comes the day when all our physical features and attributes are on a computer, enabling the police instantly to verify whether we are the person we say we are. I hope that the question which I put to the noble Earl was not deliberately ignored by him, because I suggest it goes to the very root of the powers which are being asked for in this clause.
4.52 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The first Amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Foot—that is to say, amendment No. 2—would impose an absolute limit of half an hour on the time a suspect may be required to remain with a constable for the noting and verification of his name and address, or for the noting of any explanation proffered. I deliberately use the word "suspect" because of the undertaking I have given, and we can leave potential witnesses out of it for the purposes of this debate. The present proviso is that the requirement to remain with the constable
"shall cease to apply if there is unreasonable delay in obtaining such verification":
and that proviso will of course be deleted by the second amendment.
I think it is important to look at the clause and to see what in fact are the constraints, as it were, on the police officer. The first one, at lines 19 and 20, is that the suspect is
"to remain with the constable during such time as the constable may find necessary—

(i) to note that name and address and the explanation proffered; and

(ii) to verify that name and address".

717
The second qualification is that, however necessary the constable may feel it is to conduct his inquiries, the duty to remain with the constable
"shall cease…if there is unreasonable delay".
So there are two matters to be considered in this. I have a certain sympathy—in fact, considerable sympathy—with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, but I suggest that his amendment would impose an undesirable rigidity on the provisions of the clause—and I shall come to my reasons in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, asks what steps will be taken in the verification process, and then goes on to ask about police computers and matters such as that. If I may say so, I think the noble Lord is taking a much more serious look at this whole matter than is really envisaged. This is the very first contact which a police officer is likely to have with a suspect, and he asks him his name and address and whether he has any explanation for certain facts. Whether any information would be forthcoming which it is likely or possible could be put into a computer—still less whether any sensible use, or indeed any use, could be made of such information in the future—I would have thought was a matter of very considerable doubt indeed. But, if I may say so to the noble Lord without being offensive, I really do not think he need concern himself too much about that part of our civil liberties. Personally, I think there are other ways in which I find the situation more worrying.
Now may I go on to the half-hour time limit, if I may so call it? The noble Lord, Lord Foot, seeks to impose an arbitrary time limit on a procedure which by its nature is likely to last for an unpredictable length of time—from a few minutes, where the address to be verified is that of a local person, to a period which may well exceed half an hour where the address is perhaps in a remote area, or when the hour may be very late. I put this forward diffidently, but I wonder whether noble Lords are not rather urban-orientated in their thinking about this. The suspect is not of necessity going to live within the purlieus of West End Central police station, or of its equivalent in Glasgow. We have some very scattered areas in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and I do not believe that in many cases it would be possible for the police to make the necessary inquiries, even with the use of a personal radio, and
718
to obtain such verification as the officer considers right, within the space of 30 minutes.
The Thomson Committee recognised this when (and I hesitate to refer to this) on page 13 of their report, in paragraph 3.18, the committee specifically turned down the idea of a rigid time table or time limit. In fact, the committee suggested and recommended that no time limit be set; and the result is that the clause as drafted specifically provides that a person will be required to remain with the constable only for so long as is required for him to obtain and verify the name and address—and, as I have said, there is the further safeguard that the requirement will lapse if there is unreasonable delay. The police have no power to detain a person in this way beyond the time they require to check these specified particulars. If we impose an arbitrary time limit, as this amendment seeks to do, in the rare case where an address is not verified within half an hour and there is good reason to suspect it to be false a constable might wish to take the person to a police station and detain him. That might be a justifiable exercise of the power in the case of a very serious suspected offence. There is no intention to allow the police unlimited time to verify a suspect's address. I submit to the Committee that a fixed time, such as half an hour, may be unreasonably long in trivial cases and could, I believe, remove the incentive to quick verification in some cases, although not in others.
I think that in the circumstances half an hour could be far too short or it could be far too long. I think, if I may say so, it should be left to the good sense of the police on the spot. Equally, in aswer to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, as the report points out, matters of verification are in fact left to the sense and the experience of the police on seeing the appearance of the suspect; and I would suggest that in the vast majority of cases verification will be accomplished within a few minutes. I think that it would be unfortunate and wrong to fetter the power in this way. I would ask the noble Lord therefore, on reflection, to withdraw his amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord FOOT: I will think while I am speaking. I appreciate that this is a

719
difficult matter and I do not underestimate its difficulties. If you fix a period of time, then the noble Earl says that that is rigid and so on. That is one peril, I agree. On the other side, if you leave it in the terms that it is in the proviso at the end of page 1, it introduces all the uncertainties as to the meaning of "reasonable". Earlier I asked the empty air what the words "reasonable delay" mean in these circumstances. Do they mean unreasonable from the point of view of the suspect or the witness; do they mean unreasonable from the point of view of the policeman; or unreasonable from the point of view of a reasonable man, what a reasonable man in all the circumstances of a particular case would consider reasonable?
I am not making a purely legal point because, as the noble Earl knows, soon after the passing of the Bill the courts will be asked to decide what these words mean. It is bound to happen. If it does not happen in the form of criminal proceedings it will happen in the form of civil proceedings, by somebody complaining that they had been kept in detention after the period of reasonable delay. It is bound to arise. I should like to know whether the noble and learned Lord would like to tell us what interpretation he would put on these words if, in the course of time, he is appearing for the Crown or on behalf of a private party.
There is a risk—and this argument has been advanced by people more knowledgeable of Scottish law than I am—that you might get different decisions about the meaning of "reasonable delay" in criminal courts from those in the civil courts. In that event, it is suggested, we shall have to brine back this Bill on this particular point in order to put the matter right.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene. The noble Lord said that he would think while he was talking, and perhaps my intervention will allow him to think about what he will do in relation to this amendment. I would ask him whether he can indicate whether he thinks it is the drafting that is at fault. The noble Earl has reminded us of the text on page 13 of the report which contains the standard of necessity and the provision that the verification is to be done "where it can be done rapidly".
720
These were two points put into the Bill which we introduced in 1978. For some reason, presumably quite deliberately, they have departed from this Bill. In particular, instead of having an objective test of what is necessary, the wording has become, in Clause 1(1):
"during such time as the constable may find necessary".
The provision that we had in about rapid verification has gone altogether. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Foot, would consider, if the noble Earl takes this away and looks again at the drafting, that it would perhaps meet his case.
Lord FOOT: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I am inclined to take the course that he recommends. If the noble Earl would be good enough to say that he will have another look at this, I should not think of pressing this to a Division on this occasion.
The EARL of MANSFIELD: I shall certainly have another look. I do not hold out any undertaking to the noble Lord on this. I think that as far as unreasonable delay is concerned it is an objective test. Unreasonable delay in all the circumstances is to be the test to be applied. I should have thought that that was a sensible way of reading the clause; but I shall look at it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord ROSS of MA RNOCK Lord ROSS of MA RNOCK had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5.
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("or (b)").
The noble Lord said: In view of the undertaking given I do not propose to move my Amendments Nos. 5 or 9.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 9 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Detention and questioning at police station]:
5.7 p.m.
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
("() Immediately on the arrival of the person at the police station, the constable shall in the

721
presence of the person report the circumstances of the person's detention to the officer in charge of the police station for the time being and the officer in charge shall then decide whether the person's continued detention is justified. If he decides that it is not so justified, the person shall be immediately released and the subsequent subsections of this section shall not apply.").
The noble Lord said: We now come to Clause 2 of the Bill which, I think it will be generally agreed, is of considerably more substance than Clause 1 in that it creates an entirely novel procedure both for Scotland and England and Wales, whereby a person suspected of having committed an offence may be taken into custody, and may be taken into detention (which is something short of arrest), and may be detained for a period of six hours—and possibly more, as I shall hope to show in a minute—to be interrogated meanwhile by the police, with powers to the police to search him and to take fingerprints and the like.
This is the second example which I shall give of the way in which the Bill has departed from the recommendations of the Thomson Committee. In one instance, to which I shall come later, it departed in a very serious way; but serious enough, as I suggest, in this case. Because this represents a departure from what Thomson recommended, I have proposed to put back into the Bill the very recommendation which the Thomson Committee made as one of the safeguards for a person taken to a police station as a suspect. May I say In passing that because the intention of my amendment is to restore to the Bill what was in the committee recommendations, I hope that I may look to assistance and support from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who is so much impressed with the excellence of the report that was made.
The purpose of my amendment will be apparent if I read to the Committee the recommendation of the Thomson Committee as to what should happen when a person is taken into a police station as a suspect. It appears on page 15 of the Thomson Report, in paragraph 3.22; and it reads:
"On arrival at a police station"—
and what has happened up to now is that a constable has detained a suspect, has gone through his procedure of asking for his name and address and is then of the opinion that he suspects this person of
722
having committed an offence, and is then authorised, under Clause 2, to take the person to a police station and there to go through all the procedures set out in Clause 2. The paragraph continues:
the detainee's position should be considered by the officer in charge for the time being of the station. It should he for him to decide whether to authorise the detainee's continued detention. He should do so only where such detention is in his view justified. The detainee should again be told the reason for his detention and this, as well as the time of his arrival in the police station, should be recorded. If there is sufficient evidence to justify the arrest of the detainee, he should be arrested and charged. I f neither arrest nor continued detention is justifiable, the detainee should be released. The time of release or charge should also be recorded."
The phrase concerning the intervention of the officer in charge of the police station for the time being has been omitted from the Bill as it now stands.
Under the Bill, it is the police constable who is to carry the responsibility for the whole of this procedure. It is he who is to make the original decision whether he has a reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence has been committed. It is then for the constable— and it may be an inexperienced constable— to take the man to the police station and, on his sole authority, go through all these things which are set out in subsections (4), (5), and (6): that is to say. to make the necessary note of the times of the detention and the purpose of tile detention, and so on. It is his business to inform the suspect of the purpose of the detention. It is the constable's business to question the suspect, to exercise the powers of search and to take fingerprints. All these onerous duties—very difficult duties to exercise, one might think—fall upon the shoulders of the single constable who happens to have made the original detention.
I suggest that really is imposing an unfair burden upon the single police officer concerned. I am not moving this amendment simply in order to protect the rights and safeguard the rights of the suspect, although it has that aspect of course and that no doubt is what the Thomson Committee had in mind when they recommended that one should get the imprimatur of the officer in charge at the police station. I suggest that it is desirable that that should be done, that somebody else should be brought in and that somebody else should be asked to consider the facts of the sitution and whether a person should

723
be detained for a period of up to six hours. It is only fair to the police officer concerned that that burden of responsibility should be shared with somebody else.
This amendment is almost precisely in the terms recommended by the Thomson Committee—I have simply reproduced their own language—and I hope it will be accepted by the Government. because it assists in the protection of the rights of the subject and also because I believe that it will be a valuable support for the police in the operation of a procedure which is not going to be easy in any circumstances. Therefore, I hope that it may be possible for the noble Lord to say that this is a part of the Thomson Committee's recommendations which can be put in the Bill. I beg to move.
5.14 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord, Lord Foot, asked for my support. The paragraph in the Thomson Committee's Report, paragraph 3.22, has my support, but I would not have thought it was necessary to put into the Bill a provision such as the noble Lord proposes. I simply think that it does not need legislation. Once a constable brings a detained suspect to the police station, the normal police procedure would be that the officer in charge of the station, or the officer in charge of the desk or, if it is a case which is already being investigated, the officer in charge of the case, in effect would take over. If the noble Lord looks at the construction of Clause 2 he will find that there is a careful distinction between the use of the definite article in relation to the constable in certain places and the indefinite article in other places in order to draw the distinction between the constable who has reasonable grounds and requires the detainee to go with him in the first place, and the other constables who might search or do other things as set forth in the subsequent clauses.
I would have thought one might well find that in certain areas where the police population is small there may be no officer in charge of the police station for the time being. It may be that the policeman who detains is the only person. I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in the spirit of his amendment. I am entirely with the Thomson Report. In
724
my judgment it is not necessary to put this into the Bill, and ordinary police practice would take care of exactly what the Thomson Committee recommended.
Lord WIGODER: May I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, or the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, whether one can in the circumstances safely talk about "normal police procedure" in a situation in which one is quite deliberately creating a wholly new power—-the power of detention—and therefore whether it might he better to incorporate this in the Bill in order to deal with what is a new procedure?
Lord McCLUSKEY: May I offer my answer? I hope that I shall not have to come in on this matter again. If an officer of the ordinary rank of constable brings to the police station a person under Clause 2 as a detainee and the sergeant on the desk, the officer in charge of the station or the chief inspector in charge of the case, says, "There is no need to keep him", I cannot imagine the constable insisting on keeping the detainee there. I am perfectly prepared to trust ordinary police practice, which I have seen at work at least at secondhand in many cases. I am sure it is not necessary to go to the lengths of putting this ill the legislation.
5.17 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: There is a happy harmony for the moment so far as I am concerned with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in that I too am exercising my mind as to whether it is necessary to make a specific provision in the Bill. I am quick to say that I have some sympathy with the intention of this amendment, particularly as it is on a recommendation of the Thomson Report.
As the noble and learned Lord said, these procedures would be standard police practice. Under the Bill, responsibility for the detention of a suspect is placed on the police constable who first has reason for suspecting that a person has committed or is committing an offence and that police officer will be answerable for such detention. Again, there are sufficient safeguards for the suspect under subsection (4) which require the police constable to inform the suspect of the purpose of detention and to record the place, purpose and time of such detention. We

725
envisage that in practice the constable responsible for detaining the suspect will in the majority of cases consult with the officer in charge on arrival at the police station on whether the circumstances justify the continued detention of the suspect. Nevertheless, as I have indicated, I have some sympathy with the principle behind this amendment and if the noble Lord, Lord Foot, would be good enough to withdraw it I will look at the matter to see whether a suitable provision should be added to the Bill.
Lord FOOT: Of course, that is perfectly good enough for me. Before I seek leave to withdraw the amendment, may I remind the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord that this recommendation was regarded by the Thomson Committee as sufficiently important to appear in the summary of recommendations at the end of the report? If this had been simply an aside on the part of the Thomson Committee, if they had thought that this was a matter of little consequence, I doubt whether it would have appeared in that solemn form among their positive recommendations. Again, of course, this was one of those cases when, as with all their recommendations, all the members of this high-powered Committee were unanimous in recommending that this should he inserted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.20 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("six") and insert ("four").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment designed to restrict the period during which a person may be detained, from six hours to four hours. Of course, a number of the provisions in this part of the Bill, as I have already acknowledged, are similar to those contained in the Bill introduced by the Government of which I was a member at the end of 1978. In this regard, the period prescribed in our Bill was one of four hours, and I am simply urging that we return to what was proposed at that particular time. I want your Lordships to note this: that when a person is detained and taken to a police station for the
726
purposes set forth in Clause 2, that will he done under the provisions of Clause 2 when it becomes part of an Act. But under the present situation people go to the police station in a voluntary way and many people will no doubt continue to do so, including those who are suspected of a crime.
The existing voluntary system is not to be abolished; in fact it is not itself to be changed. Therefore one may conclude that those who want to assist the police, albeit that the police may suspect them, will still do so and Clause 2 will not need to be invoked against them. Against whom, then, will Clause 2 be invoked? It is hound to be invoked against those who are unwilling to assist the police with their inquiries. Very well. What happens to a person who is unwilling to assist the police? The constable having asked: "Would you come to the police station?" and having been given the answer, "No", then has to say, "Then under the provisions of Section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (or whatever it becomes) I shall detain you".
What happens to the man when he arrives at the police station? He is unwilling; and he is informed by the police constable of his suspicions, of the general nature of the offence and of the purpose of the detention. There are certain records to he made of the place, the purpose of the detention, the time of the man's arrival and in due course, the time of his departure. The constable may put certain questions to him but he is obliged to tell the man that he need not answer the questions. Given that the man did not want to go to the police station in the first place, and given that is what Clause 2 is about, he is the very person who is not going to answer questions.
What else can he done? He can he searched, as set out in Clause 5. One asks oneself: how long will all this take in a police station with a suspect? I simply cannot believe that anything more than four hours is necessary. I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to accept that the person we are talking about in Clause 2 is a person who is unwilling to help the police and therefore, logically, is a person who is unlikely to answer the questions. In these circumstances, how can he justify six hours? I have no doubt that part the answer will be, "The Thomson

727
Report" and I can see the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, smiling at the thought that I shall be hanged on that.
There is one matter to which I should draw attention. The period suggested by the Thomson Report was six hours and I think that in the report they claim some reluctant support for that period by the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties. I am informed by the representatives of that body that they did not get themselves into that position. But I am also informed by another reliable authority present at the time that they got themselves into a rather confused situation and it was not at all clear what the position was. However, I understand that the Scottish Council do not lend support to the period of six hours.
I think one has to look at it and see, given the circumstances now set forth in Clause 2, whether six hours are likely to be necessary. I think the period is too long and I believe in fact it is liable to lead to very considerable inconvenience for some people. It may even lead to a certain slackness on the part of the police. If they feel they have six hours, they will simply use six hours, and I think there are good precedents in Scotland for placing time limits upon the activities of the criminal authorities, the criminal authorities then respond to them by getting on with the job quite quickly. I would have thought that was worth doing here and I beg to move my amendment, which would have that effect.
Lord KINROSS: I should like to intervene here and to refer, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, suggested might be done, to the Thomson Committee's report in this matter concerning the substitution of four for six hours. The Thomson Committee—and I may say here that the noble Lord, before he went to the Bar, was an apprentice of mine in Edinburgh—considered that a period of up to 24 hours might be thought of. They then reduced that to 12 hours but revised their conclusions and said that six should be the maximum. That is what appears in the Bill.
The Thomson Committee were reinforced in this view by evidence and representations from the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties who,
728
"although averse to the principle of detention",
felt it was necessary and that six hours was not too long. The Committee realised that, as the detainee would be a reluctant detainee, he might make use of his right of silence and that a period of six hours would, in normal cases, not be much too long. Therefore, I would suggest that your Lordships should abide by the recommendations of the Thomson Committee and maintain the period of six hours.
5.28 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: In this context, of course, any maximum period specified must inevitably appear somewhat arbitrary and, as has now been said by both the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and my noble friend Lord Kinross, this in fact follows the recommendation of the Thomson Committee. They gave careful consideration to the evidence they received on this matter and I should like to quote from the report, because this is a very important part of the Bill and it is also a part of the Bill about which some indignation has been expressed in some quarters. The report said, on page 16, paragraph 3.25:
"Various views were expressed to us on the maximum permissible period of detention in a police station. Some considered that it should be as long as twenty-four hours and there was a strong body of opinion in favour of twelve hours, but we have come to the conclusion that the period ought not to exceed six hours and we so recommend. This was the minimum period favoured by the police witnesses who considered that generally it would be adequate for their purposes. We are reinforced in this view by the evidence of the representatives of the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties who, although averse to the principle of detention, did not feel that, if such detention was necessary, six hours would be too long. We stress that this is the maximum period of detention and that we expect that in the vast majority of cases the actual detention will be for a shorter period."
I want to emphasise that last sentence. The six hours is a maximum period, not a minimum or a mean. As the noble and learned Lord has argued, many detainees will arrive at the police station in an unco-operative frame of mind, which may well continue when they are questioned in the police station. But as any noble Lord who has had experience of clients will know, it very often happens that their status will change before the period has elapsed and I should have thought that this was a reasonable period in the circumstances.

729
So, as I have said, one has to come to an arbitrary judgment about this. When we did so, we preferred to retain the six-hour period presented by the committee for those cases where it may be required, and I hope noble Lords will agree that it is a reasonable balance between the maximum acceptable period and the minimum period required to serve the stated purposes of detention.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am certainly not persuaded by that argument. think that the noble Earl is right in saying that these figures are arbitrary. Whether it is four or six they are, in a sense, plucked out of the air. For example, I notice that in England the police, in evidence to the Royal Commission, wanted a 72-hour period. In some countries, it is 90 days. Thank God, it is only six hours in the Bill, because if the noble Earl wants to keep it at six hours that is how it will end up. Perhaps I should simply maintain my protest. I shall not divide the Committee on this matter, because I do not propose to divide it on a matter of this kind where Thomson recommends one thing and my view is different. I must be consistent, if I cannot persuade the noble Earl, and say that we must accept the judgment of Thomson. However, I do not propose to withdraw this amendment.
Lord MONSON: I should like to support the noble and learned Lord's amendment and I am sorry that he is not pressing it. I am sure that most of your Lordships will, from time to time, have experienced the worry, and often acute anxiety, that is inevitable when a member of one's family, or possibly a close friend, has been expected to arrive by car, or even possibly by motor-cycle, but is an hour or more overdue. It is bad enough when the weather is good. How much worse it is when there is fog, black ice or frost on the roads. It is bad enough when the friend or relation in question is only an hour or two overdue. How much worse when he is three or four hours overdue, and how intolerable if he is as many as six hours overdue—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I am sorry to interrupt him. I think that he is referring to an amendment on this question which is in my
730
name, and appears at the bottom of page 3 of the Marshalled List. There are arrangements there for dealing with that very point.
Lord MONSON: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I was, in fact, coming to it. If one could be sure that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, would be accepted, then that would change the position. It is essential that access to a relation should be totally unfettered in any way. Even so, I am not entirely sure that the noble Lord's amendment would cover the situation, because, after all, many people are not on the telephone and sometimes telephones are out of order. But I quite agree that it would certainly improve matters. Failing that, I hope that the Opposition might press their amendment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I have made my position clear. I am not going to press this one, simply because if the Government will not accept it I am not going to try to move against the Thomson Report. When it comes to the next amendment, the Government will find themselves in a different position, because I have Thomson with me and the Government do not.
On Question, amendment negatived.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of A binger): I have to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that, if Amendment No. 12 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Nos. 13, 14 or 15.
5.34 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to delete subsection (3) from Clause 2 of the Bill. May I just remind your Lordships of what this is dealing with. The earlier part of Clause 2, with which we have been dealing, allows detention of a suspect at a police station for questioning up to a maximum period of six hours. That is what we have just been considering. Subsection (3) goes on to say:
"Where a person has been released at the termination of a period of detention under

731
subsection (1) above in respect of a suspected offence, no power shall be exercised under that subsection in relation to that person in respect of the same suspected offence except on the authority of a justice, on cause shown".
I understand that to mean that a suspect may be detained in a police station for questioning for six hours. He may then be released and, if authority is obtained from a justice of the peace, he may be re-detained, as it were. Putting it very shortly, I think that the police should have one bite at this cherry, under this clause, and no more.
I believe I am right in saying that the next amendment, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is designed to achieve the same purpose as my amendment by simply prohibiting the re-detention, and it does that by deleting the exception at the end of it. I am rather inclined to think that the noble Lord's way of dealing with the position is better than mine, but the point is exactly the same.
May I explain the reason for this? I have some difficulty in visualising when this provision could apply. I thought at first of the police detaining a man for six hours; the six hours were running out and they found that they did not have as much as they were hoping for and thought they could get, and were then going to ask for, an extension of another six hours or something of that kind. But I do not think that that is what is intended, because the provision applies only where the person has been released. So this subsection will not come into play until they have had one period of six hours, failed to get what they want and released him, and then wanted to detain him again on a warrant. That could amount to a kind of cat and mouse business.
It seems to me that that is not a procedure which we should encourage. If I understand it rightly, it is contrary to the Thomson Report which refers to this point in two places, at paragraph 3.15 and again at paragraph 3.25. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, earlier read the part of paragraph 3.25 headed" The duration of detention "and I should like to read the last two sentences. They state:
"As soon as the purpose of the detention is served, the police will have a clear duty. They must either liberate the detainee or arrest him.
732
In any event he must be released within six hours of his arrival at the station, unless he is arrested and charged".
Although it does not say so in terms, it seems to me that the intention is clearly that he can be held for six hours under this provision, and then that is the end of that power. They can either release him or can arrest him, if they have enough to justify an arrest later on. This seems to me to be contrary to Thomson; it seems to me to be undesirable, and this is one respect in which the Bill has strayed rather too far in the direction of giving the police increased powers. I beg to move.
5.39 p.m.
The EARL of MANSFIELD: It may shorten the deliberation of your Lordships if, at tins stage, I tell the Committee what is the Government's attitude to the view behind the amendment. I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed. As to the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, I would say only this. His amendment would delete subsection (3), which did not appear at all in the last Government's Bill, and the purpose of that subsection is to prevent the re-detention of suspects except, as it is written, "on the authority of a justice". Without it, the police could legally detain a suspect for an infinity of six-hour periods. This is quite unacceptable to the Government and, I hope, to most noble Lords. Therefore I would ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, together with his noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, have proposed an alternative amendment which, in the circumstances, I hope they will not move. To allow for re-detention on the authority of a high court judge would have little or no practical effect, since high court judges could rarely be contacted when a six-hour period of detention proved to be insufficient.
I accept the principle of the amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord and those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I recognise that if this debate continued there would be strong feeling expressed in the House, with which in fact the Government agree. If, therefore, the noble and learned Lord is good enough to withdraw his amendment, I am

733
prepared to give an undertaking that the Government will table amendments at a later stage to prohibit re-detention in respect of the same suspected offence or any offence suspected to arise out of the same incidents.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, may I say that it is a most astonishing speech to which we have just listened. The noble Earl is absolutely right to do what he proposes to do, but I am astonished that we should have to wait until this stage to find out that he intends to do it. The need for what he now proposes to do is plain, and many of the amendments have made that plain. It was also made plain at Second Reading. Indeed, as the noble Earl will recall, I drew attention to the fact that his friend in another place, now one of the Ministers responsible for this Bill, Mr. Rifkind, denounced the earlier Bill because he thought that it contained a provision which allowed re-detention. I am surprised that the matter should have gone so far.
I make that point not least because the noble Earl said that in the Bill which was introduced by the last Government re-detention was possible. If that was possible, it was acknowledged by the then Lord Advocate as being possible, and he undertook to come back on Report with an amendment to put that matter right. So perhaps the noble Earl should have acknowledged that. However, in order to avoid any across-the-Floor warfare, as it were, I certainly accept that it is desirable that the noble Earl should take away the clause and look at it in this way, and I have no doubt that others will consider withdrawing their amendments.
There is, however, the point that is raised by Amendment No. 14 which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock: namely, to make it quite clear, when a person is detained in respect of one offence and released at the end of the six hour period, that once that six hour period has come to an end he cannot then be detained on an analogous offence or an offence arising out of the same circumstances. I wonder whether the noble Earl's undertaking to look at the drafting will cover the possibility that the police might seek to re-detain him on some allegedly related offence.
The EARL of MANSFIELD: I really cannot take any criticism from the noble and learned Lord so far as his allegation of tardiness in respect of the Government is concerned. When the Bill was given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House the Government were accused of South African tendencies, which I found a little bitter. As soon as we come to that stage of the Bill when amendments are expected to be made and I stop the debate and say that the Government are willing to make changes to the Bill, even then I am criticised. So there is nothing that I can do to please the noble and learned Lord, and I think that I shall stop trying. Having said that, my undertaking was meant to include the matters which they obviously wished to raise in the amendment which was tabled by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock.
Lord McCLUSKEY: May I remind the noble Earl of what Mr. Rifkind said in another place a year ago. He said that he hesitated to make comparison with other countries, but, for example, the notorious 90-day detention law in South Africa worked in this fashion. That was said by the Minister who is responsible for this Bill, and that is why I accuse the Government of tardiness in putting the matter right.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: I am not at all accepting the construction put upon this by the noble Earl. If we struck out subsection (3), I doubt very much whether the police would be entitled to re-detain. It is open to very grave doubt. However, that is not worth arguing about now, and with the leave of the Committee I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 43, leave out ("justice") and insert ("judge of the High Court").
The noble and learned Lord said: Before I withdraw Amendment No. 15, may I mention something in reply to what the noble Earl has said. Of course I accept that there would be enormous

735
difficulty in getting a judge of the high court to deal with the extension. I put the matter in this way merely in order to draw attention to the fact that it would be extremely easy to get a justice to do it. That would be too easy. If it is to be done at all, it must be very, very rarely done. However, given the circumstances in which the noble Earl is proposing to look at the matter again, I do not propose to move this amendment.
Lord KINROSS: Would it not be better to substitute a sheriff for a high court judge? There are plenty of precedents.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Certainly it would be better to substitute a sheriff, but we do not have to substitute anybody if the noble Earl proposes to prevent this happening at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.47 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 5, after ("informed") insert ("in writing").
The noble Lord said: I am not one of those who seeks to delete Clause 2 root and branch, although at Second Reading I did express fears, which I still have, as to its operation. I am aware that when a police officer in England and Wales has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed or is committing an offence punishable at least by a substantial period of imprisonment, there is a power then to arrest without warrant. The consequences of that in English law are that a detention is permitted in practice for some 24 hours, sometimes over the weekend—and indeed even longer in many cases, up to two or three days—before a remedy of habeas corpus is in practice available. Now that the noble Earl has given the assurance that six hours mean six hours and cannot be renewed, I, as an English practitioner, see some attractions in having that fixed period, provided that there are adequate safeguards attached to it.
There is one small safeguard that I seek to introduce by this amendment; namely, that the information given to the suspect when he arrives at the police station should not be just merely oral
736
information; there should be handed to him some document in which there should be clearly given the reasons why he is being detained. Although the amendment does not expressly provide for it, one would hope that that document would also advise him of his rights and obligations in respect of detention.
What one has to bear in mind in any circumstances where people are taken against their will from their lawful business by the police is that they are immediately subjected to an alarming and, for many people, a quite bewildering experience. Cautions are often administered and things said by police officers and station officers which are not really understood, which do not immediately have an impact when they are spoken and which can be digested and thought about only over a period of time.
There are two reasons why I suggest that the requirement that information should be in writing is of benefit. The first is to ensure that the suspect understands precisely what the reason is and, if he is detained in a cell, can look at it and think about it and cannot be heard to say later on that in fact he was not given any information at all.
The second reason is that it is a safeguard against abuse. If a reason is given in writing, it can in due course be taken away after the suspect has been released. It can be shown to a lawyer and, if the reason stated is plainly indefensible, it can be made the subject of an action for false imprisonment. If the information is merely oral, it can be contradicted by the police officer later on, or it can be said to be given when in fact it was not given, or a better explanation can be cobbled together at a later stage in order to justify what may have been an unjustifiable arrest. So I hope it will not be a difficult matter to write into the Bill that there should be a document in addition to oral information. I beg to move.
5.51 p.m.
Lord FOOT: Before the noble Earl replies, I should like to add a few words to that. I should have thought that the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is in fact covered here, because there is the requirement that when a person is so

737
detained there shall be recorded, among other things, the purpose of his detention. If it was so expressed that that had to be recorded in his presence, I think that would meet the purpose of the amendment. Nevertheless, I think there is an ambiguity in the words, "the purpose of detention". Does that mean that the police officer is to inform the suspect of the reasons for his having the suspicions he has, or does it mean that he has to inform the suspect, "We are detaining you in order that we may check on your identity" or "in order that we may keep you in isolation while we pursue our enquiries", or what? I think the words are ambiguous.
The other small matter, to which I would draw the Committee's attention, is right at the beginning of this subsection (4) which says,
"When making a requirement under subsection (I) above the constable shall"—
do so and so, but when I come to look at Clause 2(1) I cannot see any mention of a requirement. I think there must have been a slight slip-up here in the drafting because in Clause 1(1) there is of course a requirement, namely, that the police constable can require certain things to be done, but one does not find any requirement in subsection (1) of Clause 2; one merely finds a statement of what the police constable is entitled to do vis-à-vis the suspect. I draw the attention of the Minister to that. I dare say that in the course of time it can be corrected.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: In relation to the drafting point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, it is one which has been observed and will be rectified at a later stage, but for good or ill I have decided not to table such amendments at this stage.
Turning to the amendment, the clause so drafted requires the police to inform a person whom they are about to detain of the purpose of the detention and, while I suppose this could be done in writing, I expect that it will be done in the simplest way, by word of mouth, and this is in fact what the Thomson Committee recommended in their second report at paragraph 3.22. Noble Lords will note that the police are required to record, as well as the time and place of detention, its purpose under clause 2(4)(b). Thus a record in writing will be made and
738
retained. I should just point out to the noble Lord that even when a person is arrested and charged—a much more formal procedure altogether and one which represents the first step towards the bringing of proceedings—he is not at that stage given a written copy of the charges against him; the procedure then also is verbal. I, therefore, cannot accept that the police should be required to give written intimation of the purpose of detention to a detained person, and I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord GIFFORD: I am not altogether happy with the reply given by the noble Earl. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, made a good point when he referred to the matters which have to be recorded, but the question then arises, at what stage do they have to be recorded? I fancy that, in the normal run of things, the record will generally be completed when the period of detention is over. I also apprehend that no copy of that record would be given as a matter of course to the detained person. It really worries me that a new power is being given to detain people. That power is only to be exercised in certain circumstances and is to be circumscribed by various rights given to the suspected person: the right not to have to answer questions, the right to have someone informed that he is there, and so forth.
Speaking generally, and I accept that this goes wider than the immediate amendment that I am moving, it seems to me that merely for that information to be given to the suspect by means of a stock phrase repeated rather like the caution at present, without much meaning necessarily getting across to the detained person, is not good enough. At some stage of this detention, or maybe before the questioning begins or before the fingerprinting begins, there should be some kind of written information, either as a matter of practice or as a matter of law. Without meeting me in the matter of this amendment, I wonder whether the noble Earl cannot give some thought to the question of an intimation in some form of written pro forma at some stage of the detention, so that the suspected person may know and may read where he stands. Can the noble Earl go any further in relation to that?
I am sorry that the noble Earl has not agreed to look at all into the question

739
which I asked him to do; whether, without tying himself down to this amendment, a written intimation at some stage of detention should not be given to a suspected person. Since he has remained in his place and has not given any kind of intimation I wish to press the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.59 p.m.
Lord WHEATLEY Lord WHEATLEY moved Amendment
No. 17:
Page 3, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment relates to Clause 3(5) paragraph (a) in relation to the questions which may be put to the suspect and detainee in relation to the suspected offence. It is not meant in effect to take this paragraph (a) out of the Bill but to get it put into a more definite form. May I say that this is a matter on which I have consulted my senior colleagues in the High Court, and particularly the Lord Justice General, and they are all in full agreement that further consideration should be given to this power.
We have to bear in mind that this is in relation to a person who is merely a suspect. To put that position in perspective, may I explain what the position is when a person has been cautioned and charged. I hope I am not doing him an injustice, but I thought I heard the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in his first speech, refer to the questions which may be asked after a person had been cautioned and charged. I may have taken him up wrongly. But may make the position in Scotland quite clear.
When a person is cautioned and charged and he makes a statement—he is not obliged to make a statement, but he may do—then the police have no power to ask him any questions on that statement, except to clear up some ambiguity which might be inherent in it. That is the law of Scotland, and that, of course, is a protection which is enjoyed by a person who has been cautioned and charged. One would not expect much more rigid rules to apply to a person who is merely being detained as a suspect. The position of a suspect and the questions that are permissible to be put to him have been defined over the years by the courts in Scotland. May I crave
740
your Lordships' indulgence to explain what the courts have laid down in regard to the questions that may be put to a suspect— and I am taking the more modern ones. In 1954 the Lord Justice-General, Lord Cooper, said in the case of Chalmers, which for a while was regarded as a Bible:
"When the stage is reached where suspicion or more than suspicion is reached further interruption becomes very dangerous and if carried too far—for example, to the point of extracting a confession by what amounts to cross-examination—the evidence of that confession will almost certainly be excluded"
Then later, in 1975, in the case of Jones v. Milne the court said this:
"In each case it depends on the whole circumstances whether there has been unfairness on the part of the police. The mere fact that he is being asked questions by a police officer is not in itself unfairness, and if answers are to be excluded they must be seen to have been extracted by unfair means which place cross-examination, pressure and deception in close company".
That was followed in a more recent case in 1979. That is the position in common law.
Is it intended that the questions that may be put to a suspected offender in relation to the suspected offence be circumscribed by the restrictions which have been laid down by the courts at common law? We are not certain that the phraseology of this paragraph ensures that, and we would like the Government to look at that again. One has to bear in mind that at that stage, while provision is made under Clause 3 for a solicitor to be informed, it does not follow, and there is nothing in Clause 2 as it stands at present, that there will be any delay in asking questions of the suspect until the solicitor arrives. In that situation it is all the more important that the restriction on the questions that may be asked should be clearly defined. I return to the point that, where you are having this innovation into the hitherto rights of people, they should be clearly set out and clearly defined.
If it is intended that there should be a restriction along the lines of the common law laid down by the courts would it not be sensible to say so? If one looks at paragraph (b) immediately following it says.
"… exercise the same powers of search as are available following arrest",
and these powers have been laid down by the courts, so we know what that means; it has already been defined by the courts.

741
It may be argued—I do not know how successfully—that, although the courts have laid down the restrictions in respect of the questions to a suspect person at common law, where you have simply the bald statement, "put questions to him in relation to the suspected offence", the power would extend beyond the common law powers because it is enshrined in statutory provision. Therefore, if it is the intention of the Government to restrict this to what the courts have already laid down in regard to suspects, why do not they say so?
If it is suggested that subsection (7) may provide some sort of answer to this, may I point out that subsection (7) is an omnibus provision which would cover questions which in law are either competent or incompetent, because whether the question is competent or incompetent the person is allowed to say, "I do not want to provide any answer to it Therefore. t do not think that necessarily provides an answer to the point I am making.
On this subject, to save time later on, because it is cognate to it, when you go on to Clause 6(2)(2) it is provided in the Bill that it is intended that a refusal to answer questions, except those under Clause 2(7), could be a matter of adverse comment by the prosecutor, and by virtue of an amendment to be moved—which may not be given effect to—by other co-accused or their representatives. This is a further step forward because at the present time if a person is cautioned and charged, and the form of caution is "You are going to be asked questions in connection with a particular offence. You are not obliged to give an answer but if you do give an answer it will be taken down and may be used in evidence", under our existing law when a person makes no reply to that caution and charge it cannot be the subject of inference of guilt that he made no reply, because he was exercising his right, of which he had been informed, that he need not answer the questions. What is proposed later on in connection with these matters is that a refusal to answer the questions could be a matter of adverse comment either by the court, or by one of the other parties if the amendment were to be accepted to that effect. It is difficult to see why in that situation the suspect should be in a worse position than
742
a person already accused and charged. Therefore, I invite the Government to think carefully on this and see whether the requisite restrictions could be inserted into the Bill in its final form to ensure that the right to question a suspect under the Bill does not in any way transcend the common law restrictions which have been placed on it heretofore. I beg to move.
6.9 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps I may intervene briefly to say that I would support the noble and learned Lord in this amendment. I can do so quite shortly because I need add nothing to the reasoning he has put forward. Perhaps I may add just this, that when this same matter was covered in the Bill to which I have referred which was introduced under the last Government this provision was not contained in anything like this form. I think the effect of the drafting of the previous Bill was not to touch the common law. What the Bill said was that a constable might take a person to a police station for certain purposes, and one of the purposes was to enable the police to put questions to that person in relation to the offence. I think that way of drafting it left the police subject to the ordinary common law, and there could be no suggestion that they had been given some additional power under the statute. I would invite the Government, when considering the noble and learned Lord's reasons, also to consider whether or not they might go back to the kind of drafting in the previous Bill, which I think dealt with the point.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): I entirely accept, of course, the exposition of the common law that has been given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley. The Government's intention is that that law should apply. It is a law relating to the admissibility of the evidence and there is no intention to seek to innovate upon that law in any way. Therefore, when the question arises as to whether or not a statement made by a suspected person in answer to questions is admissible in evidence, these rules would apply and there is no intention to alter that. When this provision was put together it was thought that that would be its effect. Personally, I cannot discern much difference, from this point of view, between the

743
present form of the clause and the form which it took in the earlier Bill—certainly that is our intention.
I am not sure that it is wise to attempt to state the rules of the common law in the statute, but we shall certainly consider the matter and I can assure the noble and learned Lord that the intention is not in any way to alter or affect the development of the common law; the intention is to leave it free to develop as it has done very rapidly over the last few years.
Lord WHEATLEY: I find it rather difficult to follow one of the last points made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, about the inadvisability of trying to incorporate the common law into a statute, because that is exactly what is done in paragraph (b) immediately following. I shall leave that point with him for consideration. I am quite aware of the difficulty sometimes of getting exact definitions, but that is why we have professional draftsmen to help in the process.
As regards his first point, may I say that it does not matter what the Government intend: it is what the Government say that will determine how the court interprets. I cannot pre-empt any judgment by anticipating at this stage what would be the judgment of the court if it were argued that this gave a wider power in the statute, because of the general terms, than is already given by the courts at common law. It would be the court that would finally determine what this gives effect to.
If, as I understand it, the Government are of the opinion that it should be confined to the restrictions in common law to which I have referred, then why not do it and remove it beyond a peradventure? Of course, I should have said that I do not propose to carry the amendment further.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger)Does the noble and learned Lord wish to withdraw his amendment?
Lord WHEATLEY: Yes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 18, leave out from ("arrest;") to end of line 29.
744
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 18, and I should like to speak to Amendment No. 19 at the same time. These amendments affect what may happen to a person who is being detained during the six-hour period in a police station. Under Clause 2(5) he may be asked certain questions, and that was the subject of the previous debate. He may be searched, and paragraph (c) says that the police may:
"take fingerprints, palmprints and such other prints and impressions as the constable may, having regard to the circumstances of the suspected offence, consider appropriate".
Then there is a proviso that the record of these prints and impressions shall be destroyed immediately afterwards. There are a number of separate points here, but I think that they all come together in relation to the amendment which I propose, which is to delete paragraph (c)
First, I draw attention to the breadth of the provision. It says:
"palmprints and such other prints and impressions as the constable may…consider appropriate".
Can the Minister tell us what prints he has in mind? Are they footprints voice prints or dental impressions? What other prints does the Minister have in mind? I am certainly fascinated by the phrase, "such other prints". Does it include photography? I draw attention once again to the recommendations of the Thomson Committee Report, paragraph 3.24. The Thomson Committee Report recommended that the police should be entitled
"to obtain the detainee's fingerprints and to search him without his consent".
I realise that both the Government in their proposals and myself are differing, to some extent, from Thomson. The Government seem to be going much further and my amendment would remove "fingerprints" as well.
I make the point that here we are dealing with a person who, at this stage, is simply suspected, who is in prison for six hours and who may not have a solicitor present. The police will take his fingerprints without necessarily charging him with anything at all. In my submission that is a rather more serious invasion of his ordinary liberty than is justified, and I think that it will be widely resented if people who are suspected and not arrested have their fingerprints taken by the police.
I notice that there is a proviso which says that if a decision is taken not to prosecute that person, then the various prints will be destroyed. The trouble with that is: who on earth will supervise the destruction? How do we know that those prints will, in fact, have been destroyed? I know, because I have seen them, that the police have "gossip" or "intelligence" files in which they record all kinds of information which is not, in law, evidence but which has come from different sources including, as I have said, just gossip, information, anonymous telephone calls and so on. Is it not likely that that kind of information will find its way into one of these banks of gossip or intelligence information?
However, there is another point here. We find in other parts of the Bill—and of course in the law generally—that if a power is given, if a duty is placed upon a person, and the person does not perform the duty, there is a sanction. What is the sanction here? If the police choose not to destroy the record of the prints, what happens? Is anyone able to be punished? Is anyone able to enforce it? I do not know. What do we do? I must ask the Minister: What is the sanction if the police do not carry out this particular duty? He may say to me that it is unthinkable that the police will keep a secret file. I do not find it unthinkable at all. I think that it is quite possible that the police might put on to their secret gossip and intelligence file this type of information. I want to know what machinery the Government have in mind for ensuring that the prints are destroyed, and what sanction there would be, if any, if the prints were not destroyed. However, in general, I would submit to your Lordships that to take the fingerprints of a mere suspect is to go too far.
I should also mention Amendment No. 19, because that, in fact, is designed to put the matter positively. It says that:
"Nothing in subsection (5)(b)…shall authorise the taking of fingerprints or the doing of anything else where it would not otherwise be lawful".
In that regard we are following what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, suggested to the Government in a different context. We are simply referring to the standard of the common law there by using the words:
"where it would not otherwise be lawful".
746
So we simply want the ordinary common law to prevail and not to be invaded in this way. I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Lord MONSON: I support a great many of the reservations expressed by the official Opposition about this Bill and, indeed, a great many of the Liberals' reservations. However, I am sorry to say that in so far as references to fingerprinting are concerned, I cannot support the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in this pair of amendments. If I ever had the misfortune for any reason to be detained under this subsection, I should certainly object to my photograph being taken and put on file and to details about my hobbies, friends, business associates and my daily routine and so on being recorded. For if such a dossier ever fell into the wrong hands—not only those relatively innocuous ones mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, but, at the risk of being melodramatic, into the hands, for example, of the IRA, the PLO, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Red Brigade, and so on—it could undoubtedly endanger someone in so far as it would help such organisations to locate and pinpoint somebody who wishes to avoid their attentions.
However, in my submission, fingerprints fall into a quite different category. The only people to whom fingerprints can be of any value are surely the police. The only way in which fingerprints can be of value to the police is if one has committed a crime. I cannot see how any law-abiding person can possibly object to their fingerprints being put on file. For that reason, I tend to support the Government on this amendment.
6.21 p.m.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: May I make a suggestion? On the question of the destruction of prints, could not the prints be returned to the detainee on his being released? This has been done in terms of fingerprints and other confidential documents of those who had records against them from the Gestapo in the war. The British Intelligence took a great deal of trouble to hand those documents back to those who were still in a position to receive them. I do not see any reason why such a simple procedure as that should not get over the problem of making sure that the records have been destroyed.
Lord RENTON: I think there is a practical difficulty about the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that there should be a charge made by the police before fingerprints are taken. The practical difficulty, as I see it is this: the police may, in investigating the crime, have found some fingerprints, and they may well have a reasonable suspicion that the person whom they have in custody is the person whose fingers might fit the fingerprints. But they may be wrong. However, in order to find out whether they are right or wrong it surely should not be insisted that they should first make a charge. The making of a charge is a serious step. I should have thought that it is much better to let the police establish whether or not the fingerprints can be related to the person in custody before that person is charged.
Lord KINROSS: Bearing in mind that at this stage in the proceedings we are dealing with a reluctant detainee, in my view the taking of fingerprints will be desirable because it could hasten the identification of a guilty detainee on the one hand or exculpate the innocent on the other. Secondly, may I again refer to the late Lord Thomson's report. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said something about what this report had to say in paragraph 3.24, but he did not say that the committee thought that the invasion of the person involved in fingerprinting—it was limited to fingerprinting—was so slight as to be outweighed by the usefulness of the information provided. In those circumstances, I cannot accept this Amendment.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The effect of Clause 2(5) is to allow a constable first of all to question the suspect; secondly, to search him; and, thirdly, to take his fingerprints while he is detained at a police station. As I understand the amendment, what the noble and learned Lord objects to is the fingerprinting part of the process, on the basis that it is an unjustified interference with civil liberty. I do not altogether follow the logic. If somebody is going to be questioned and searched, I should have thought that his civil liberties had to a degree been interfered with and that, I think we are all agreed, is a necessary power for the police.
The powers which the police are to be given in relation to persons detained under
748
Clause 2(1) of the Bill have to be adequate and effective if this new procedure is in practice to replace informal (and unregulated) questioning, as is intended. The Thomson Committee recommended that the police should be given the power to fingerprint detained persons without their consent, and we consider such a power is necessary and justified in view of the very real assistance it can give to police investigations. It is also likely to reduce the period of detention in those quite common cases where fingerprints are an important clue to the identity of the offender.
The detainee will be fingerprinted and, depending on all the circumstances, may be released immediately while the investigations continue; or it may be possible and desirable to check the suspect's prints against those of the offender before the six-hour period has expired. Either way, the power will benefit people who have wrongly fallen under suspicion in such cases, since it will furnish a convincing proof of their innocence more quickly than might otherwise have been possible. The exercise of the power is subject to the safeguard—which I have been asked about—contained in the proviso to Clause 2(5)(c) that the record of the fingerprints must be destroyed immediately following any decision not to institute criminal proceedings, or, on the conclusion of proceedings, without any finding of guilt.
I have been asked a number of questions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, asked what sort of prints were involved. I am informed that in mind are teeth, feet, and the soles of shoes. It is obvious that on occasions such evidence could be vital in demonstrating guilt or innocence, depending on the circumstances of the suspected offence. I was asked what happens if the police act illegally, unjustifiably, and contrary to the section by failing to destroy the record of the prints and impressions, and so on, according to the words of the proviso. In almost any police activity if the police wish to cheat, break the rules or break the law, they can and will do so, and we must face that. The rights of the suspect in such circumstances of course lie both in a civil action and in the police disciplinary machinery. It would be idle of me to pretend to the noble and learned Lord that any further rights exist than do exist. But I should have thought that the circumstances in which the police would behave

749
in this way would, happily, be extremely rare.
My noble friend Lord Linlithgow suggested that the prints might be returned to a released detainee. I am informed that the return of what were apparently the prints would offer no greater guarantee than the clear and quite unambiguous direction to destroy the prints. The reason I say that is that if the police were determined to act improperly they could easily copy and retain those copies and then, in a way which would be thoroughly cynical, give the suspect back the originals telling him, in effect, that he had the only copies. In the circumstances, I hope your Lordships will accept that we are talking about hypotheses here which I, for one, do not accept, and will not happen except in the rarest circumstances. For the reasons I have given, I regret that the Government cannot accept this amendment.
6.29 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: I am occasioned to rise by an observation of the noble Earl that we are all agreed that there should be a power of detention. I think it only right to say that that is not so. It ought to be stated that the Criminal Bar Association of England and Wales, which consists of the vast majority of members of the practising Bar who both prosecute and defend, have given evidence to the Royal Commission to the effect that there should not be any such power and that people should either be free or be arrested, and there is no need for any intermediate stage such as is proposed in the Bill, and that is certainly a view I support.
The only reason I mention that is because I find it difficult to see how it can then be said, as is now being said, that there should be a power of detention but nevertheless, as is being urged in the amendment, it should be restricted in the ways proposed. I suggest to those who advocate a power of detention that the discussion of this amendment perhaps indicates the dangers to which that power may give rise and that it is perhaps the force of the case put forward, for example by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that should lead those who think that way to rethink their position as to whether there should be a power of detention at all.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned the possible desirability of putting prints on file, but that is not what this clause seeks to achieve. In fact it is the very reverse; if the person is not charged, the prints are supposed to be destroyed, so it is not a question of compiling a file of fingerprints which might be of use to the police. That is not the intention of the clause, though the clause might result in that in some cases.
I am not at all surprised by the noble Earl's answer to his noble friend Lord Linlithgow in relation to the impossibility of providing any effective method of ensuring that the prints were destroyed, because I believe that that is the answer; if the police chose to keep these prints, there is nothing one can do about that and if they purported to hand back the prints they would of course have copies.
I also acknowledge the force of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Renton, said. I have never disputed and would not dispute as a practical matter that it could be of some value to the police to have these prints, and it is a question of balancing the one thing against the other. But I would remind the noble and learned Lord that if the person detained as a suspect has any previous conviction, the police will already have access to his prints because they will be kept by the Scottish Criminal Record Office. The only person whose prints they are interested in getting is a person who has no previous convictions, who is not charged with any crime and who is detained on the suspicion of a constable. In my submission that is quite an extreme sort of case and I reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Renton, that while I acknowledge that one could see some advantage, balancing that against the points I have sought to make, there is something to be said the other way.
The other point which has been rather glossed over is the point that arises in relation to the rest of the words. I may have misheard the noble Earl when he replied, but I understood him to explain that "such other prints" would relate only to the soles of people's shoes. I would not have thought those were prints of the same kind as fingerprints and palm-prints.
The EARL of MANSFIELD: I said teeth and feet.
Lord McCLUSKEY: We have been referred to paragraph 324 of the Thomson Report, and this is what was said in that report on this matter:
Where any form of medical examination or search of body cavities or removal of any portion of the body—for example, hair, nail clippings, etc.—is sought by the police, they must obtain the consent of the detainee".
In my submission, when one gets to the stage of taking footprints, dental impres sions
and so on, one is getting into that kind of territory, and in my submission that kind of physical invasion of the person of a suspect who is not charged with any crime is going too far. In the circumstances I invite your Lordships to support the amendment.
6.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 108.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henderson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Bacon, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Balogh, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Recdliffe-Maud, L.

Blease, L.

Jeger, B.

Rhodes, L.

Blyton, L.

Kaldor, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stedman, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Underhill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Whaddon, L.

Galpern, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Willis, L.

Glenamara, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ferrers, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ferrier, L.

Mansfield, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Forester, L.

Margadale, L.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Marley, L.

Amory, V.

Galloway, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Auckland, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Mills, V.

Avon, E.

Gisborough, L.

Monson, L.

Balerno, L.

Glasgow, E.

Morris, L.

Bellwin, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Bradford, E.

Gowrie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brownlow, L.

Grantchester, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Greenway, L.

Newall, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Norfolk, D.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Northchurch, B.

Chelwood, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hanworth, V.

Onslow, E.

Cockfield, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hawke, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Henley, L.

Perth, E.

Craigavon, V.

Hereford, V.

Renton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hives, L.

Rochdale, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Romney, E.

de Clifford, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

St. Davids, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kilmany, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Elles, B.

Kinross, L.

Selkirk, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Long, V.

Sharples, B.

Faithful, B.

Lyell, L.

Spens, L.

Falkland, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Falmouth, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathspey, L.

Swansea, L.

Ullswater, V.

Westbury, L.

Teviot, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Tranmire, L.

Vernon, L.

Wise, L.

Terfgarne, L.

Vickers, B.

Yarborough, E.

Trenchard, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
6.44 p.m.
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
("() All questions put to the person under paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above and all answers made by him to such questions shall be recorded on tape and no evidence of such questions and answers shall be admissible in evidence in any subsequent proceedings except as recorded on the tape and the transcript thereof.")
The noble Lord said: In my few opening remarks at the start of the Committee stage I said that I hoped to be able to demonstrate to the Committee, as we proceeded with our discussions, that the Bill has departed in important respects from the recommendations which were made by the Thomson Committee in their second report. I should like to read to the Committee my amendment because I think that its effect will be made plain simply by doing so:
"All questions put to the person under paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above"—
that is the paragraph we have been discussing, relating to the right of a police officer to interrogate the suspect when he is in detention—
"… shall be recorded on tape and no evidence of such questions and answers shall be admissible in evidence in any subsequent proceedings except as recorded on the tape and the transcript thereof".
In my view this is certainly the most important amendment which I and my noble friends are placing before the Committee. It will be observed that we had intended later in the Committee stage to move to leave out Clause 2 altogether. Let me say at once that if this amendment is carried and is to be put into effect, I for one at any rate will not move that Clause 2 be left out. Perhaps for a few moments I may explain the position of myself and my noble friends—certainly my noble friend Lord Wigoder—on this matter. We are very suspicious of the whole conception of this detention of a suspect,
754
which is an innovation into the law not only of Scotland, but of England and Wales, too. However, having said that, if we are to have this power of detention at all, our major concern is that there should be adequate safeguards to see that the ordinary and basic rights of the individual are not infringed during the period of detention. I think that some of us would go further than that. Some of us would say, "Let's scrap the whole idea of detention". For myself, if we could have the safeguard contained in this amendment, I should be content to allow the new system of detention to be put into operation with a view to seeing how it will work out.
In passing, I should like to explain why we took the attitude we did on the last amendment, which was taken to a Division. Most of my noble friends, I think, abstained, as I did. We did that because we thought that if there is to be a system of detention at all—although we do not like it—with the idea that there can be an investigation either to clear the man or to arrest him, it only makes sense to allow the police during that period of detention to make such inquiries as asking him questions, asking for his fingerprints, and indeed searching. If none of those things can be done, there does not seem to be any purpose at all in having the system of detention. That was the reason why I think most of my noble friends abstained from voting in the last Division.
Before I go on to deal with the matter of recording interviews on tape, may I remind the Committee of what the clause does and of the situation in which it puts the suspect. First, it provides that a suspect can be detained for up to six hours in a police station, and that during that time he can be interrogated and searched, and the like, and his fingerprints can be taken. Further, although the police are required to inform his solicitor, and indeed one other person, of his being there, there is no right to have the solicitor there or for the solicitor to interview him while the period of detention is running. It is right (is it not?) for me to say that that condition of

755
detention, in those circumstances, amounts to keeping the suspect incommunicado; and during those hours in which he is in detention the only people who keep any record of what goes on, what is said, and what is done, are the police. That, of course, is the situation which obtains in this country today, and indeed to some extent, I believe, in Scotland, in the sense that where a suspect can be induced to go to a police station or can be induced to answer questions, although he has the right to walk out if he wants to, he may not know about it. That is what happens today, and suspects are interrogated although there is no legal right to detain them for that purpose. What is now being proposed is that that should be turned into a legal power, and that that power should be vested in the police.
This situation of a suspect being held in a police station incommunicado has given rise (as I think anybody who has any experience of the criminal law, certainly in England and Wales, will know) to enormous difficulties and, as I believe, to very considerable evils. In the first place, under our present arrangements there is no method of monitoring what happens and what is said and done. The only record is the record which is kept by the police; and whenever that record is subsequently challenged—in, for example, a later trial—then some very unpleasant things happen. First, you have a trial within a trial. You have the allegation of the police as to what was said by the accused or the suspect while he was in their custody; that evidence may be challenged by the accused; and you have a trial within the trial, in the absence of the jury, in order to try to find out where the truth lies and simply what actually happened. That matter can be resolved—because there is no objective record of what took place—only by the judge deciding whether the witnesses for the police or the witness for the accused (and that, of course, is only himself) is the more credible witness of truth. There is no objective way whatever available to the courts in that situation to ascertain where the truth of the matter lies, and what really happened in the interrogation.
I do not need to urge this, I know, upon the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, because he will be well aware of the fact (which has been a matter of complaint
756
in the English courts, indeed, for decades now) that so many criminal trials are held up in order that you can have this wholly unnecessary investigation as to what went on in the police station; because if you had an objective record of it, then all that trial within a trial would be quite unnecessary. Another evil of the system is this. It is an invitation to the dishonest policeman, or perhaps the over-enthusiastic policeman, to "doctor" the evidence of what was said by the accused or the suspect—to "put in the verbals"—and if you do have a dishonest policeman or an over-enthusiastic policeman who "doctors" the evidence it is almost impossible in the nature of things for the accused man to demonstrate that that has happened.
Looking at it from the point of view of the police, in my experience nothing is more unattractive than what happens when the police come forward and give evidence that the accused man made a confession while he was in their custody under interrogation, and the accused challenges this and says that the police have made it up, it is fraudulent and it is dishonest. What happens then is this—and counsel for the accused has no escape from it. If his instructions are that the evidence of the police is untrue, then he has no alternative but to cross-examine the police officer to suggest that he has been telling lies and to suggest, indeed, that he has tried to pervert the course of justice. That is the obligation which falls upon counsel if he is instructed to that effect; and nothing is more deplorable for the morale of the police than to have a perfectly honest policeman go into the witness box and then have to suffer a grilling at the hands of experienced counsel, all to suggest that the evidence he has given has been invented and is untrue. That is a very grave evil, and many people, over a long period of time, have been anxious to try to find some way in which those evil things could be avoided in our criminal practice.
All these evils arise simply because we have never found a way, or have never been willing to find a way, of having an objective record of what is actually said in the police station—the questions addressed to the suspect and the answers which the suspect gives. We are now introducing legalised detention for the main purpose of interrogating the suspect.

757
Surely this would be the very moment to introduce into the law of Scotland—and, I hope, later, into the law of England—the objective record of what takes place in those circumstances. I am going to crave your Lordships' leave to make one or two quotations, which are a little long, from the Thomson Committee's report upon this question of tape recording, because the Thomson recommendations for the use of tape recording as a safeguard for the suspects, and indeed as a safeguard for the police, were not made as recommendations which were advisable or might be helpful; they were made as recommendations which the Thomson Committee said were essential if these new powers of detention were to be given to the police. It will perhaps shorten things if I make one or two quotations from the Thomson Committee's report, putting the matter in their own words, because those words will be more effective, perhaps, than anything I could say.
The first quotation that I would wish to make is on page 33 of the Thomson Committee report, where, under letter c., it says:
"Interrogation of suspects in police stations must be recorded on tape. We deal with this more fully in paragraph 7.21. Tapes cannot easily be provided for questioning which occurs outside a police station. Our object is to provide a safeguard for persons being interrogated in the privacy of a police station and also to protect the police against unjustified allegations. We therefore do not suggest that interrogations conducted elsewhere need be recorded on tape";
but in the privacy of the police station, they say, it is imperative that it should be recorded on tape.
The next quotation comes from page 36 of the report, and is a little longer. It is under paragraph b., which is headed
"Answers made to police questions by a suspect".
This is where they argue the case. They say:
"In paragraph 7.13 c. we recommend that interrogation of suspects in police stations must be recorded on tape. We carried out a practical experiment with simulated interrogation of a suspect by police officers and found the result to be technically satisfactory. While we accept that there will of course always be difficulties with inarticulate suspects or with those who use unfamiliar dialects, the quality of reproduction was sufficiently good to satisfy us that it is practicable to obtain on tape an adequate record of interrogations. Furthermore we confidently expect that the availability of more sophisticated equipment will improve the standard of reproduction
758
and that with training the technique of interrogation by police officers will also improve, so that vague or ill-expressed statements are not allowed to go unexplained. The cost of tape recording"—
this was written in 1975; I dare say it has gone up since then—
"is not prohibitive, the models of tape recorders which we used being marketed at £25—£75. (We understand that a feasibility study is being carried out in England and Wales) … The presence of a tape recorder may upset some persons, but on balance we consider that the vast majority of persons will be reassured by knowing that anything that is said will be accurately recorded. The fact that the police know that the interview is being recorded on tape will tend to reduce the chances of interrogation being conducted with any impropriety. We think that tampering is unlikely but to reduce that possibility we recommend that the tape be sealed and placed in the custody of the procurator fiscal as soon as possible after the conclusion of the interrogation"
That is a long passage, but I may, perhaps, conclude with one more reference which is on page 37. This is a very striking conclusion to which the committee came. They asked themselves the question as to what will happen if the tape broke down. Should you then allow some other record to go into evidence? They came to this conclusion. They said this in paragraph 7.23:
"It is appreciated that our proposals rely to a large extent on the effectiveness of tape recorders. We realise that all or part of a police interrogation may not be recorded through failure of a tape recorder. The question arises whether or not an account of any unrecorded interrogation given by a police officer from memory and notes made at the time or immediately afterwards, should be admissible in evidence. We consider that it should not be admissible, as we feel strongly that particularly accurate recording of interrogation in a police station is essential as a safeguard to all the persons concerned".
Nobody can be left in any doubt that this very highly qualified committee considered this matter with the greatest care and made their own investigations and their own inquiries. There can be no possible doubt that that committee came to the conclusion that, if you are going to have a system of detention of suspects in a police station, it is essential that there should be an objective record by way of tape.
When the committee expressed themselves in terms of that kind with such assurance on this matter, saying, in effect, that they thought that the whole system of detention would be imperilled if you did not have the objective record, I am left wondering how it comes about that it

759
is not included either in this Bill or in the Bill previously produced by the Labour Party. We on these Benches are the people who, on this occasion, can claim that we are upholding the Thomson Committee. It will be interesting to see whether the noble Earl will be able to satisfy this committee that there is some valid reason why that important proposal of the Thomson Committee should not be made the law of the land. I beg to move.
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I wonder whether the Government would tell us, roughly, how they view the evidence which will be collected during the period of detention? My objection to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is contained in the words in the amendment: "answers shall be admissible in evidence". It has never occurred to me that every word that was said during a police inquiry during detention should be admissible in evidence. I have never for a moment thought that that would be the case. I may be wrong, but I had always assumed that if the accused makes a declaration, that is then brought up in due course in the judicial examination which takes place later. But that anything could be quoted or that, indeed, the tape recorder could be used to bring evidence throughout the trial subsequently, I thought would be absurd. I had thought that only a part of it—or probably none of it—would be available as evidence later. Can the noble Lord say how he views that? I should not have thought that the evidence in this period would be admissible, except in very exceptional circumstances. The normal thing is for the accused to make a declaration if he wants to do so. I may be wrong; but this is how I read the Bill.
Lord FOOT: I do not know whether I ought to try to answer this now or to give way. I understand the situation to be this. If under the new procedure a person is interrogated at the police station in the way that I have described and a record is made, then, under the provisions of the Bill as its stands, that record will be made by a police officer who would be expected to write down in his notebook the questions asked and the answers given by the accused at the interrogation. In any subsequent trial, all
760
that evidence as to what was said on one side or the other, the questions and the answers, would all be admissible evidence. The noble Earl shakes his head, but that is what the Bill provides. Perhaps we can leave it to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to tell me that I have got it wrong.
If the noble Earl is able to refer to page 36 of the report, it is clearly set out there by the Committee that there is going to be this system of interrogation and that a record of it, of one kind or another, must be kept. Whether it is kept by a police officer in his notebook or by way of a tape recorder, in either event, it is all admissible in evidence.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: May I ask the noble Lord for clarification on this? Does he envisage that all detainees in every police station should have all their conversations taped, whether at the end of the conversation that man is allowed to go free or whether he is charged? Furthermore, what would happen if the detainee did not speak the language and somebody had to take it all down in Greek or Cypriot and then translate it? Further, if the detainee was then allowed to go without being charged, would the noble Lord envisage that tape being destroyed?
Lord FOOT: I am hesitant about speaking about the present state of Scottish law. If the noble Baroness is asking me to do that, I should be reluctant to accept her invitation. The noble Baroness asked what would happen in the case of somebody who did not speak the language. I take it that there would be an interpreter available. That would be the case even if the only record being made was the record made by the police officer in his notebook. There would be an interpreter, and on the tape there would appear the question asked in English, the translation of it into Turkish or whatever, the answer given by the accused in that language and then the interpretation of it by the interpreter back to the police officer. I do not know that there is any difficulty in that. The other question the noble Baroness asked has escaped my mind.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: It was whether in the noble Lord's view, if the detainee is then released and the conversation has been taped, that tape should be destroyed.
Lord FOOT: I am not sure that I have any formed view. I do not know that the Thomson Committee made any recommendation on that score one way or the other. I do not think that the problem is a real one because at the present moment if the record is made by a police officer in his notebook, he does not, if then the suspect is released or is subsequently acquitted, tear up his notebook. The record is still there. The situation would be no worse under the tape recording procedure than it is at the present moment under the procedure of recording it in a policeman's notebook.
Baroness FAITHFULL: May I ask the noble Lord for clarification on another point? Is it suggested' that if there is a tape that that tape is accepted as final? I have dealt with a number of detainees who are perhaps mentally disturbed or overwrought. They will say things and then will say afterwards: "I did not really mean that". Is it suggested that what is on tape is final, even if somebody says—as has often been said to me—"But I did not really mean it; I was in a fuss"?
Lord FOOT: I am sorry that I should be regarded as such an authority on this matter, which I certainly am not. When one looks at Clause 6 of the Bill one finds there that provision is made, among other things, that a person who has been charged with an offence is then brought up before the sheriff for a judicial examination. It is at that stage, according to Clause 6, that questions can be put to the accused man by the procurator fiscal, in particular inviting his comments with regard to any confession that the man was alleged to have made when he was being tape recorded. So he is given the opportunity at that judicial examination under the Bill to offer any explanation that he wants to offer as to why he said what he did, that he was confused, muddled or what.
That part of the judicial examination is one which I should be prepared to accept because there is considerable virtue in the suggestion that where an allegation is made that a person has made a confession, one should not have to wait for the trial some weeks or months later to learn that he is questioning the confession; one ought to be able to find out reasonably soon after he has made the alleged confession whether or not he is sticking to it.
7.13 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: It is becoming more and more obvious we are at a disadvantage by the fact that we do not have copies of the Thomson Report, in order that we may read in full what their evidence is. As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, suggested that there were experiments going on somewhere. Frankly, I would rather wait to see the result of these experiments before I put this into the statute. It can be introduced as far as I know without any statutory reform at all.
I am not quite so thrilled about the inevitable accuracy of tape recorders, especially if they are going to be operated by people who may not be all that experienced with them. Remember, this will imply that they will have to be available in every single police station up and down the country. I do not know how long it is going to take us to achieve that situation. I cannot see the Government bending over backwards and saying, "Yes, you can have money for this". From my own personal experience and the experience of others that I have heard about regarding tape recordings, they can be "doctored". It is no use the noble Lord shaking his head about that. If ever I am asked to do a tape recording, the first thing I say is: "For how many minutes?" and they get that number of minutes because then they do not cut the tape up and put it back together. It is the simplest of things. The other day I was doing a programme on Scottish radio—the BBC, by the way—when, inveterate smoker as I was, I suggested: "Would it be all right if I lit a cigarette? Would the noise of my cigarette lighter be heard?" They said, "It is all right, we will cut that out".
So I do not think that it is all that much of an assurance for anyone concerned. I wonder whether persons will be more likely to make a statement if it is tape recorded or if it is recorded in the normal way. There are many people who might well be frightened of it and decide not to do it, who are frightened of the implications of it as well. I know it would be to an advantage; it may well be to an advantage because so many allegations are made, there is so much controversy, about statements. It would probably have an advantage not only because of

763
what is said and what questions are asked, but how they are asked. I can see that advantage. Bearing in mind that the Thomson Committee suggested that there should be experiments, I should like to know whether these experiments have been concluded, whether they have been satisfactory and so on. I would rather wait for that than put this into the statute and have some assurance later on about the efficacy of this and introduce it administratively.
7.16 p.m.
Lord HUTCHINSON of LULLINGTON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on this, and in everything he has said as to the enormous waste of time in criminal trials taken up with the disputes about what is or what is not said in police stations. The trouble about this suggestion for legalised detention is that it has opened a whole new area for the increase in this vast waste of time in criminal trials. Surely the reality of what is going to happen is that someone will he detained for up to six hours and during that period they will make an alleged confession, possibly to an extremely serious offence. Under this clause that person should have been cautioned before he was questioned. He comes out of the detention eventually and sees a solicitor. The first thing he will say—and he may well be right—is: "I was never cautioned". We all know that the caution in fact goes by the board; we all know that people are not cautioned, and whether or not one is cautioned can never be proved. It is the word of the police officer against the detainee. So there will be endless disputes about whether or not the caution was administered and whether this confession would be admissible.
This was foreseen by the objections which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, mentioned, of the Criminal Bar Association of England and Wales, when they were against this idea of detention. They have been fighting ever since the proposals of the Criminal Law Revision Committee many years ago for the introduction of tape recording. All those of us who practise in the criminal courts know of the waste of money and time over the endless disputes about what goes on in police stations. That is unacceptable.
764
The only possible solution to the problem is to introduce tape recordings.
It is perfectly possible to make recordings secure against tampering. They can be put into the custody of an official; they can be locked up and the microphone can be taken out so that the machine itself cannot be got at. We have been into all that in the Criminal Bar Association. There is no problem about security at all. The whole joy of a tape recording is that it in fact records what happened, and the result will be that in innumerable cases defendants who have made confessions will plead guilty and the disputes will not take place. On the other hand, if there has been some misconduct by the police it will be there to be heard.
On the question of experiments, I hope the noble Earl will not fall back on that excuse for not supporting this amendment. Experiments and experiments and experiments have been going on now for ages at the Home Office and we never hear the result. The cost of introducing a tape recorder into each police station is minute and there is absolutely no reason whatever for not having tape recorders in police stations, other than the fact that the police do not want them there. That is not necessarily because they are going to be in any way dishonest but because they feel they wish to question defendants and detainees in a way which may not be a method which should be heard about in court. Such a method could, they might feel, lead to the discovery of crime and to the discovery of other crimes and other criminals, and getting on to a good sort of level with a criminal in a way which cannot be covered by the Judges Rules and the way that lawyers, solicitors and others might want things done.
That is the only objection to tape recorders. There is no technical objection at all. There is no reason why the tapes should be doctored. There have been innumerable experiments and we do not hear the results. I should like to lend my support to this amendment. It is a golden opportunity for the Minister at last to achieve a breakthrough. If he is not prepared to support this amendment it will be most interesting to hear what objections there still are to the introduction of tape recorders in these circumstances.
7.23 p.m.
Lord WHEATLEY: Since the parallel or simile of taking statements has been introduced in considering the position of suspects who are detained, although that is not a proper equipartation because the situation is different, I think it is right that I should inform your Lordships of the present position in Scotland with regard to the taking of statements from a person who has been cautioned and charged—because it has been suggested that that can lead to a great deal of injustice. I am not saying that there cannot be improprieties. Whatever you legislate for, there is always the liability of some police officer going beyond the score.
As regards the taking of statements from a person who is cautioned or charged, he is first duly cautioned and the words of the caution are written down. If he is then prepared to make a statement, the statement is taken down. It is read over to him at the end and he signs both the fact of the caution and the nature of the caution. He then signs the statement at the end and by doing so, at least prima facie, he is accepting that as a correct record. I know there may be deviations in certain respects but there is a further precaution which is now the practice of the police in Scotland—it has been in operation for some time—and which has reduced quite considerably, though not entirely, the objections to the manner in which a statement is taken. When a person has been cautioned and charged, the investigating officers have to hand the matter over to an independent officer of the police force who has not been concerned in the case at all; and so the statement is taken by that independent police officer. In the result, the number of objections we have had regarding the manner in which statements are obtained has been reduced quite considerably, though I must say in all fairness they have not been entirely removed.
Therefore at the present time we have a position where less and less objections are made, but that does not preclude—this point has been made previously—a person at the trial challenging the propriety of the statement on the grounds that it was improperly obtained. If that happens, then you have an inquiry into the matter at the trial and a decision is made on the following grounds, because normally
766
it is what we call "a trial within a trial". The jury are removed, the objection is taken, evidence is led in support of it and, if need be, any counter evidence. If the judge is satisfied that no reasonable jury could hold other than that a statement was unfairly obtained, he can refuse to allow the evidence to be admitted before the jury. On the other hand, if there is a question of dispute, it is left to the jury to decide on all the evidence whether or not there was unfairness. If the jury decide that there was unfairness, they will pay no regard to the statement. If there was no unfairness they will have due regard to the statement. If there was unfairness they will put it out of their minds.
I thought it was right that I should inform the House of the position in case people were under a misapprehension that there was something more lax in the procedure than there actually is.
7.27 p.m.
Lord RENTON: I was surprised to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that the Thomson Committee said there should be no alternative to tape recording; and his amendment is based upon that assumption. However, I suggest that there are six good reasons why there should be an alternative to tape recording. Some of them have been mentioned already. They are these: first, there is the possibility of tampering with the tapes. That can be done not only by, so to speak, "rubbing out" parts of the record but also it can be done by a policeman who perhaps was not too particular or perhaps even over-zealous by arranging that a part of the record he did not like, especially if it was in his own voice, should be rubbed out and then he could insert what he wanted to put there. That is the first reason: the possibility of tampering with tapes.
The second reason is the complete failure of the machine and, alas, that can easily happen, as has been acknowledged. It can happen not only because of a failure of the machine itself but because of a power cut. Thirdly, there is the problem of inarticulate speech or, to put it another way, incomprehensible pronunciation which is capable of more than one interpretation when played back. If a jury is listening to evidence in a trial, in a vernacular used in another part of the

767
country, I can well see that the trial within a trial will become a most confused and complicated affair. The fourth reason has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Macleod, and it applies when foreigners are giving evidence which has to be interpreted. Whether or not we are lawyers, we all know that interpretations do not always exactly represent what the person being interpreted wished to put across. So there is another possible cause of confusion.
The fifth possibility—of course I readily concede that you can get this already through the police officer taking his notes—is the intrusion of incriminating material or the person in detention unintentionally giving away the fact that he has previously been convicted. That will then be on the tape.
The sixth and last point I wish to mention—and with respect I think it is the most important of all—is this: not every person in detention will feel confident that they can make a statement straight into a machine. I am not sure I would always feel confident myself; and they might feel much happier if they could slowly dictate what they wanted to say to a police officer, on the understanding—which every good police officer will allow—that if a mistake is made when dictating it can be corrected when the written record is read back and before it is signed by the person in detention. That seems to me to point necessarily to the fact that we should not give the tape recorder a monopoly, as has been proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord WIGODER: In the course of that catalogue of the deficiencies of tape recording, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, might have added a seventh which is frequently used by police officers to try to justify their opposition to this method of recording interrogations. Police officers say that there is nothing to stop a particularly wicked criminal, in the middle of a tape recording when there is a perfectly innocent conversation going on, from suddenly shouting out, "Officer! Stop kicking me in the face". That goes on the tape recording and, furthermore, say the police, the suspect will then bang his face on the table very hard, breaking his own nose, and then insist that a doctor should be called in in order to justify it.
768
The absurdity of that merely goes to show the length to which police officers will attempt to argue a case against any form of tape recording. In my respectful submission to your Lordships, the points that the noble Lord made are not really a valid ground for saying that therefore notebooks are a preferable method.
Lord RENTON: I did not say that.
Lord WIGODER: No, indeed. We are not discussing the absolute virtues of tape recording. Everyone accepts that accidents may happen with tape recordings. Of course, there might suddenly be a power failure. Of course, a witness might be somewhat incomprehensible talking in his own dialect. So he will be to the police officer. Presumably, the same defect arises if the police officer is writing in a notebook. Of course, the defendant might inadvertently give away his previous convictions on the tape recording. But then, of course, at the trial that part of the tape recording would be eliminated, just as it is cut out of the police officer's notebook when it arises. So one can go through all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in criticising tape recording.
Lord RENTON: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? With respect, I think he has missed the point I was making. I was making the point that the tape recorder should have no monopoly. By all means, we must have tape recorders used. There is a place for them. They are now established practice. But to say that no other method should be used, even when the person in detention may prefer it, seems to me to be quite unjust.
Lord WIGODER: It seems to me that the answer to that is really that one must compare the merits and demerits of tape recording, with the merits and demerits of the only alternative that we know of, which is that police officers should write down to the best of their recollection—it may be several hours after an interview—the best that they can remember about it.
We all play this game in courts. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has played it as often as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, or I have. It is solemnly suggested by police officers that, at the end of an interview, they are capable of taking a notebook and writing down verbatim

769
exactly what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, knows that he could no more write down accurately what I have just said, than I could write down accurately what he has just said, and yet this game goes on ceaselessly in our courts.
Not only that, but the opportunities for dishonesty, if police officers wish to be dishonest, are infinitely greater if notebooks are used than they ever could be if tape recording is used, even allowing for the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, made, that it may conceivably be technically possible for a dishonest police officer to tamper with a tape recording. So it might be, but it is infinitely easier for a dishonest police officer to tamper with his notebook if he wants to, when he is writing down his record of an interrogation. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, are right in saying that this is an opportunity to get rid of an obsolete and inaccurate system, and to replace it by something which will be an enormous improvement.
If I may deal with one point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, he suggested that we should wait indefinitely—because it will be indefinitely, if the police have any say in the matter—but then, eventually, we might introduce this reform by administrative measure. If I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, I apologise. But I want to point out that it would not be possible to introduce the substance of this amendment by any administrative measure, because this amendment provides quite specifically that, in future, tape recording would be the only admissible form of evidence in this situation. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is a sensible amendment, which follows a sensible recommendation by the Thomson Report, and is one which the Committee should support.
Lord AIREDALE: I have one very small point. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned interpreters. I should have thought that the tape recorder was of double value in the case of interpreters, because interpreters misunderstand and, sometimes, get it wrong, and if the suspect says, "I am afraid the interpreter got it wrong or did not understand", the whole thing will be down on the tape and it can be checked.
Lord HAWKE: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has made the point which definitely decides me against the amendment, that lawyers who specialise in getting criminals off the hook will certainly tell their man in general terms, "Always make an awful row in the police station and say ' Stop beating me '."
7.37 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: This has been a wide-ranging and not unentertaining debate. If I needed any convincing on a personal level that tape recorders were probably not altogether satisfactory, this debate would have done just that. I wonder whether I may take the Committee back to the amendment and, most importantly, to Clause 2, because I do not think that all noble Lords are fully aware of what it actually provides. What I can say is that the amendment would give immediate effect to the recommendation of the Thomson Committee, that the interrogation of suspects in police stations must be recorded, and would make it virtually impossible to bring this clause into operation until installation of equipment had taken place in every police station. That is the first point.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, very properly read out the recommendation of the Thomson Committee at paragraph 7.13.c. The recommendation is that:
"Interrogation of suspects in police stations must be recorded on tape".
But the report goes on to say:
"Tapes cannot easily be provided for questioning which occurs outside a police station. Our object is to provide a safeguard for persons being interrogated in the privacy of a police station, and also to protect the police against unjustified allegations".
In the light of the later remarks during the debate, they would seem to be in need of protection.
"We therefore do not suggest that interrogations conducted elsewhere need be recorded on tape".
I do not know whether—and I hope that I am not being offensive to the noble Lord, Lord Foot—he divined the significance of that remark on the part of the committee. Clause 2(1) lays down the circumstances in which a person can be taken to a police station or other premises and, subject to various provisions, de-

771
tamed there. So that the clause, in circumstances to which I shall come back later, envisages that suspects will not be taken to a police station.
The report of the Thomson Committee recognises that there would be difficulties in implementing the recommendation and suggests that these may be readily overcome. As my noble and learned friend explained at the Second Reading of the Bill, it was thought, following the discussions with the police and other interests, that the difficulties—not just the technical difficulties but the difficulties which were envisaged by some of the speakers in this debate—would be substantial. So it was decided that an experiment should be conducted by the two police forces of Tayside and Central at Dundee and Falkirk. That experiment is going on now and is expected to last at least a year.
One noble Lord said that the cost would be minute. It is right to say that so far the cost has been very far from minute. In order to obviate some of the dangers of tapes being doctored, if I may use the expression, it was thought proper that each machine should make three tapes simultaneously, one to be sealed and sent to the procurator fiscal's office, one for use by the police and one for the suspect, if eventually he was arrested, and his legal advisers.
The machine therefore is far from the little cassette thing with which my teenage daughter makes the night air hideous with her cassettes. It is complicated. Perhaps I can tell your Lordships that the eight sets of equipment in Dundee and the four sets of equipment in Falkirk have between them cost no less than £37,000. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, put his finger on it: there is a very definite resource question here over the use of tape recorders.
It does not end there. If you have these machines, it also happens that persons must be trained to use them; you do not just turn on the machine and it goes playing merrily away. I appreciate that this does not pose insuperable difficulties; of course it does not. But not only do people have to be trained to use them; someone also has to be on duty at the police station 24 hours out of 24 hours who is able to work
772
the thing and deal with any suspect who may be brought in. That is just an indication of some of the difficulties. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, looking at me with a faintly cynical smile, but I can assure him that the difficulties are not merely in the mind.
May I turn now to the question of suspects. I appreciate the concern of noble Lords that the arrangements for the questioning of suspects should incorporate suitable safeguards. We unreservedly endorse the Thomson Committee's objective of providing safeguards not only for persons interrogated at the police station but also for the police who, as I have already indicated, may face unjust or malicious accusations of improper practice. If the operational difficulties can be overcome, it is eminently sensible that tape recorders should be brought into use and that at least their use should be examined to see whether their operation is feasible.
There is one matter which I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention, and I think that here it is, if I may say so, the urban English mind coming out. In many cases in Scotland it is envisaged that suspects will be detained in places where there is no police station. There are many places in Scotland where there is no such thing—for miles and miles and miles. In those circumstances, there is a local officer, with a car. It is envisaged that in circumstances such as these t'-'e suspect will be detained, possibly in some place such as a village hall, while inquiries connected with the case are made. If this amendment were accepted, it would therefore be impossible for Clause 2 to be implemented in very large parts of the rural areas of Scotland because, as I say, the facilities simply do not exist, and it might take a great deal of time and be physically impossible to take a suspect to a place where a tape recorder happened to be set up.
I hope I have demonstrated that if this amendment were accepted by your Lordships the effects would be very far-reaching, probably more far-reaching than perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Foot, had any idea of. Other noble Lords and noble Baronesses have pointed to the difficulties which are inherent in the use of these machines. I am not going to say anything

773
else at this stage about the admissibility of evidence. However, if tape recorders were brought into operation in all cases in police stations and if for any reason they broke down, I suggest that it would be quite wrong for suspects' answers necessarily to be excluded. On all those matters the noble Lord's amendment is of course silent.
I hope I have said enough to show that this is not an amendment which the Government can accept, although I am sympathetic to the ideas which lie behind it in so far as they relate to fairness both to the accused and to the police who have to deal with the matter. For the moment, however, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this amendment.
7.47 p.m.
Lord FOOT: In that case, in a moment, I shall ask my noble friends to support me in the Division Lobby, but first may I make a few brief replies to some of the things which have been said, in particular by the noble Earl. He says that it will not be practical to introduce tape recorders into police stations until they can be introduced into every police station. I see no reason for that. If you have a police station which is ill-equipped and does not have a tape recorder and if you continue to record as we have been recording up to now, by a policeman taking it down in writing, that would make the situation no worse than it is today. But in all the police stations where you have a recorder you will have the advantage of the objective record which a tape recorder involves.
The noble Earl says that in Scotland there are some places where there is not a police station. All this was thought of by the Thomson Committee. The Thomson Committee recognised throughout that there are certain stages. There is the moment when a man is first detained by the police, when conversations take place and when words are said which cannot be recorded on a tape recorder because they are outside the police station. The Thomson Committee recognised this at once. As the noble Earl will remember, the committee provided that statements made by a suspect should be divided into various categories.
They dealt first with anything said to the police by a person who is not a suspect. That is, the police are just asking general
774
questions. Those questions are ones which the policeman simply records in his notebook. He records just the gist of what is said to him. The next category deals with questions and answers between the police officer and the suspect outside the police station when he is originally detained. Because there is no tape recorder there, they provided that what the policeman should do is to write down in his notebook what the suspect says and invite the suspect to sign it. But from the moment when they get to the police station, which is the moment when the man is being held incommunicado and therefore unable to communicate with anybody else, the committee said that if there is going to be interrogation it should be recorded on a tape.
After that they went on to deal with the sort of thing that happens when a person has been charged. Then a different system comes into operation—the system that we have at the present moment, whereby a person is charged with the offence, he is told that he need not say anything if he does not want to, but that anything he does say may be given in evidence, and it is then up to him as to whether or not he wants to say anything. Similarly, if, instead of answering questions under interrogation, a person volunteers to make a statement, then Thomson provides that the same procedure shall operate as operates today: the tape recorder is dispensed with, the paper is produced and the caution is read out to the person, and he is then invited to sign the caution as having been read to him. He then makes his statement, and either he or the policeman writes it down, at the end of which time he is invited to sign a statement, saying: "I have read this over and I do not want to make any alterations"—or if he does want to make any alterations, to make them.
All that has been considered by the Thomson Committee and, having considered it, they have said that the most sensitive moment of all is when the man is held in private in a police station and the only people who know what is said, what questions are asked and what answers are given, are the police and the man himself; and they said that in those circumstances the man is at a hopeless disadvantage. I was absolutely staggered to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renton, speaking about the dangers of tampering with the machine.

775
Who will tamper with the machine? Certainly not the suspect or the accused—he will not have the opportunity of tampering with it. The only people who would have the opportunity of tampering with the machine—even if one could not invent a machine with which it was impossible to tamper—would be the police. Does the noble Lord suggest that if there are policemen so corrupt that they are prepared to tamper with the machine; that those policemen are not equally capable of writing down lies in their own notebooks and producing them as evidence later on?
Another thing which horrifies me about the discussion we had is this—and I do not direct this so much at the noble Earl. At the beginning I was speaking about justice and about how one gets a fair trial, of how one ensures that wicked policemen do not invent stories, and how one can try to ensure that wicked crooks are not able to get their counsel to "grill" an honest policeman. That is all I am concerned about, as to whether we can introduce some fairness into the whole system. I do not know any legal authority in the land who has not deplored the way in which proceedings are carried on in our criminal courts at the present time. When I hear used arguments such as the one about cost used by the noble Earl, some astronomical sum for setting up this experiment in Dunkirk—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord FOOT: Falkee and Dunkirk, or wherever it was! Has the noble Earl considered what the cost is in this country and in Scotland of all the trials within trials that go on? The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, will correct me if I am wrong, but sometimes a trial within a trial can go on for days, and even for weeks at a time. What about all that expenditure of public money?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in the full flow of his peroration, but Old Bailey arguments really do not obtain in Scotland where it is quite a rare occurrence to have that sort of trial within a trial. I think the noble Lord's vast experience is not wholly applicable North of the Border.
Lord FOOT: I do not know how they manage in Scotland. Am I to understand that there are no policemen in Scotland who ever attribute to an accused person something that he has not said? Am I to believe that in Scotland there is never an occasion when an accused person wrongly accuses the police of having tampered with the evidence? If that is the case, then of course you do not have any trials within trials in Scotland; but I should be surprised if the situation in Scotland was so different from what it is in this country.
Then we have the argument that persons must be trained. All these matters were dealt with by the Thomson Committee in the quotations which I read out at the beginning. All the questions of cost, tampering, persons being trained and so on were all considered, and were considered to be subjects which could be dealt with perfectly satisfactorily.
Although I am not at all sure that it will be a useful exercise at this time of night, I will certainly invite my noble friends in a moment to go into the Lobby on this matter, although naturally we cannot expect to be successful. But if this amendment is rejected then it is for consideration whether, at a later stage in the debate on this measure, we should seek the complete elimination of Clause 2.
7.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 94.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

Seear, B.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Simon, V.

Barrington, V.

Hooson, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L

Craigavon, V.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wade, L.

Denbigh, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Wigoder, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Geddes, L.

Northchurch, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Glasgow, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Orkney, E.

Auckland, L.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Avon, E.

Gridley, L.

Perth, E.

Balerno, L.

Hanworth, V.

Renton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochdale, V.

Belstead, L.

Hawke, L.

Romney, E.

Bethell, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bradford, E.

Hives, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Brownlow, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Salisbury, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cockfield, L.

Killearn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kilmany, L.

Selsdon, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinross, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Crathorne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sharples, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Stradbroke, E.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Strathspey, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Teviot, L.

Dundee, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tranmire, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mansfield, E.

Ullswater, V.

Exeter, M.

Margadale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Faithfull, B.

Marley, L.

Vernon, L.

Falkland, V.

Merrivale, L.

Vickers, B.

Falmouth, V.

Mottistone, L.

Westbury, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Forrester, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Yarborough, E.

Galloway, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

8.4 p.m.
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 35, after ("address") insert ("or to allow himself to be searched or otherwise dealt with in the terms of subsection (5) above").
The noble Lord said: I am not going to move Amendment No. 21, or, later, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. Perhaps I should explain that this was always regarded by us as a matter of small importance and I do not think that it is really worth while to pursue the matter at this hour. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I shall not move Amendment No. 21.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert ("and there shall be recorded the time when he was so informed, the identity of the constable informing him, the terms in which he is informed and his response, if any, thereto, and he shall be invited to sign the record.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I can deal with Amendment No. 24 extremely
778
briefly. Subsection (7) of Clause 2 requires there to be a warning given to the person detained under subsection (1) that he is under no obligation to answer any question other than his name and address, and the constable shall so inform him. I should simply like to see that that matter is recorded. Indeed a record has to be made of certain other matters under subsection (4), and I should have thought it would be logical to make a record of the relevant matters here. The relevant matters are, I believe, the time when the caution and the warning information were given and the identity of the constable who so informed the detained person, the terms, just as in the case of any ordinary caution, and the response.
Then there is a separate provision which goes along with it, that the detained person shall be invited to sign the record. The reason is that that would ensure that the record was made at the time and, that it is a contemporary record. I believe that in principle this is sound. It is the only check one would have. One recalls that the person's solicitor is not going to be present, and this would at least show that he acknowledges that he was given a warning by the particular constable in particular terms and at a certain time.

779
I should have thought the Government would have little difficulty in accepting that as a record that ought to be made. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: We are sympathetic to the principle that the police should record the time when the caution in terms of subsection (7) is given and the identity of the officer who gives it. This will serve to ensure that a particular officer is assigned responsibility for telling the detained person of his rights and that he is told at the proper time. However, we are doubtful of the value and practicability of recording the other details mentioned in the amendment. I shall certainly undertake to bring forward an amendment dealing with the first two matters. We remain doubtful with regard to the value of the rest, for the reason that these matters are fairly stereotyped in nature and we cannot see any particular virtue in inviting somebody to sign the record in the circumstances that are likely to obtain in this situation. I hope that with what I have been able to say the noble and learned Lord will be satisfied.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for what he has said. I do not think it goes quite far enough. May I invite him to consider this: if a record is made of the matters he has mentioned and the suspect is invited to sign that record, will that not be of advantage to all parties, because it cannot then be argued at the man's trial that he was not given the warning. If he has signed the record it is evidence against him. Also it ensures that the warning is given at the time, recorded at the time and signed at the time. I should have thought that that would remove the possibility of unnecessary disputes about whether or not the warning was given. If the noble and learned Lord would undertake to give that further thought I should be quite happy to leave it like that.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Yes, I am happy to do that. I wanted to make clear what we have in mind at the moment and not to be too encouraging, but certainly we will consider it further.
Lord McCLUSKEY: On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.10 p.m.
The EARL of SELKIRK The EARL of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert—
("(8) Where a person has been released at the termination of a period of detention, he may request that he be medically examined.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 25. It is becoming rather common form nowadays to criticise the police. Indeed, it has been said that there is a smear campaign in that direction. I must say that even the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in the course of his Second Reading speech, made some rather wild and extravagant remarks.
The purpose of the amendment is simply as follows: After a man has been in detention he can demand a medical examination; that is to say, if he feels that he has been in any way physically wrongly treated, he can straight away say, "I should like to be examined". That means that afterwards he cannot tell an exaggerated story to the police, papers or any other source, saying how brutally he had been treated in police hands. That is all there is to it. I should be very glad if the Government would consider whether they think that such a provision is necessary, or whether there are other means by which such a requirement can already be met. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should like to make a few comments about this matter. I accept, of course, that in the vast majority of cases that have come to my attention, allegations made against the police are without any reasonable foundation, at the very least they tend to be wildly exaggerated. I am sorry that my remark should fall into that same category in the eyes of the noble Earl. But I believe that his amendment does have the following value: it does protect the police against this kind of allegation. It too often happens that a person, after leaving the police station—whether he has gone there apparently voluntarily or has been arrested, but subsequently released—turns up a day or two later before his own doctor or some other doctor, exhibits the odd bruise or whatever, and alleges that it was done by the police. I believe that the Government might be sympathetic towards the notion that the person should be medically examined if he requests it at the time.

781
If he does not request it, then his failure to request it when he subsequently alleges that he was injured in police custody is a matter of comment before the court.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Although I entirely understand the point of view that my noble friend has put forward in support of this amendment, I should like to point out that there are substantial difficulties. When a person is released from detention he is, of course, free to go about his business and, if he wishes, to go and have a medical examination as soon as possible. There is no need for the police to be involved. I would respectfully agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said about complaints against the police. I have succeeded him in having to look at these complaints and my experience, by and large, is very much the same as his, although so far it is over a much shorter period.
The provision of medical resources and so on that would be involved in this would be very substantial and they would have to be on call—they would have to be available without much advance notice because unfortunately the police would not be able to say when this particular situation would arise. There is also the difficulty that examination at the end would not, of itself, conclude the matter, because there might be a question about what the state of the man was at the beginning. Indeed, it is the comparison between what he was like when he went into detention and when he came out that is really important. Although examining at the end is possible, examining at the beginning is a little more difficult. Therefore, although, as I say, I very clearly understand the matters which my noble friend has raised, I fear that we do not consider it practicable to accept the amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I think that it is a question which the police should be asked. They should be asked whether they would like this. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for what he said. I do not think that the difficulties which my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate put forward are very substantial. Doctors can be obtained fairly easily and in very few cases would this question be asked.
782
I am only saying, "Please think again". I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Right to have someone informed when arrested or detained]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 42, leave out ("reasonably").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 26. We have now reached Clause 3 which concerns the right to have someone informed when arrested or detained. That was the point which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was speaking on at an earlier stage in our proceedings today. In the same way as I am, I think he must be concerned about the question of notification of his or her whereabouts when a person is being detained. It could cause great worry or even distress if someone seems to disappear for several hours without explanation, especially if it is in the evening or late at night, and if it is somebody who is elderly, who is regular in organising his life and who normally would not be late coming home or for an engagement without sending a telephone message or otherwise making contact.
So my object is to probe the meaning, in the first place, of the word "reasonably" which my amendment seeks to leave out. It could simply be there to dispose of eccentricity, mischief or frivolity—for example, the detained person demanding that the Prime Minister, the Queen or some well-known personality with whom he is not acquainted, should be informed. I recognise the problem if that is the sole reason. But, if that is so, I would point out that the police cannot always be certain. The detained person might, indeed, be a friend or related to a pop star or a well-known actor on stage or television. Now and then there could be a genuine request.
So, my purpose is to probe what the police action would be on receiving a request that someone be informed as well as the solicitor. The question of the

783
discretion which the police have to delay arises on the next Amendment, so I shall not pursue that now although clearly it is related to the procedure about which I am asking.
I recognise, as I mentioned in my speech on Second Reading, that we do not want a provision in the Bill to become a means whereby a criminal could tip off, through the police, another associate or associates in the offence, if it is eventually established that an offence has occurred. To put it at the extreme it could be a question of tipping off a gang that would then go off into hiding or abroad.
However, as this is a Committee stage I shall not speculate any more, because I think that at this stage it is better for me to ask my noble and learned friend whether he can explain what is intended by this word and then perhaps the Committee can comment upon the purpose of the word.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: My noble friend has, of course, anticipated the reason which led to the insertion of this word. The purpose is to prevent the detainee asking that intimation be made to some well-known figure with whom the detainee has no connection whatever. The way we thought to achieve this is to require that the power should be reasonably exercised by the detainee. Of course, if one person named by the detainee is rejected as being occasioned by eccentricity, mischief or frivolity, then it would be possible for him to nominate someone else. It appears necessary to us to protect the situation against abuse of this power and that is the reason for the word and we think that this is the best way to achieve it.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, might have added that there is a good precedent for this provision. I cannot recall the precise section, but there is a section of one of the English Criminal Justice Acts which uses these words. It would be interesting to know, if I am right about that, whether their use of the word "reasonably" has given rise to any problems in the English context.
The other point that I should like to make is that most of the solicitors who
784
are likely to be so informed, will be solicitors who are in regular practice, who will be accustomed to operating this kind of thing, and I should have thought that they do not number very many. In fact, in Scotland most of the solicitors who are experienced in criminal matters would be likely to inform the relatives themselves. There is nothing in the Bill to stop the solicitor who is informed from telephoning the man's wife or mother, or whoever it may be, and that might be a sensible way to do it. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, would recognise that, whether or not the solicitor was an experienced criminal lawyer, it is likely that, having received a message and knowing that there is no restriction on him passing that message on to the wife or other relative of the person detained, he might do so. I think in all the circumstances that the provision in the Bill is a reasonable one.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The provision of Section 62 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 is in these terms. I am glad that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who said that it was a good precedent coming from the law of England, but I certainly accept that it is perfectly reasonable that we should follow it.
Lord MONSON: Although I am extremely sympathetic to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as he might imagine, I see the force of the arguments from the two Front Benches. Even if the words, "a relative", were substituted for the words "one other person" I can well see that the counter-argument would be that then a Mr. Kray who is detained might inform his brother—or brothers; I am never quite sure how many there are—that the police were on his tail and it would be wise for him to get away. I see the force of that argument. If this amendment is not pressed, I very much hope that more attention will be given to the subsequent amendment, which is an important alternative.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to receive that explanation. I also recognise that it is the immediately following amendment—the question of the police having discretion to delay—

785
which will really cover the example of the Kray brothers, which indeed I gave in my Second Reading speech, and that this is the best way of carrying out the purpose, which I think is agreed, that one should avoid frivolous requests for information to be conveyed.
I do not go along entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, because if somebody asked me to get in touch with a solicitor, I am glad to say that I have very few dealings with solicitors and I would find it difficult. It would have to be the one who dealt with my will some time ago in Inverness, and he would not have the faintest idea where my wife was or how to get in touch with other members of the family, and that might apply to people who are not dealing with solicitors every week. I accept now that this is probably the best way in which this difficult description of the "other person" can be protected, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.23 p.m.
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 43, leave out from first ("delay") to end of line 3 on page 4.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment has already emerged, but may I just say exactly what it affects. Under Clause 3:
"a person who has been arrested and is in custody in a police station or other premises, or who is being detained in a police station or other premises under section 2 of this Act, shall be entitled to have intimation of his custody or detention and of the place where he is being held sent to a solicitor and to one other person reasonably named by him without delay …".
My amendment would have the effect of cutting out the words which follow upon that:
"or, where some delay is necessary in the interest of the investigation or the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders, with no more delay than is so necessary".
This is a pretty empty matter at best because this clause does not give the suspect or the arrested person the right for his solicitor to come to see him. It does not do anything of that kind. It merely confers upon him the right to have a solicitor notified that he is in the police station, where he is, and the right to have some other person notified to the same effect; but neither of them is entitled to
786
come to the police station and interview him at that stage. In those circumstances, I can see no justification for permitting the police to delay even that intimation of the fact that he is at the police station "in the interest of the investigation". Those words are almost meaningless, are they not? How easy it is for a police officer to say, "No, I don't think it is in the interests of the investigation to comply with this rule, and so I don't propose to tell anybody that you are here".
Further than that, there is a question which I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. It says at the beginning of the clause that this is:
"Without prejudice to section 19 … of the 1975 Act".
This is the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. That section provides:
"Where any person has been arrested on any criminal charge, such person shall be entitled immediately upon such arrest to have intimation sent to a solicitor that his professional assistance is required by such person, and informing him of the place to which such person is to be taken for examination".
That is judicial examination.
There appears to me, on the face of it, to be a conflict there, because at the beginning of this clause it says that this clause applies, as does Section 19, where a person
"has been arrested and is in custody in a police station or other premises …".
As I understand the law in Scotland, once you are arrested you have to be charged. Therefore, it follows from that that under Section 19 as soon as you have been charged the police are obliged to notify your solicitor that you are there and that his professional assistance will be required. This of course says, on the contrary, that in exactly the same circumstances the police can, if they want to, delay the information to the solicitor that the accused is in custody if it is "in the interest of the investigation".
To my reading of it, Section 19 appears to say one thing, that you must tell the solicitor immediately that the man has been charged and is going to be brought up for examination; but this clause seems to say, "No, you can delay that as long as you like, as long as the policeman considers it is in the interest of the investigation". I might not have comprehended the matter,

787
but if the noble and learned Lord could explain it to me I should be obliged.
This clause, as it is drawn, is to some extent a qualification, certainly of what was recommended by the Thomson Committee. What the Thomson Committee said in their Summary of the controls on detention at paragraph 3.27 on page 16 was:
"The exercise of the power of detention will be subject to the following controls:"
I need not worry the Committee with a and b, but c says this:
"If the detainee so requests, information of his detention shall be sent to his solicitor, and to a friend or relative".
There is nothing in Thomson to suggest that the police ought to be allowed to delay passing the information to the solicitor if they think that it is going to interfere with their investigations. Here we have another example of the way in which the Government's Bill qualifies the Thomson Report, and of course qualifies it to the disadvantage of the detained person. If the noble and learned Lord could explain the legal point to me, and if he could deal with this question as to whether he really thinks that the words I am asking to be left out carry the matter very much further. I should be obliged.
8.30 p. m.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I will try to deal with the legal point first. Sections 19 and 305 of the 1975 Act deal with the situation following arrest, and by that time, according to our understanding of the position, the police would have to have sufficient evidence to charge the person. That is the difference between our law and the law of England—that arrest and charge are more or less simultaneous; and the proper justification for arrest is that one is in a position to charge, so that by that stage the investigation has at least reached the stage of having sufficient evidence available to the police.
The opening words of Clause 3 are designed to preserve that situation and to make it clear that we are not in any way impinging on the rights of an arrested person. On the other hand, in constituting the rights of a detained person, the general principle has been to follow Thomson in this matter. But it has seemed to us that there may be situations in which an intimation to the solicitor or
788
someone named by the detainee will have the effect of acting as a tip-off. That may not happen very often, but it is a risk, according to our information; that if, for example, a member of a drug smuggling gang or something of that sort is detained, it will be apparent that something has happened to bring to the attention of the police the activities of the gang. If the person detained is able immediately to insist that even some relative or friend should be informed immediately, that will alert the person, the other member of the gang, to the fact that the police have caught up with them, and that may lead to disposing of property or other action to defeat the ends of justice.
We have tried to draw the power to delay the intimation as narrowly as we can, consistent with the object we are seeking to achieve; and I hope, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel there is a point here that we are trying to safeguard, and we have safeguarded it to the minimum extent necessary to allow the matter to be intimated without prejudice to the investigation. Only so far as necessary—to prevent interference with the investigation or the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders—will this delay be allowed. And if the police did delay, they would require to justify the delay on one or other of these grounds. I respectfully submit that that is a reasonable restriction and one which is in the interests of achieving the kind of balance all of us are seeking.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I listened carefully to what the Lord Advocate said, but there is one point where he left the matter rather grey. Does what he said about the possibility of a tip-off apply to the right of a person in detention to have his solicitor informed? The noble and learned Lord said, when he came to that part, that some person named by the accused might be informed in this way and that would result in a tip-off. Does that apply to the solicitor as well? Is that what the Lord Advocate is saying?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I am saying that it could apply to the solicitor. That may be a matter for the judgment of the police, and I would not want to suggest that it may ever apply to a solicitor; it may or it may not. It is a matter for the judgment of the police.

789
There are solicitors and solicitors, and it may be necessary for the police in some circumstances to exercise a judgment on this matter in a situation with which they are faced. Of course, it is only if they can justify it as necessary in the interests of one or other of the stated causes that this would operate. So far as a solicitor is concerned, they would have to justify it in relation to the solicitor as well as to the named person and be able to substantiate that there was a risk, if the solicitor was informed, that it would affect the investigation, and I can certainly envisage circumstances in which that might be so.
Lord McCLUSKEY: While we are on this point perhaps I could take it a little further. The Lord Advocate says there are solicitors and solicitors, which is a truism and I suppose we are to take some inference from that. But there are policemen and policemen, and some policemen simply do not trust solicitors who are accustomed to appearing in criminal causes, and they may build up over the years a good deal of resentment against solicitors, more particularly against those solicitors who tend to be reasonably successful.
I feel that to leave the matter purely to the judgment of the police in relation to the solicitor is perhaps to create difficulties. Although I can see the force of the argument which has been presented, I wonder whether this is a matter on which the Law Society of Scotland might be consulted. I know they have views and they have been good enough to provide some of us with copies of their views. Indeed, I understand they propose to put forward an amendment—the amendment is not yet specified—and I think this is a matter on which the Government might want to take their advice before they proceed with this provision in relation to the solicitor.
VISCOUNT SIMON: To whom do the police have to justify the delay in notification?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The situation would be that the power to postpone notification would be circumscribed by this particular restriction and therefore the police would require to justify the delay to anyone who was entitled to question the whole procedure,
790
including of course the disciplinary authority, a civil court if a civil action was appropriate, and possibly also a criminal court if a complaint was made in relation to the proceedings in the criminal court itself. There are other possible ways in which the matter might arise, but those are the principal ones that occur to me. I do not know that I am prepared to accept that policemen will necessarily have a bad relationship with solicitors who happen to be successful. I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has defended many people successfully, and I am sure his relationship with the police is excellent.
Lord MONSON: Following on the exchange between the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, it seems that the only justification the Government have for rejecting the amendment is fear of a few bent solicitors. The police obviously already have the power to delay informing anybody else almost indefinitely because of the retention of the word "reasonably" in Clause 3. Is not the existence of a tiny handful of bent solicitors a small price to pay for the freedom of the individual? I should have thought that was far more important. If by some mishap the amendment is not accepted, will the Lord Advocate indicate whether the Government may be prepared to accept at a future stage an amendment to Clause 2(4) to provide that not only should the time of the detainee's arrival at and departure from the police station be recorded, but also the time at which his solicitor was informed? That would at least help us to monitor how this is working in practice.
Viscount HANWORTH: I take a slightly contrary view to that of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. With the increasing seriousness of crime, we really have to take some measures which otherwise we would not wish to take. I think it has been sufficiently publicised to allow us to realise what is happening in the courts today; the criminal is unfortunately favoured, for one reason or another, to an extent which is limiting the effectiveness of justice. I therefore wholly support the Government in what they are trying to do.
Lord HUTCHINSON of LULLINGTON: I take exactly the opposite view

791
and I would go along with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that sometimes during this discussion one tends to forget that what we are all trying to do here is to achieve some form of real justice in the administration of the criminal law. Surely the Lord Advocate will realise and know (and the noble Earl certainly does know because I know he knows) that the police use—certainly in England and from what has been said, the same thing obviously happens in Scotland—this "get-out" phrase in the Judges' Rules, which is repeated here, about refusing to allow arrested people to have a solicitor. Always one hears the routine reply when they get into the witness box, "I did not allow him to have a solicitor for one, two, three, sometimes four days because", exactly as the Lord Advocate said, "there might have been some interference in the investigation". That can never be sorted out in court. If the police officer says that, it has to be accepted, and the result is that the Judges' Rules, which in England very clearly lay down that everybody is entitled to a solicitor once arrested, are in fact rendered completely nugatory. That is the reality of the situation.
Once again here is an opportunity to try to do something about this, and to do it, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, says, in order that we should have an orderly, correct and admirable system of justice. I am sure that that is what is wanted in Scotland as much as in England. Here is the old formula being repeated once again. It goes on year after year and, as a result, all the efforts to provide for people to have representation and to bring to an end the argument about what really happens by ensuring that there is someone to advise the defendant so we know where we are, will once again be rendered absolutely useless.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can help me further on this point. If indeed he said, as I understood him to say, that the provisions of Clause 3 may apply to the case of a solicitor, how can it be said in that event that these provisions are without prejudice to the provisions of Sections 19 and 305 of the 1975 Act?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I sought to explain earlier that Sections 19
792
and 305 apply from the moment of arrest onwards. If I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, I would say that if this provision is enacted the situation in Scotland will be much better than it is in England in that the provision applies for only six hours at the most. Once the six hours have passed, the person is arrested, and then Sections 19 and 305 come into operation, and there cannot exist the situation which can apparently arise under the Judges' Rules in England of a person being arrested with no information sent out. I would venture to submit that we are making a very considerable improvement from that point of view, and I hope that noble Lords will feel that this particular provision—a very restrictive provision so far as the police are concerned—will be allowed to stand for the minimal period.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I wonder whether I may push the question which the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has raised, and with great daring say that the particular word in Section 305 of the 1975 Act is not "arrest" but "apprehend", but "apprehend" surely covers detention just as much as arrest. Therefore the words "without prejudice to Section 305" mean that the rules of Section 305 apply just as much to detention as they would to arrest. In those circumstances I do not quite see how, without further amending Section 305, one can leave the matter with the necessary delay as dominating the warning and the coming of a solicitor. I find it very difficult to see whether the noble and learned Lord intends that there should be a complete difference. If he does, I think he will find that Section 305 deals with both sides—that it deals with apprehension as well.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: This is a matter which no doubt is susceptible of considerable argument, but I would point out that Sections 19 and 305 were enacted against the background of the then existing law and the only power of apprehension that exists in the law of Scotland, apart from that in Clause 3, is the power of arrest. I shall be glad to look at the matter again, but certainly my understanding of the position is that Sections 19 and 305 apply from the time of apprehension under the law, apart from Clause 3, and from then on the rights

793
will be constituted under Sections 19 or 305. Until that time Clause 3 would operate and would have the effect that I have mentioned. Certainly that is the intention.
Lord MONSON: Can the noble and learned Lord say whether in principle the Government would be prepared to consider favourably an amendment to Clause 2(4) on the lines that I suggested, so that after a year or so one would be able to gauge how the legislation was working in practice?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: think I said on Second Reading that the Government would look carefully at any proposals for improving the Bill, and the kind of proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has suggested would certainly be looked at, but from what he has told me I cannot at the moment say that I would do more than that.
8.45 p.m.
Lord FOOT: May I first pursue the legal point? Although the noble and learned Lord has endeavoured to explain three or four times, I still do not see how he reconciles Section 19, or Section 305 for that matter, with this particular clause. I do not know whether this is either the time or the place to enter into an argument on legal interpretation of a statute, but I am still satisfied that Clause 3 is wrong. Let me go over the matter again. Section 19 deals with the case of any person who has been arrested on any criminal charge. That is the person we are dealing with—a person who has been arrested and, because he has been arrested, has been charged. It is at that moment that Section 19 says that the police must immediately notify his solicitor.
Let us look now at Clause 3. Let us leave out the words "without prejudice". We are dealing here with a person who has been arrested and is in custody at a police station or other premises. Now, pausing there, we see that that is exactly the same man as the man referred to in Section 19. He is a person who has been arrested and, because he has been arrested in Scotland, he must have been charged. He is exactly the same person; yet under Section 19 he is entitled to have his
794
solicitor notified immediately, but under this clause his rights are that he,
"shall be entitled to have intimation of his custody or detention and of the place where is being held sent to a solicitor"—
here I leave out the reference to the other person—"… without delay Immediately after stating "without delay" which of course means exactly the same as "immediately" in Section 19, the clause goes on to emasculate the provision by saying in effect, "Oh yes, but at the discretion of a police constable any delay is acceptable—any delay that the policeman thinks necessary in the interests of his investigation".
I do not know why I should be very worried about the amendment because in my opinion the whole of Clause 3 is a charade. It does not give the man any real rights, but simply the right to have his solicitor notified that he is in the police station. What good is that to him if he cannot consult his solicitor? There is no provision here that he is entitled to see his solicitor or to speak to him, but only the right to have the solicitor notified—rung up while in bed at three o'clock in the morning and told that a client is in custody. The solicitor may perhaps say, "Can I come and see him?" and the reply will be "No, you can't. You have no right to see him".
So the whole thing is a charade. Why, then, go to the absurdity of saying that even that minimal right can be denied the man if it happens to suit the purpose of a police constable to do so? I think that this is a nasty little clause and the sooner it is wholly got rid of the better. However, in view of what has been said, unless the noble and learned Lord wants to make any further reply, I do not think that it is worth pursuing the matter, and so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Search for offensive weapons]:
8.50 p.m.
Lord WHEATLEY Lord WHEATLEY moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 5, leave out ("has committed or").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 4 deals with the right of a constable who,
"has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any person has committed or is committing an offence under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953"
to search that person without warrant. Apart altogether from the general question, with which we will deal in the next amendment, this relates to the situation where, according to the clause, the constable has reason for suspecting that the person" has committed or is committing an offence under the 1953 Act. That Act provides that it is an offence for a person to have with him in any public place an offensive weapon. I can understand the purpose behind this when it refers to "has committed" an offence contrary to the 1953 Act if it means that he has, just immediately before the apprehension, committed such an offence; and, so far as that goes, I would be quite prepared to go along with it.
But as the clause is worded there seems to be no restriction in time as to when that previous offence was committed. Accordingly, it would seem, as I read it, unless I can be persuaded otherwise, that it would not matter whether the police officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the person suspected had committed the offence contrary to the 1953 Act a day before, a week before, a month before, a year before or five years before. Accordingly, if that construction is correct, or if there is some doubt about it, it would mean that any police constable who knew that a person had already been convicted of an offence under Section 1 of the 1953 Act would have the right to search that person.
I do not think that is what is intended—I hope it is not what is intended—but as the clause is framed at the present time it is capable of that construction. I would see no justification for allowing a police constable to stop and search a person in terms of this clause simply because he knew that on some previous occasion the person had been guilty of an offence under Section 1 of the 1953 Act. Accordingly, I would invite the Government to take this away and think about it; because if the answer be, as has been suggested to me, that it means "has recently committed" an offence, then I do not think that the
796
clause as framed would confine it to those narrow limits. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps the Lord Advocate would allow me a few words before he replies. First, I would certainly support the noble and learned Lord in this amendment, and indeed apologise for not having had time to join my name to it. I can add nothing to that particular argument, but there is another point and that, I believe, is this. The noble and learned Lord referred to his view that if the accused person had very recently committed an offence under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 then he could understand the provision. But the way this is worded, "has committed or is committing", indicates, I suspect, that when one is talking about a person who has committed a crime one is talking about a person who is no longer committing it, because if he is still committing it then he is caught by the words" or is committing an offence under".
Therefore, if he is a person who has in the past (whether it is the ancient past or the very recent past) committed such a crime but is a person who is no longer committing it, then what is the warrant for searching that person? The search is not going to discover him in possession of an offensive weapon, because he is a person who has at some stage committed the offence but is no longer committing it. I would humbly suggest that that is a further reason for the Lord Advocate to take this matter away and look at it. Both of these grounds—the one advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, and the one I have sought to add—are grounds that I would have put forward for leaving out Clause 4, although I believe there are others.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Certainly we are prepared to look at this again. The construction that we had put upon this matter so far was that the constable had to be in a situation of having reasonable grounds for suspecting, and no more; that is to say, he is in a situation of mere suspicion, and not of having evidence, for example, that the person had been convicted of an offence. But perhaps more importantly, the clause read as a whole, we would have thought, carries with it the implication that the search would either confirm the suspicion or

797
rebut it, and if that is right then it is apparent that "has committed" must be sufficiently close in time to the time of the search to make that a reasonable possibility. Of course, the difficulty in this situation is that Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act prohibits the carrying of offensive weapons in public, so all that one has to do to stop committing the offence is not to get rid of the offensive weapon but to move into a private place. Some phrase of this kind is, therefore, necessary to make the power reasonably effective; but certainly we will look to see whether we can improve the drafting of the clause.
Lord WHEATLEY: With that assurance I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCLUSKEY: Clause 4 is a clause which the Government have put into this Bill but which was not in the Bill as introduced by the previous Government, and I want to advance the reasons why this power of search for offensive weapons in these terms was not included in our Bill and why, in my submission, it should not be included in this Bill. The first arguments I was going to present are arguments which have already been dealt with in the discussion on the amendment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, put forward, and to which the Lord Advocate has just responded. I pass over them, because if the Bill contains this clause on the next occasion on which we see the Bill then we must consider the wording at that time. But there are some quite general points.
First, what this clause envisages is an invasion of personal liberty—a search in the street, or it may be, from what the Lord Advocate has just said, in some private premises, not in a public place. In my submission this clause gets the balance wrong. It is liable, in my view, to upset good police-community relations. It is certainly a power in the police which disturbs the Law Society of Scotland, and
798
perhaps I might read the memorandum on this which they have published, in which they say:
"The Council"—
that is the Council of the Law Society—
"is deeply divided. By a very slender majority of 15 to 13 they approve the clause as a useful preventative of crime, but the Council is still very worried about this clause indeed. The minority believes it will poison the relationship between the police and the public: that a citizen has a right to be protected against unreasonable search; and that it will result in discrimination by the police against a certain section of the population, namely, the young".
Whatever the voting, in my view those are powerful reasons, and ones which the Government should certainly take into account.
There is another particular point, and it is this. There is always a risk that a policeman who is unscrupulous may "plant" evidence upon a suspect. In my experience, I have known two or three cases where I am morally certain that that has happened. It is certainly very frequently alleged but, I am happy to say, I believe it is seldom true; but it is much easier to plant evidence, to put false evidence, on the person who is suspected and to do it in the street than in a police station when there are many policemen present. It would require a great conspiracy to plant evidence on someone in a police station. It can be done by sleight of hand in the street.
Clause 2 allows a person to be taken to a police station and detained; and he can be searched, with certain safeguards, at the police station. In my view, it would be better to leave the matter to rest upon the provisions of Clause 2 and have the search carried out in the police station where the possibility of planting evidence is much smaller, albeit it is very small even in the streets, although that is a possibility. In the circumstances I would ask that this clause be deleted from the Bill.
Lord WHEATLEY: Before the noble Earl replies I should like to say something on this. I think that in balancing the arguments for and against—which, it may be, is a very fine skill—it must be borne in mind that there are arguments in favour of allowing this power. May I say from my experience that the most formidable argument is that a very large

799
number of assault cases that we are getting in the courts at the present time in Scotland—ranging from simple assault to assault with severe injury, assault with permanent disfigurement or disablement or assault with danger to life through to attempted murder or murder itself—have, in the vast majority of cases, the use of an offensive weapon in that assault.
It has become common practice for many people, as the cases show, to walk in the streets not for the occasional day or week but often for months—and always armed with a knife, a razor, a dagger or something like that. The excuse is usually given that nine months or 12 months earlier the person himself had been the victim of an assault and so was carrying a weapon in self-defence. I have heard that time and time again in court. The great problem with these people who are carrying weapons, particularly as they often are, I am sorry to say, associated with alcohol, is that sometimes without any provocation or sometimes with the slightest provocation the knife comes out and into the body of the victim.
Often, the difference between a serious assault with a weapon of that nature and murder has nothing to do with the person who carries and uses the knife. The difference between serious assault and murder is often due to the combination of three factors. First, the trajectory of the blow. An eighth of an inch difference in the trajectory can mean the difference between the weapon entering a vital organ and causing death or just missing that organ and not resulting in death. The second factor is quite often, in cases of that nature, the proximity of the assault to an infirmary or hospital where surgical care can be provided at a very early stage after the assault has taken place. One has examples of that. The third is that, even with the facilities being available, it is the surgical skill of the surgeon that often saves a life which might otherwise have been lost.
I recall one particular instance in a trial over which I presided which, I think, illustrates the three points that I have made. The assault took place within 100 yards of the Royal Infirmary in Glasgow. The knife went right through
800
the victim's heart. In my ignorance at that time, I thought that that was almost bound to be with fatal result. But it was found possible to get the victim the 100 yards to the Royal Infirmary. He was put on the operating table and, by what I regarded at the time (and still regard) as a surgical miracle, the surgeon saved his life despite the fact that the knife went right through and out at the back. But the degree of culpability of the person who wielded the knife was the same whether the facilities were available or whether the attack had happened on the outskirts of Glasgow and by the time the victim had been got to the Royal Infirmary he would have been dead.
There exists this large incidence of people going about carrying offensive weapons and using them, either at the drop of a hat or with slight provocation or, sometimes, after severe provocation. Therefore, something must be done to try to rid our country of what I regard as a scourge of people walking about the streets with weapons in their possession and prone to use them in the circumstances to which I have referred. That, in my opinion, is a very strong argument in favour of the clause as we have it at the present time. Again, one would like to see all the appropriate safeguards because it is a further invasion of rights. None the less, I think that the problem is so serious that serious measures are required to counter it. For that reason I would support the clause.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, as a judge in Scotland, I hardly dare rise to my feet; for he has said so eloquently what I as a humble magistrate outside London feel very deeply; namely, that the possibility of being found in possession of an offensive weapon might ultimately deter those who carry them. As we all know, offensive weapons can be anything from a razor blade to a penknife, a flick knife, a kitchen knife, to a piece of tubing, steel or rubber—practically anything that can hurt somebody else. In Scotland as well as in England, I am aware that many young people commit crimes because they have in their possession those offensive weapons which give them the courage to go out and hurt, maim and, sometimes, murder other young people.

801
If it is of any consolation to the noble Lord, we have the same problem in this country. I am more keen perhaps about this clause of the Bill—because I hope it will be implemented more than it is now South of the Border—than any other clause in the Bill. I also have had a young man appear before me, and when handed the implement with which he has maimed somebody and I have said, "Why do you have it?", he has said, "I have it to defend myself". That is always the excuse. Lives are taken because too many people—mostly young— are allowed to congregate together when they have offensive weapons in their possession.
I want this part of the Bill to be implemented in Scotland. It might in the end be a deterrent because the police know very well that the young people come out of, say, a dance hall or a football match, or almost anywhere, and then violence can break out after a drink if they have an offensive weapon in their possession. This clause is important and I hope my noble and learned friend will oppose the rejection of Clause 4.
9.9 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: The arguments in favour of the new provisions of Clause 4 are those which have been stated so forcefully and pointedly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, and the noble Baroness. But is the difference proposed to be brought into effect not in practical terms more apparent than real? The clause commences by saying:
"Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any person has committed or is committing an offence under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (prohibition of carrying of offensive weapons in public) the constable may search that person …".
What is the position under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 if the constable is in that situation? The position simply is that the constable has power to arrest that person. Having arrested him, he may then search him either in the street according, as his Judgment suggests, as appropriate, or in the police station to which he then has power to take the arrested person. What this clause suggests is that if the constable is in that situation—exactly the same
802
situation as entitles the constable to arrest the person, search him in the street or at the police station—he can search the person on the spot. What does that add to the reality of the situation? Is this what we want the police force to do? Is it what the police want to be able to do themselves?
I ask these questions quite genuinely because I would have some doubt as to whether constables on the beat particularly want a power to be able to search in the street, on the spot in these circumstances. At present there is a certain discretion; there is power to arrest and, if the situation is dangerous, the policeman then searches. If it is not dangerous he takes the arrested person to the police station and the search is carried out under the supervision of a senior officer. With that situation in mind, I wonder whether this clause adds anything in practical terms to giving real powers to the police to make a more emphatic impact on this problem to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, and the noble Baroness have referred.
9.13 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: This is a matter that concerned me as Secretary of State way hack in 1968, 1969 and 1970. We were under considerable pressure—particularly from the police in Glasgow—to give them this power. They felt it would solve the problem that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, mentioned. I have heard the case that he put forward about the proximity to a hospital, an infirmary, meaning the difference between life and death. No one has a better record of supporting the police than I have; but the more I thought about this, the less I liked it. This does not come from the Thomson Committee, although one might have had the impression, reading the memorandum that it did. The Thomson Committee only made a comment in passing. It said that one of the problems relating to a power of stop and search for offensive weapons is a fear that this will lead to police harassment of young persons, particularly where such persons have a police record. I think it would lead to difficulties not only with those with a police record but with many others as well, who are quite

803
innocently in a group; and it does not necessarily follow that giving this power would achieve the desired effect. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson; he and I have discussed this more than once before. This strikes me very much as rather like the vandalism clause to which we shall come later. It will not really advance us to any great extent from the position we are in at present, but in that advancement it may create very considerable difficulties with the police vis-à-vis the young people whose co-operation they really want.
We have to appreciate that the present law, which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson—the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which applies equally in England and Wales—makes it an offence to carry an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse and empowers a police officer to arrest without a warrant a person (here are the same words again)
"whom he has reasonable grounds to believe has such a weapon".
Doing the search on the street might be a considerably dangerous thing from the point of view of the police, because everyone who spoke about this in those days when I was Secretary of State (and I have heard it since) are talking about gangs of people. I can assure your Lordships that it might be easier to arrest people and take them to the police station than to do it on the spot; and it might lead to very considerable trouble indeed.
It has been suggested that all this comes from the Scottish Council on Crime. That council was set up by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and they reported in my day. This is why I had to consider it again when I later became Secretary of State in 1974—it is interesting that although we had all the trouble in 1967, 1968, 1969—and the pressure from the Conservative Opposition at that time, when they became the Government they did not introduce this particular power. They set up a Scottish Council on Crime, and I do not think there is any doubt at all about it: I looked at it very carefully and at their recommendation. Their recommendation is not the one that is being legislated for, because they thought
804
it should be introduced for a trial period of perhaps five years. They thought it might be of advantage; so we are not getting either what Thomson said or exactly what the Scottish Council on Crime said, and, to my mind, it does not take us very much beyond the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.
I have listened to one or two phone-in radio programmes on this, and the impression has been given—particularly by one gentleman who later on I discovered, just by listening to him, had not even read the Bill—that this is going to solve all the problems about mugging and all the problems about assault. Is it? You do not need an offensive weapon at all in relation to some of the crimes referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley. It is fists, it is punching, it is feet and it can be weapons that could not be construed as "offensive weapons". At the present time, so far as the football crowds are concerned, throwing coins can be a very dangerous thing. Is everyone who has coins in his pocket going to be construed as having an offensive weapon? Four coins between your fingers can be a very considerable offensive weapon.
Lord WHEATLEY: May I just correct the noble Lord, Lord Ross: I was referring to serious crimes when I said that a large proportion of serious crimes of assault were committed by the use of offensive weapons.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Yes, but not always in the public highway. Many of them concern domestic situations where knives and such things are very much handier. I think that, if we look at statistics in relation to that, we discover that not all serious crime takes place in this particular way; and to give people the idea that this power will somehow wipe out this—it is just not going to happen.
I can remember the outcry when, I think, Barbara Castle, when Minister of Transport, introduced into a Bill the question of random spot checks for drunken driving. There was an outcry. It was said that this was an invasion of the liberty of the subject. I could make a speech about some of the accident cases I have seen concerning drunken

805
driving and the effect of them. We thought so much of the liberty of the subject that the police were restricted in how they would use that power. Even what power there is has not proved to be a deterrent. The long-term deterrent effect has worn off.
I am sure that it would be quite wrong to expect a tremendous reduction in crimes of violence simply from this provision. It is suggested that people do not mind being searched at airports, but everyone is searched at airports. The difficulty is that it is not everyone who will be searched on the street. You can search anybody on the street and you will find offensive weapons. You will find them in my pocket. I carry a steel comb which could be a very considerable offensive weapon. I ask your Lordships to remember the description of an "offensive weapon" in the 1953 Act:
"… any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him."
Umbrellas are offensive weapons. I carry on the end of my keychain a small knife, decorated with the name of a whisky firm whose product I do not use. But it can be a penknife, it can be a screwdriver and it can be a very effective offensive weapon. The same argument applies to a small pair of folding scissors.
We must also remember the possibility of abuse. If these things are found in the hands of someone with whom the police have had trouble in the past, but who is not going to cause offence, they can be construed as "offensive weapons" under the 1953 Act. This is not far-fetched. A lot of people are worried about this, not least some of the committees which have looked at the matter. There will not always be a sound basis for selecting some of those who are stopped. This will be random. It will not apply to everybody, but it may well be quite inoffensive people who are stopped. I do not think they will like it. I do not think there is a noble Baroness here who would like to be stopped in a supermarket, and who would say, "Yes, I shall be delighted to be searched". The attitude of people towards those who do these things would change, and it would not help the police in any way at all if there were an unco-operative public. Further
806
more, unjustifiable complaints of police abuse would certainly increase. So I certainly hope that noble Lords will not pass this clause.
I have thought loud and long on the matter. It is not a matter of anything that I feel about the police, abuse or anything like that. But it is a fact that, in the last resort, the police will depend for their effectiveness on co-operation with the public. If an aggressive attitude arises from this, it will affect the police. Give them a new power and it will affect their attitude, as well as the attitude of the public. It will be to the detriment of co-operation. That is why I am very strongly opposed to this clause.
9.24 p.m.
Lord MONSONI had not intended to speak on this clause, but an experience of mine might be of value in assessing the merits of this clause. Rather more than 30 years ago, I was running in Hammersmith Broadway together with a Gibraltarian friend, with suitcases in our hands, in order to catch a Green Line bus to go back to school after half-term. Just as we were about to board the bus we were stopped by a young policeman who ordered us, in brusque tones, to open our suitcases. When we naturally objected he said, "Either you open them here or I will take you along to the station". When I asked him why he wanted to see our suitcases and not those of the others standing in the bus queue, he said, "Haven't you heard? There have been some Stern gang attacks in London recently"—at that time some Israeli terrorists belonging to the Stern gang had set off the odd bomb, though nothing to compare with what has happened recently.
I did not think then, and I do not think now, that the policeman seriously believed that we were members of the Stern gang, even though my Gibraltarian friend had dark, curly hair. I think that he was bored, that he had nothing better to do and that he simply wanted to exercise his power over a couple of teenagers who were perhaps five years younger than himself. So we duly opened our suitcases.

807
What I remember most about the incident was not the fact that we missed our bus, or the difficulty we had in explaining our lateness to our housemaster—who was totally disbelieving, as might be expected—but the grins, the giggles and the elbow nudging of the other people in the bus queue. If everybody in the queue or in the street had been searched it would have been a different matter—but it was as humiliating as could be. It annoyed me then, and even to this day it has to some perceptible degree altered my feelings towards the police.
If such an incident rankles with me after 30 years, how much more must a similar incident rankle with the sort of people who are traditionally suspicious of or hostile to the police? What use is it to catch perhaps one person who is searched out of 100 who might be carrying an offensive weapon, if the other 99 are turned against authority from then onwards? That is why I agree totally with what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has just said.
Lord MOYNE: I should have been very worried about this clause, thinking of the skean-dhus which people wear very freely in Scotland, often in their stockings, but I think it is perfectly safe. It is only if the police have reasonable grounds that they can carry out this search. When the Minister replies he might like to say a word about that, but I think it is perfectly safe.
9.28 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: This has been a fascinating mini-debate but, if I may say so, I think that we are in danger of reading into this clause what is not there. If I may deal first with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, whatever troubles he had with his honourable friend over the matter of drunken driving and whether there should be spot checks with breathalysers, nobody is suggesting that there should be spot checks for offensive weapons. If I may draw his attention to the first part of the clause, it says:
"Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting …".
808
So if the noble Lord proceeds down his favourite shopping street with his steel comb and his little knife, he is not going to be in any greater or worse danger of anything y virtue of this clause than he was before. I hope that the noble Lord realises that. This clause does not confer on the police the right to impose spot checks.
Secondly, most noble Lords agree, I think, that violence in our society is increasing to a worrying degree, especially in the urban areas. The habit of young people in particular of carrying offensive weapons has now become a very serious problem indeed. I submit that the power given to the police in this clause is no more than is necessary to tackle a problem which, as I have described, has become particularly serious and particularly common among young people. At present, the police can arrest and charge somebody whom they see brandishing offensive weapons openly in a public place, but unless they see the weapon they have no power of arrest and no power of search to find it.
If I may again take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, this was a measure which was recommended by the Scottish Council on Crime and in a much wider form I suggest, contrary to what he said, than it was recommended by the Thomson Committee in paragraph 3.18. where it says it concluded that,
"a rigid time limit was not desirable where short periods of time were concerned, and that it would be sufficient to provide that no person should be detained elsewhere than in a police station for longer than is necessary for the following purposes"
—and then there follow a., b., and c., which reads:
"searching outer clothing or baggage for stolen goods, tools of crime, or weapons".
It seems to me that the committee was recommending precisely this sort of provision. My own party has been consistent in Opposition in suggesting a power such as this on the part of the police and, as I have said, it has been recommended in one form or another by these two bodies.
I do not know what it is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, was complaining about. It seems to me that it is very much better, cleaner and

809
quicker for the police—for instance, outside a football ground or a dance hall or somewhere like that—to have the power in proper cases to search in the street rather than have to lug somebody off—if I may use that word—down to a police station. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, conjured up a picture of the police, ever dishonest, with armfuls of offensive weapons which they would be ready in some way to plant on suspects whom they searched in the streets as opposed to the police station, where, he said, it would be more difficult because it would then become a conspiracy. I do not know whether the police in Glasgow and such places go out laden with offensive weapons ready to plant on somebody; I should have thought they had better things to do. But if they were so minded I suggest that it would be much easier to arrest somebody under the 1953 Act and then to plant something on them in the police car on the way to the police station than to try to do it in an open street where everybody can see, but I am sure that I must have misunderstood his point.
When people carry illegal offensive weapons they take care to keep them hidden, especially from the police, and at the moment so long as they do so they are safe from arrest and search, but it is these weapons which are carried hidden and ready for use which are responsible for what I regard as the highly unacceptable level of stabbings, murders and attempted murders which disfigure Friday and Saturday nights in Scotland, all of which, if I may respectfully say so, were so well pointed out and illustrated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley.
Stopping to think of the matter logically, we heard from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on Second Reading about the necessary measures which take place at airports. I will not go into that now, but the police already have similar powers to stop and search in the street in respect of things like birds' eggs and drugs; water bailiffs have power to search for salmon roe in comparable situations. If the preservation of rare birds is important—and I believe we all agree that it is—surely the preservation of life is equally so.
I do not believe that in carrying out these powers—and indeed I should not
810
miss out the power to search for illegal drugs—the Scottish police have either abused their powers or suffered a loss of public sympathy as a result of having them. I reject the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that in giving this power to the police it will in some way destroy their generally good relations with the community. No one body is more aware of the need for good relations with the public than the Scottish police force, and from my knowledge of them they work extremely hard to maintain their links with the community and indeed their acceptance by the community. I would have thought, and submit to the Committee, that their standing with the public is more likely to be enhanced if they have powers such as these because they will be seen to be more effective in protecting the ordinary citizen from violent armed gangs such as appear all too frequently in the conurbations. I hope that the Committee, if called upon to do so, will regard this clause as an essential strengthening of the protection of the citizen against crime and violence and I would ask the Committee to have no hesitation in reading it into the Bill.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: The noble Earl said, if I heard him aright and understood him aright, that the powers which a constable has under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 to arrest a person depend on his seeing the person in possession of the weapon or seeing the weapon which the person is alleged to be in possession of. Surely that is not right. Surely the powers of arrest conferred upon a constable in terms of Section 1 of the 1953 Act are very much the same as the powers given to a constable to search; the grounds are substantially the same. Surely that is so.
May I just add this? The noble Earl seemed to suggest that I was complaining about something. I do not know how I shall vote as yet if this amendment is pressed to a vote. I do assure him that I was genuinely seeking enlightenment as to whether the Government really thought that, in practical terms of keeping order on the streets, this provision added anything effectively to the powers of the police.
Lord McCLUSKEY: This matter must be brought to a conclusion, and I only rise to remind your Lordships that the vital difference between the power conferred by Clause 4 and the power conferred by Clause 2 is that the search under Clause 4 may take place in effect on the street or anywhere other than a police station. It is really that point of difference which is of great importance here. I would accept, of course, that there are arguments in favour of this power, but one must balance those against the arguments against it. No one dismisses the arguments put forward in favour of this particular power. It is just that in our view they are outweighed by the arguments against it.
Finally, I did not conjure up a picture of policemen with armfuls of weapons. I said that it can happen. I have known it to happen; I am morally certain it has happened in several cases in which I have been involved. Simply to avoid the risk of evidence of this kind being planted on the street, I believe it is better that this kind of search should be carried out in a police station. It is for these reasons that I press my Motion.
9.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Forester, L.

Moyne, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Fortescue, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fraser of Tullybelton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Ampthill, L.

Glasgow, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Perth, E.

Bellwin, L.

Gowrie, E.

Renton, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bradford, E.

Hanworth, V.

Romney, E.

Brownlow, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hives, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller,]

Cockfield, L.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Killearn, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sharples, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinross, L.

Stradbroke, E.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Linlithgow, M.

Swansea, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lyell, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Exeter, M.

MacAndrew, L.

Ullswater, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Faithfull, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vernon, L.

Falkland, V.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Falmouth, V.

Margadale, L.

Westbury, L.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Wheatley, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mottistone, L.

Yarborough, E.

Foot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Blease, L. [Teller.]

Hooson, L.

Peart, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Collison, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Galloway, E.

Underhill, L.

Galpern, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

McCluskey, L.

White, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Monson, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Hale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly

9.48 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 29:
After clause 4 insert the following new clause: Continuation in force of sections 1, 2, 3 and 4.
". Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this Act shall continue in force for the period of three years beginning with the date of the passing of this Act and shall then expire unless Parliament by affirmative resolution of both Houses otherwise determines."
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: At this late hour I do not propose to press this matter to a Division, nor to take a long time to explain it. The background to this proposed new clause is this: a good many people, both inside and outside this House, have expressed concern at the possibility that these new powers to be conferred upon the police by Clauses 1, 2 and 4 particularly of this Bill are powers that may damage good police community relations, and are powers that are susceptible to abuse. In support of that I would refer to, among others, the Scottish Council on Crime who, when recommending a stop and search power of a kind in some ways similar to what is contained in Clause 4, specifically suggested that the power should be granted for an experimental period. In my submission that is something which your Lordships should seriously consider.
The Law Society of Scotland themselves, as I indicated earlier, are deeply divided about some of the powers contained in these clauses. I believe that this is something which the Committee should take on board. If we decide to grant the police these extra powers, with all the dangers that serious students of the matter have considered to exist, why should we not review them after a period of time?
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, on Second Reading asked whether such a provision appeared in the Bill which was introduced by the Government in 1978, and he asked what had changed since then. There was no such provision in the Bill at that time, but things have changed to some extent. First, the powers now granted in these clauses are significantly greater, in my judgment; and secondly, there was not nearly the same criticism of these powers until now. In particular, I did not see any strong opposition from the Liberals,
814
among others, to these powers when they were put forward in our Bill.
However, we must judge the thing on its merits and I believe it should be possible for Parliament to come back to this matter after a period of time. As I say, I do not propose to press this to a Division tonight because, in the light of the arguments, I believe there is something to be said for the view that the period should not be three years, as the amendment suggests, but five years, as the Scottish Council on Crime suggested in relation to the search for weapons power. Accordingly, having heard the Government's reply and listened to any other contributions which may be forthcoming, I propose not to press the matter.
Lord MONSON: I support the amendment. If the suspicions of the Bill voiced from the Labour, Liberal and Cross-Benches, and even to some extent from the Government Benches, turn out to be so much eyewash, the Government have absolutely nothing to lose by accepting the amendment because they will get their affirmative resolutions through in three or five years' time with no difficulty whatever. If, on the other hand, the suspicions turn out to be justified, then everybody would wish these clauses to be deleted from the Bill. I therefore cannot see any reason why the amendment should not be accepted.
The EARL of PERTH: I should like to know from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, whether at a later stage of the Bill, perhaps on Report, he proposes to move a similar amendment but with a five-year period. I ask that because in my view there is a good deal to be said for such an amendment. I do not understand in the way that many other noble Lords do, all the legal arguments that have been used today on the various clauses; but I am aware of the disquiet there is in regard to these powers. A letter appeared in The Times today in which the President of the Glasgow Bar Association said the Government as a whole did not have the time to give to this very complicated matter. He can say that, but that is a recipe for putting off any Bill indefinitely, and to that extent I would not I go along with him. However, it would be

815
helpful, certainly to me, to know, perhaps at a later stage, if the reasons for not accepting the amendment were not satisfactory, whether the noble and learned Lord or the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, intend to table a similar amendment, so that we might have another chance—I could table one myself but I would rather not do so; it comes with much more authority from the other Benches—to consider the matter afresh.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps I might briefly respond to that question. Subject to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply to what I have said, it would be our intention on Report to put down an amendment on these lines, extending the period however to five years. We do not think, on reconsideration, that three years is long enough to test the matter; I suppose one would need to have the measure in force for some time and have a number of cases come before the courts, and then it might be possible to make a better judgment. However, we undertake to return to this matter on Report.
9.54 p.m.
The EARL of MANSFIELD: The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I do not suppose will be very surprised if I tell him that I am unable to support his amendment. Although there has been a certain amount of modest heat in our debate, and I have no complaint about that, the Government at any rate do not regard the provisions contained in Clauses 1 to 4 as what I might term dramatic innovations. The noble and learned Lord said that the powers taken now are significantly greater than they were in the Bill published by the last Government. That of course is a subjective matter of opinion, but at any rate we rather regard these measures as designed to regulate existing practices, and we do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by providing for a review of their operation. Indeed, one can say that a provision for a review might be positively unhelpful.
Why do I say that? These measures have been the subject of public debate and official consideration at least since the first and second reports of the Thomson Committee; that is, since 1975. The debate has become hotter and more keenly
816
contested, as is natural when matters fell to be considered in Parliament with the previous Government's Bill and now this Bill. In our view, the provisions in Clauses 1 to 4 have the best chance of operating most effectively, and in the interests of all sections of the community, if once they have become law, the controversy falls away. That, I suggest, is less likely to happen if people are continuously trying to find debating points with which to attack or defend these measures in the sure knowledge that within a period of three years, or within whatever period specified, the assessment of the effects of the measures is likely to be a matter of debate, but at the end of it still a matter for subjective judgment.
The noble and learned Lord was quite right to say that the Scottish Council on Crime suggested a five-year trial period in regard to the power in Clause 4. So far as I have been able to establish, no reasons were advanced in argument, and I would point out that the Thomson Committee did not suggest any such trial period.
If Clauses 1 to 4 go well, so to speak, and are not misused by the police—and that is my confident prediction—I think that public debate will fall away. In any event there is always the sanction of public opinion, and in a democratic society police cannot be immune from such. Secondly, if individuals are aggrieved, they have their remedies through the courts and certainly they will comment in public on the general operation of these clauses if they find them unsatisfactory. Finally, and most importantly, Parliament retains the ultimate sanction of repealing the measures at any time. I know it will be said that it is always difficult to find time—and so it is; but Parliament is continuously producing new legislation, and if exceptional circumstances were to be such as to justify a repeal, change or amendment of all, or any, of these measures, I am quite sure that Parliament would find time to take the necessary action.
As the noble and learned Lord said—although he slid away from the point—it was not in his mind to have such a power, or if it was, he rejected it at the time his Bill came to the other place, and I suggest

817
that it is quite unnecessary, and indeed contrary to good legislation, for us to legislate on an "if and but" basis (as it were) in the criminal field.
Lord MONSON: Does the noble Earl not agree that when this House voted to abolish the death penalty, about 12 years ago to the best of my memory, it was the Conservative Party who proposed and voted for a five-year trial period?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I was not here 12 years ago.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The answer to the question is, Yes, and I should have thought that the noble Earl might have been able to give it. Of course, there are other precedents as well for this kind of provision. I do not want to take this matter at great length tonight, but the noble Earl says that the Government do not regard these powers as dramatic innovations. The point is that other people do. The Government ought to take account, as they professed they would, of other people's views on this matter; and this is one way of doing so.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has pointed out, in response,
818
in effect, to what the noble Earl was saying, the noble Earl says, "My confident prediction is that all will go well". I hope he is right, and it may well be that the critics of the Bill are entirely wrong. But if everything goes well, there is nothing whatsoever to lose by having this provision in the Bill and having the matter debated again in Parliament in five years' time.
There is another point that I mentioned on Second Reading and I ought to repeat now, and that is that if one takes a period like this, particularly a period of five years, as we propose to deal with on Report, and the police know that Parliament is looking to see how they behave during those five years, then they will take considerable care not to abuse the powers at all; during that period of five years good police practice will go up and it will endure beyond the five-year period. I believe that these are good reasons, and I believe the Government have nothing whatsoever to lose by accepting an amendment of this kind. In the confident expectation that if I cannot persuade the noble Earl we might persuade the House on Report, I will return to the matter then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Constable may take drunken person to designated place]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.3 p.m.
Lord FOOT: Would it be proper and appropriate for me to intervene at this moment to ask the Government what their intentions are for the continuation of this debate? I do that for this reason. There are no amendments down to Clause 5, and the next clause upon which we are going to embark is Clause 6. I think it will be agreed on all sides of the Committee that that is a clause of first importance, and it does not seem possible that we could give proper consideration to all the amendments that have been put down to it, in particular, if I may mention it, the first amendment to Clause 6, which is in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley. It would be impossible for this Committee at this time of night to give proper consideration to that clause, and I would therefore ask the Government whether they think it would be appropriate to adjourn this debate now and resume it upon the next convenient day.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I have been taking counsel through the usual channels, and so on, and in a way it is difficult for me to put an estimate on how long our labours are likely to take on any particular stage of this Bill. But we have been getting on very slowly, if I may say so. I would not dream of blaming any noble Lord for that; they are important matters that we have been discussing. I think the feelings of my noble and learned friend and me are that we should continue for another clause or two, anyway.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Judicial examination]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Earl Cathcart): If Amendment No. 30 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 or 36.
10.5 p.m.
Lord WHEATLEY Lord WHEATLEY moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, leave out lines 17 to 40.
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is not to exclude the procedure envisaged in the proposed new clause, Clause 20A, but merely to find out exactly what is intended by the Government in relation to the range of questions that may be asked on this occasion. By way of prefix, may I remind your Lordships that at this stage of the proceedings an accused person is appearing not on indictment but on petition, and the charge in the petition may not be the same charge as that which ultimately appears in the indictment. I think that is a matter which we must take into account, and perhaps it lends even more force to the care we must take regarding the restrictions that may have to be placed on the questions that are asked at this judicial examination.
The proposed new Clause 20A says:
"Subject to subsection (2) below, an accused on being brought before the sheriff for examination on any charge … may be questioned by the prosecutor in so far as such questioning is directed towards eliciting any explanation, denial, justification or comment which the accused may have as regards …"—
and you then have (a), (b), (c) and (d): (a) being the "matters averred in the charge"; (b) being an alleged extra-judicial confession; (c) being any declaration that has been made and (d):
", in the case of a further examination, anything said by the accused (including what is said in any declaration) in the earlier examination or examinations".
I cannot conceive that, as at present framed, that would restrict the questioning merely to clearing up any ambiguities. If it is intended merely to go to that length of allowing the prosecutor to clear up any ambiguities, I think the Government must look carefully at the wording that has been used to see whether it so limits. It seems to me that that would allow the questions to extend quite beyond the clearing up of ambiguities, with particular reference to matters referred to under heads (a), (b), (c) and (d).
If it is thought that further definition and clearer definition is required it may be suggested that there are two ways of doing this. One is to confine at least the general principles governing the restriction on questions to the Bill itself. The other may be by a process which may be unfamiliar to noble Lords from other

821
parts of the United Kingdom, by an Act of Adjournal, which is something passed by the judges in relation to procedural matters. It is one thing to ask the judges, with their close experience of procedure, to do things of that nature which relate to procedure. But this goes deeper than that. This goes to the basic question of law as to how far the prosecutor is allowed to ask questions.
So far as I see, the person who is the subject of this questioning does not have the right to have his solicitor present at this time. There is no provision in the clause for his solicitor to be present at this time. In that situation, I think that it would be of paramount importance that we should put into this clause—and it should be in the clause and not done by way of Act of Adjournal—a provision defining and stating at least the broad general principles to indicate the range of questions which may be asked and beyond which further questioning would be impermissible. If any further procedural matters are to be drawn into that, that could be done by way of Act of Sederunt.
I ask this of the Government in view of the fact that this is an innovation and a procedure with which some people, perhaps including some judges, are not very happy. None the less, if it has to be brought in, it must be couched in such terms as to preserve what would be the fundamental right of a person in that position not to be coerced into making admissions in explanation of what he may have said at some previous time, for that would offend against the principle of questions which can be put to a suspect to which I referred in the discussion of an earlier amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I may address myself to this amendment, it is, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, a probing amendment, and a good many of the other amendments have that same character. If this amendment were allowed, that would cut out the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock, and myself, Amendments Nos. 31, 33 and 36. Therfore, I ought to address myself to the broad question as to what kind of questioning is allowed here. I am not sure that I agree with the noble and learned Lord about whether or not a solicitor has a
822
right to be present. It may be in the context of the 1975 Act into which this is placed that the accused has a right to have a solicitor present. What is obscure is the role of the solicitor once he is present. That is a very important matter which requires to be explained.
If I may deal first with the matter generally, in the Thomson Committee's report, from which this proposal ultimately springs, there is considered the historical background of judicial examination. The historical background takes us back into the 19th century. Until 1898 an accused person in Scotland did not have the right to give evidence in his own defence. Against that background, what right he had was a right to emit a judicial declaration at an early stage. That declaration could be put in evidence at his trial. When in 1898 he was given the right to give evidence in his trial, the context changed entirely. At a slightly earlier date, the process of judicial examination, which had a kind of inquisitorial character to it, totally disappeared. There is nobody alive who has any experience at all of operating that historical system. I do not believe that that historical precedent in the 19th century in this totally different context is one that has any validity at all in determining whether or not it should be introduced in 1980.
The Thomson Committee, having considered the arguments, came to the conclusion (and I refer to page 42):
"We consider that revival of judicial examination in the form which we propose below will operate fairly to a certain effect."
I will not describe in detail the form proposed, but it included strict control by the sheriff. That is in paragraph 8.12 of the report on page 42. I ask the Government: What has happened to that? There is no shadow of it in this clause.
Secondly, the Thomson Committee did not envisage that the accused would be brought back time after time. Is the effect of the new clause which is proposed to be put into the 1975 Act not to allow the accused to be brought back again and again? If he is brought back, it would appear from reading the new Clause 20A(1)(d) that in fact he can be brought back, questioned and re-questioned about matters dealt with on any earlier examination. That is entirely contrary to what

823
the Thomson Committee recommended. It is something which must be looked at very seriously indeed.
The objects are the next matter to which I turn. When the Thomson Committee made this recommendation, they had three objects in mind. One was to afford the accused at the earliest possible stage an opportunity of stating his position. The third one was to protect the interests of an accused who had been interrogated by police officers and had given answers. He was to be given the opportunity to comment upon what the police said he had stated. Two of the reasons were conceived in his favour. The other one was to enable the procurator fiscal to ask the accused questions designed to prevent the subsequent fabrication of a false line of defence: for example, an alibi.
When one looks at the matter fairly closely, one finds to all intents and purposes that that is all that the Thomson Committee had in mind: to prevent the fabrication at a subsequent date of a false alibi. One has a great deal of sympathy with that. If, in relation to a crime said to have been committed on a particular day, at a particular time and in a particular place, you can get an accused within 48 hours and say: "Were you there or were you not?", if he says, "I was not", he is then asked "Where do you say you were?" and he gives a reply, that matter can be investigated. At the moment we are in the position that it may be months later that the accused comes forward and says he was in a certain pub or at a certain football match; and there is no way that that matter can be properly investigated. So, behind the Thomson Committee's recommendation on this, there is a rationale which makes perfectly good sense.
When we turn to the Bill we find a very alarming situation indeed: the prosecutor may ask questions about matters averred in the charge and, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, the charge at that stage is one which has been formulated by the fiscal and not one formulated or revised by Crown counsel in the light of the evidence. The matters in the charge frequently change between that stage and the stage when the accused appears on indictment.
824
Going back to the Thomson Report, we find that they listed on page 44 a specific number of questions of a kind that might be put to the accused: they should not be leading questions or involve cross-examination techniques; there should be no reiteration of a question which the accused has refused to answer, and so on. Your Lordships can see this in the report, once it becomes available. But not one hint of it appears in the Bill.
The only thing that appears in the Bill is that there may be an Act of Adjournal of the kind to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, referred. That would fall to be made under Section 282 of the 1975 Act and it would not come before this House for review. It would not even go to the Secretary of State. It would not go to the Lord Advocate, in the sense that he would have no right to veto it or to put into it provisions that were not there. It would be left entirely to the judges. Of course, one trusts them implicitly, but the noble and learned Lord himself has pointed out the difficulties involved in their undertaking this task. I would submit that this is properly a task in which Parliament is interested, and we ought to see something of that. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicated on Second Reading that he might consider an amendment of this Bill to allow the Act of Adjournal to be brought before Parliament, and I hope to hear from him today that he intends to do that.
The point which worries me most deeply about this is that in the words which this amendment would delete, and which the clause now contains, the right to silence is being virtually taken away. The questioning is at large and the Act of Adjournal remains a mystery. If the questions are to be of the kind which the Thomson Committee recommended—questions which were not cross-examination questions but questions designed to bring out facts which may be within the accused's knowledge and to avoid the fabrication at a subsequent date of a false line of defence—I should have thought that the proper person to put those questions in the interests of justice is not the prosecutor but the presiding judge. That, of course, gives these proceedings something of the character of a continental inquisitorial process. I am not entirely happy about

825
that but I think we are going to have to go some way along this road. Why give the prosecutor the right to question, and apparently him alone? You certainly deny the right to the accused's solicitor and, to my mind, that is deeply worrying.
I think we must have answers on these things, and it may well be that, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has pointed out, it is difficult to deal with all these matters tonight. I regret that I have found it necessary to speak at such length on the matter, but unfortunately my own commitments will prevent my being here on the next occasion when this matter is discussed. I am, however, deeply concerned about the total departure from the explicit recommendations of the Thomson Committee and about the fact that the prosecutor can put these questions to the accused and that Parliament has no control as to the content of the questions which may be put to an accused person at that particular stage.
I want to mention one other matter which is of great importance. When one looks at a subsequent part here—and I have to mention it for completeness—one sees what happens if an accused person declines to answer these questions. There may be comment at the trial, but who may make that comment? Under the Bill—and I am looking at the top of page 6—
"… it shall be permissible for the prosecutor or for the judge presiding at the trial to comment upon any failure by the accused to answer at examination; and they may also comment upon any inconsistency between what was said by him at examination and what is said by him (or on his behalf) at his trial."
As I read it, the way that is worded the defence cannot comment at all. There is certainly no provision that they can comment, and the defence counsel or solicitor who is acting for a co-accused, and who may have a great interest, cannot comment. So one has an extraordinary clause which dramatically changes the whole way of investigating crime in Scotland, at a stage when the charge has not been seen by Crown counsel and not been approved, and the rights of the defence solicitor and counsel at the examination and trial respectively are simply not written into the Bill. We do not know what the judges will do. This is a serious matter and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us some satisfaction.
826
I am very worried about this, and unless we get satisfaction we shall have to move, at least on some occasion, to remove this clause from the Bill.
10.21 p.m.
Lord FOOT: I find myself in agreement with practically every word that the noble and learned Lord has just spoken, and I am confirmed in my belief that it is a great pity that we should be embarking upon a debate of this importance at this hour of night. The noble and learned Lord has made it perfectly clear that this clause raises matters of very considerable principle and importance. If one looks at the Marshalled List of amendments, one finds that a variety of methods have been proposed for the amendment of this clause. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has been speaking not upon his own amendment, which is No. 31, but upon the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, and we are still waiting to know what he will have to say about that. Then one finds that I and my noble friend Lord Wigoder have suggested Amendment No. 32, and we are proposing further amendments, Nos. 34 and 35, which are of a different character from those proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. Then we find Amendment No. 33, which is proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross. All these matters, if we are to get this right, ought to be debated at length and with proper consideration.
This is a matter upon which I hesitate to speak, because it is peculiarly important to Scottish law and I cannot pretend to be an authority on that. But, as I understand it from my reading of the Thomson Committee's report, this clause is reactivating the old system of judicial inquiry, which in recent times has become something of a formality in Scottish law. As I understand it, a procedure of judicial examination is being reactivated and the clause suggests what should be the subject-matters with which such judicial inquiries should be concerned. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has rightly pointed out that the Thomson Committee recommended in detail what kind of questions ought to be permissible at an inquiry of this kind.

827
He has also pointed out, perfectly correctly, that there is no sort of resemblance between the terms of the clause—as to what questions can be asked—and the recommendations of the Thomson Committee. It is wholly unsatisfactory, I suggest, that, rather than being set out in the clause, the sort of questions which can be asked should be referred to and prescribed by an Act of Adjournal, which I understand to be a purely administrative Act.
As they appear in the clause at the moment, the words appear to be so wide that the procurator fiscal, in performing his task of asking questions, could ask almost anything in the world. I pointed out at Second Reading that if it is open to the procurator fiscal to ask questions directed towards eliciting any explanation, denial, justification or comment which the accused may have as regards matters averred in the charge, it is difficult to think of any kind of question, whether by way of cross-examination or otherwise, whether by way of leading question or otherwise, which it would not be open to the procurator fiscal to ask.
As the noble and learned Lord has also said, if, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, told us in the Second Reading debate, the object of this clause is to give to the accused the opportunity to explain any confession or semi-confession that he may be alleged to have made, then why is not the task of examining upon that given either to his own solicitor or to the sheriff? Why should that task be given to the procurator fiscal rather than to his own representative or to the sheriff who is there to see justice?
We are at a very great disadvantage. I do not support the amendment which was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, to cut out altogether this new Section 20A, because obviously that achieves very little. My present thinking is that the amendments standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, are those which are best suited to meet the problem with which we are faced. However, I think it is unfortunate that we should have embarked upon a debate of this consequence at this late hour and in such a thin Committee.
10.28 p.m.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: As I understand it, the situation is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will not be able to be with us on the next occasion when the Committee considers this matter, and the same applies to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley. Therefore, we were anxious that the Committee should have the benefit of their views upon this clause before we sought the adjournment.
The situation, so far as Government intention is concerned, is to adopt the Thomson recommendations. The question is: What is the best machinery for carrying that out? Could I say, first of all, that Thomson, considering the matter, decided that the procurator fiscal was the best person to ask the questions, and we have adopted that decision. The accused's solicitor would have the right to be present, by the way in which the clause is framed, and the intention is to restrict the questioning in the manner which Thomson proposes.
The main restrictions to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred are contained in the Thomson Committee's second report at paragraph 8.17 under the heading Procedure at the judicial examination. That was the reason why it appeared to us, for reasons which I sought to explain at Second Reading, that there was much to be said for having the procedural restrictions in the Act of Adjournal with the possibility of flexibility and the possibility that they might be improved with experience. However, in view of the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, and the expressions that have fallen from other noble Lords on the matter, the Government intend to reconsider this matter and to endeavour to bring forward amendments which will bring into the Bill itself these restrictions. This will forgo some degree of flexibility, but on the other hand it may help to reassure noble Lords of the restrictions which we want to put upon this particular operation.
From what has been said I think it is apparent that there is value in this proposal. The Thomson Committee reached it unanimously and we want to achieve the value of the proposal without any of the damaging effects which have been thought to flow from it in some quarters.

829
So I hope that, although the hour is late, the Committee will be able to agree that we can, in effect, leave this clause over for further consideration, on the understanding that the Government will bring forward amendments with the design that I have sought to set out.
Lord McCLUSKEY: For my part I am content with that and will not move any of the amendments standing in my name to Clause 6, nor will I oppose Clause 6 standing part of the Bill.
Lord WHEATLEY: When I first addressed your Lordships on this amendment I tried particularly to confine myself to the bare bones of the argument because of the lateness of the hour, and it would be inconsistent if I went back on that at this even later stage of the evening. So, having regard to the undertaking given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate about the manner in which he will deal with the matters referred to by me in regard to this amendment—and may I just add something that I omitted to say previously, that the Lord Justice General as head of the Court is very much in favour of it being done by way of the Bill and not by way of Act of Adjournal and I hope the Government will bear that in mind as well—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. May I add that I do not think I shall be able to be here next week because of my judicial duties.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DENHAM: In view of what has been said, perhaps at this stage I may ask whether the remaining amendments to Clause 6 are likely to be moved?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The amendments standing in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock will not be moved.
Lord FOOT: I am also anxious to co-operate in this matter and, in view of what has been said, I shall not be moving my amendments. But I should just like to ask one question in passing and before we adjourn. I take it that the fullest opportunity will be given at a later stage to consider all the possible solutions there are which have been offered and put forward for the amendment of this
830
clause? If it is possible for the noble and learned Lord to give me that assurance then I shall be entirely satisfied.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Your Lordships may take it that I shall do my level best to secure agreement on this clause, and anything that is possible to achieve that will be done by me. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, also has an amendment to this clause.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: I shall not move my amendment, on the basis that the undertaking given also applies to that.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 38 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
House resumed.

ARDVEENISH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
10.35 p.m.
Considered on Report.

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY (NO. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

INVERNESS DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
The EARL of MANSFIELD: My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.—(The Earl of Mansfield).
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I just want to express my appreciation of a letter I received from the Minister of State, the noble Earl. I do so in respect of the Inverness District Council Order Confirmation Bill, as well as those dealing with Kirkcaldy, Lochaber, Strathkelvin and West Lothian. If they are examined,

831
it will be appreciated that they are all, word for word, dealing with stray dogs. Your Lordships will recollect that I raised this matter a few weeks ago when we had three separate Bills; thanks to the information from the noble Earl, we have these five, and we have already had nine; I make it 20 of the district councils of Scotland—practically the whole lot of them—which have had piecemeal legislation on stray dogs.
I was glad to receive the letter from the noble Earl but quite frankly it did not make sense. We are now promised at some time in the future general legislation about stray dogs. We shall not need it if he goes on like this. He hands over this function to district authorities and to carry it out they must spend money. In the letter he says that of course they are worried about the present economic difficulties, implying that they are not going to get any opportunity to spend any money. So why do they allow this caper to go on?—a very expensive caper from the point of view of the ratepayers. Your Lordships may think that what we have been doing all day is important but to the ratepayers of Inverness, Kirkcaldy, Strathkelvin and West Lothian what they spend and are going to be asked to spend is equally important. When are we going to get the other two or three Bills of the same kind?
The Government say, "We do not want to promote wide-ranging legislation on the dog problem until we and our colleagues in England and Wales have reviewed the results of consultations which have taken place with many interests". This really is a lot of blarney because here we have already got it. They should either have introduced a small Bill covering not all the local authorities but the district authorities in Scotland or have forgotten about it altogether and waited for this so-called legislation.
The EARL of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord at least for his preliminary observations, which were a form of thanks. In my letter to the noble Lord I tried to point out why it was that in the present circumstances it is not possible for the Government to deal with this as opposed to the local authorities themselves promoting Private Bills. Perhaps when we can get
832
some measure of agreement between the departments and even more so the countries making up the United Kingdom, we shall be able to have a comprehensive Bill, but until then I think we must be thankful that the West Lothian question is being decided by its own district council and not by an Assembly.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell me what on earth stray dogs in Scotland have to do with local authorities in England?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

KIRKCALDY DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
LOCHABER DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
STRATH KELVIN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
WEST LOTHIAN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
  UNMINED STRATEGIC MINERALS
  UNMINED STRATEGIC MINERALS
  ACAP REPORT: ECONOMIC GROWTH ESTIMATES
  ACAP REPORT: ECONOMIC GROWTH ESTIMATES
  ACAP REPORT: GNP FORECAST FOR THE YEAR 2000
  ACAP REPORT: GNP FORECAST FOR THE YEAR 2000