Sitting of 21 July 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LLOYD'S BILL
  Lords Amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Microlight Aircraft
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the responsibility of his Department for environmental noise control in regard to microlight aircraft.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): Responsibility for noise from aircraft, including microlight aircraft, rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, whilst I have an overall interest in all aspects of noise nuisance and specific responsibility for the control of neighbourhood noise under part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The specific exclusion of aircraft from the Act was fully debated during the passage of the Bill. I have reconsidered the matter very carefully, but see no case at the moment for extending the current scope of the Act, which is designed particularly to deal with noise from fixed premises.
    Mr. Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the noise from microlight aircraft, which are like flying motor cycles, is just as offensive to many people as noise from large aircraft? Will he reconsider the statutory exemptions that are given to that small, but offensive beast?
    Mr. Shaw: I am aware that there is considerable public anxiety on this issue. It is primarily a matter for the Department of Trade, which, as my hon. Friend will be aware, deals with many aspects relating to aircraft.
    Mr. Sheerman: That is not a satisfactory answer. Is the Minister aware that constituents of mine, who are persecuted by noise from hang gliders with engines, which are much the same as microlight aircraft, can get no answer from the Civil Aviation Authority, or any Government Department, that would give them some peace and rest?
    Mr. Shaw: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. I understand that discussions are going on in the Department of Trade. I have no doubt that in due course my right hon. Friend will take the action that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, who is responsible for aviation matters, be careful not to regulate microlights out of existence? Does he agree that we should encourage people to fly, provided that they do not cause danger or inconvenience through noise?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is correct. There are legitimate uses for that type of aircraft. He will also be aware of the regulations that apply to piloted aircraft and aircraft that operate out of airfields. I do not see any case for making further adjustments to the noise regulations under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

    Home Counties (Population)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what increases in population in the Home Counties he took into account when approving the structure plans for the local authorities in the Home Counties.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: My right hon. Friend took account of a wide range of information, including population increases. Each structure plan is based on population forecasts for its own individual area. As the projections relate to different time periods, it is not meaningful to give an aggregated figure for population increase for an area as large as the Home Counties.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: To what extent can population forecasts be described as accurate? If my hon. Friend believes that local authorities are providing accurate forecasts for the populations in their areas, may I ask whether he agrees that they should be considered to have the last word, except in the most exceptional circumstances?
    Mr. Shaw: I cannot claim that population forecasts at any given moment have a high degree of accuracy. A structure plan has to take account of trends that put pressure on a county's resources. The county is obliged to take account of trends towards house building or the desire to live in certain areas when preparing provisions for the use of land.

    Sports Council (Strategy)
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received the Sports Council's publication on its future strategy for sport; what is his policy towards the report's proposals; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): Yes, I have received this document—"The Next Ten Years". I welcome the Sports Council's appraisal and I hope that all those involved in the provision of sport and recreation in our communities will study it carefully.
    Mr. Lofthouse: The Minister will be aware that the Sports Council has put forward three options for funding during the next decade: first, participation; secondly, excellence in sports; and, thirdly, spending money to assist sports facilities. Which option do the Government favour? Have they any special programme for areas such as Toxteth, Bristol and Brixton? As the Government's policies have created 3 million unemployed, and bearing in mind that last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer

    381
    accepted that the figure would be nearly 5 million by 1990, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have an obligation to provide recreational facilities?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The Sports Council and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attach equal importance to all aspects of the strategy. The three aspects to which the hon. Gentleman referred are of equal importance in many regions. I welcome the fact that the Sports Council has published a clear statement of the objectives. I like the objective to create sporting opportunities for those between the ages of 13 and 24 and 45 and 59. A great deal of work is to be done in planning and preparation.
    With regard to Toxteth and Brixton, the Merseyside initiative matches pound for pound. Since 1979–80 just under £16 million has been spent on sport and recreation. In the past year it has increased to just under £23 million, plus £1 million for the Merseyside initiative.
    Mr. Stokes: With the greatest respect, does my hon. Friend really believe that the Sports Council is necessary? Could not voluntary bodies do the job better, with a great saving of money?
    Mr. Macfarlane: If my hon. Friend appraises the Sports Council's publication, I believe that he will be totally convinced of the need for the Sports Council. It is important to work through voluntary organisations, but, equally, local authorities have a vital role in dispersing funds from the urban aid programme, derelict land grants and the inner city partnership, all of which can help to provide sport and recreation.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Was the Minister consulted about the weekend speech of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury calling for the privatisation of recreational services? What does it mean, and how does it fit in with the strategy for sport? What is the Minister's estimate of the increased costs of swimming pools, football and cricket pitches and other sports facilities that will result? Most important of all, what do the Government believe will be the effect if we price sport and recreation beyond the reach of hundreds of thousands of young unemployed?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The right hon. Gentleman has been around the House of Commons and the corridors of power for longer than I have.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Too long.
    Mr. Macfarlane: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot give him an answer here and now. No doubt he will approach the Chief Secretary.
    There is an important partnership aspect. It is not just a question of the Government generating funds. It is up to the Sports Council, local authorities and others charged with planning sport and recreation to persuade commerce and industry to invest in the local community. That would certainly have a beneficial effect.

    Gleneagles Agreement (Sports Council)
    Mr. John Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what directions are given by his Department to the Sports Council on the Gleneagles agreement; and whether these directions relate to the council's allocation of funds.
    Mr. Skinner: Speak a little faster!
    Mr. Macfarlane: I am going at this speed especially for the hon. Gentleman at this time of day.
    382
    The Sports Council is fully conversant with, and supports, the Government's commitment to the Gleneagles agreement. The council is required by its Royal charter to take note of Government policy. On 12 October 1977 the Government directed the council to withhold any financial support that might otherwise be available to British sports people competing in or staging events in which South Africa is represented.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept that any Minister with responsibility for sport—I include the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) when he held the position—has no authority to direct the Sports Council where it should place its funds, and I refer particularly to sports in which there is South African participation? Has not the time come for the Minister to look again at the South African sports which, like soccer, have become fully multi-racial and should be exempt from the Gleneagles agreement?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the importance of multi-racial sport throughout the Commonwealth and, indeed, the world.
    Mr. McNally: Does the Minister agree that the vast sums made available to send teams to South Africa show a political motive by the sponsors? Is there not ample evidence that it is a concerted attempt to undermine the Gleneagles agreement? Should not sporting bodies be told that so that they can tell their members, and should not those members who bring their sport into disrepute be disciplined?
    Mr. Macfarlane: It is a difficult area. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Foreign Office Ministers and I have made clear the Government's total commitment to the Gleneagles agreement, and we have conveyed that view to governing bodies. Most people will recognise that the tour was phoney, as many other tours have been.
    Mr. Marlow: As my hon. Friend supports the Gleneagles agreement, and as he is no doubt aware that 18 per cent. of Israel's population is of Arab extraction, will he look at each international team from Israel to make sure that it reflects that proportion and, where it does not, take action through the Sports Council to ensure that money is not expended in that direction?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is resourceful enough to approach the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on that matter.
    Mr. Denis Howell: What does the Minister make of the antics of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle), who, on 18 June, demanded that the Home Secretary establish an inquiry into why the BBC was flying Mr. Jimmy Hill around Spain in pursuance of his World Cup duties, yet appeared on television within two weeks and demanded that the same Mr. Jimmy Hill be flown around South Africa in support of a private football organisation and in defiance of the Gleneagles agreement and the FIFA rules?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I have no comment to make. Most people recognise that this and other tours are phoney. In recent weeks certain reputations have become tarnished and actions have bordered on the farcical. It is a matter not only for the domestic governing body, but for FIFA, and both bodies have made it clear that they exclude South Africa from international competition.
    Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to my hon. Friend, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the interest in the House in the subject, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to celebrate the centenary of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 with an exhibition similar to that being mounted by the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): There are no plans by my Department to celebrate with an exhibition the centenary of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882
    The centenary will be marked by a reception held in the rooms of the Society of Antiquaries on 11 November following a lecture on the centenary by my chief inspector of ancient monuments and historic buildings.
    Other organisations are marking the event in various ways by special publications and lectures, and I shall be contributing to a BBC Radio 4 programme celebrating the event.
    Mr. Beith: I welcome the close interest that the Secretary of State takes in the conservation of old buildings. Is not the time opportune to remind the public of the value of the work to future generations? Will he consider celebrating the centenary by updating legislation in related areas, such as the law on treasure trove and movable antiquities?
    Mr. Heseltine: I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but at present we have no proposals to update the legislation, although we keep such matters under review.

    Local Authorities (Road Maintenance)
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he gives to local authorities' local road maintenance needs in setting the rate support grant levels.
    The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): There are annual discussions with local government about the amount of relevant expenditure for rate support grant purposes on all services.
    The provision for local road maintenance expenditure is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and in Wales my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that as a result of adverse weather conditions road maintenance has fallen badly behind? If we are to improve our overall industrial efficiency, it is necessary to improve and adequately maintain our road system. Together with local authorities, will he do what he can to ensure that road maintenance is carried out as speedily as possible?
    Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, I notice that about 96 per cent. of local authority bids this year were approved by the Government. That is a very high level.
    Mr. Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a growing pothole epidemic is affecting roads throughout London and is causing great danger to some of the 96,000 cyclists who commute into London every day? Will he advise the local authorities in London how they can best deal with this epidemic?
    Mr. King: The answer will, I think, be fairly clear to my hon. Friend as it will be to the House. I have no doubt that the relevant authorities will take note of his comments.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board must maintain many roads that should be maintained by local authorities? Will he ensure that the rate support grant settlement takes account of that fact so that the local authorities concerned can take over responsibility for the maintenance of those roads?
    Mr. King: As I said in my original reply, this is intitially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport as it involves transport expenditure. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are conveyed to him.

    Lambeth, Islington and Hackney (Inner City Partnerships)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings have been held under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) of the inner city partnerships of Lambeth, Islington and Hackney; and what plans there are for future meetings.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The first meeting of the Hackney partnership under my chairmanship will take place tomorrow. I hope to chair the Islington partnership in the autumn and the Lambeth partnership in December.
    Mr. Proctor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, is it not time that he realised that efforts spent on such meetings are counter-productive, a deflection from the excellent work that he does elsewhere in his Department, and not consistent with good race relations in London?
    Sir George Young: Government policy is to reinforce the economic and social fabric of our inner cities, in which the ethnic groups have a crucial role to play. For that reason, under the auspices of the partnership committees, we support many projects which we believe can play a real role in revitalising the economy of our inner cities.

    Acid Rain
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had discussions with other countries about the problems of acid rain.
    Mr. Stuart Hollandasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department is taking to diminish the incidence of acid rain pollution emanating from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Stallardasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards incidence of acid rain pollution.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: I have recently discussed the problems of acid rain with representatives of other countries at the acidification conference in Stockholm. For the results of the conference, I refer hon. Members to my answer of 15 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). We have other frequent contacts, especially in the context of the 1979 convention on long range transboundary air pollution, which we ratified on 15 July. Our emissions of suphur dioxide have already fallen by more than 20 per cent. during the last decade, and our energy conservation and fuel policies may well reduce this further.
    Mrs. Short: I thank the Minister for that informative reply. There has been a drop in the level of pollution, but it appears that the countries worst affected by acid rain pollution are Britain and the United States. Is he aware that this problem is affecting not only Scandinavia, but regions as distant as the Arctic, and that eventually that could have serious repercussion on the world's ecology? I am aware, from a reply that the Minister gave recently, that we are spending about £1½ million in an attempt to resolve the problem of pollution. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must do much more and at least ensure that our power stations reduce their pollution of the atmosphere?
    Mr. Shaw: I agree with the hon. Lady that pollution is an important problem which the Government must take seriously. That is why we are particularly pleased that the convention on long range transboundary air pollution has now been ratified by so many nations. In that convention there is a commitment to work towards generally acceptable methods of control of sulphur emissions, which includes sulphur emissions from power stations.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: During his discussions with other countries, has my hon. Friend discovered any authority comparable with the North West water authority which charges ratepayers for rain falling on their roofs, be it acid or any other rain? Is that something that he would wish to encourage? Does he know of any other authority that does that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman really feel that this is connected with the question on the Order Paper, which relates only to acid rain?
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Mr. Speaker, I was asking my hon. Friend whether acid or any other rain attracted such a charge.
    Mr. Shaw: This is an acid question, to which I propose to give an alkaline response. I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the Government on taking part in the Stockholm discussions on acid rain. Will the Government give much greater priority to a matter that will affect the world's population during the next 20 or 30 years? I believe that about 150 lakes in Canada are already dead, and the same is happening in Scandinavia. Forests are dying in Germany. This is a matter—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech. He must ask a question.
    Mr. Shaw: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking this problem extremely seriously. The evidence so far produced does not indicate that, for a given reduction in sulphur emissions, there will be a given improvement in the ecology of the country concerned.
    Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that some of Britain's rivers are now badly affected by acid rain, as are the runs of sea trout and salmon? Britain's anglers expect the Government to do something as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Shaw: I am aware that there are localised problems in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that special researches are taking place in South West Scotland into the ecology of certain rivers. I assure him that this problem is not nearly as severe as the media often make out.
    Dr. David Clark: I am interested in the 20 per cent. reduction in emissions, because I recollect hearing similar figures from the Minister's predecessors in the 1970s. Is the hon. Gentleman talking about a 20 per cent. reduction from stacks, in domestic fall-out or at international level? Those are different and important considerations. Will he assure the House that the Government will do everything possible to achieve international co-operation and will try to bring the Soviet Union into the negotiations, as it did not attend the Stockholm conference?
    Mr. Shaw: That figure results from monitoring that we carry out from time to time in areas not directly associated with stacks. As I have said, that monitoring shows a progressive reduction in sulphur emissions totalling 20 per cent. I agree that this is an international problem. The sooner we get full support from all industrial nations, the better our chances of arriving at an internationally agreed solution.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice that I was excluded from the grouping on this question. Will you perhaps comment?
    Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to comment, but I hope that we will reach the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is question 40.
    Mr. Speaker: In that case, we shall have to move rather fast.

    Council Housing (Rents and Subsidies)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was, approximately, the average net council rent at the latest available date and in May 1979; and what was the approximate annual council house subsidy for 1979–80 and 1982–83.
    Sir George Young: Preliminary estimates indicate that the average unrebated rent of local authority dwellings in England and Wales, net of rates and other charges collected with rent, stood at approximately £13·54 per week at the end of April this year. In April 1979, it stood at £6·40.
    In 1979–80 subsidies to English council house tenants—including Exchequer subsidy, voluntary rate fund contributions, and rent rebates—totalled £1,776 million, or some £360 per dwelling. I am not yet in a position to forecast the likely total for 1982–83.
    Mr. Allaun: Does that not show that the Government do not give a damn about how one-third of families have to live? Is it not grossly unfair that we should give council tenants less than mortgagors, who get a 30 per cent. subsidy? Would not the introduction of Labour's rate-free scheme lessen the injustice?
    Sir George Young: It shows no such thing. The nonsense was the decline in rent levels under Labour, when people who could be expected to pay more for their housing were indiscriminately subsidised, and there was a sensational cut in the housing investment programme to pay for it—a cut that we have now begun to reverse.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the total subsidy per tenant in the current year is estimated at about £287 per annum compared with a total subsidy per owner-occupier of about £201 per annum.
    Mr. Latham: Are we not making progress along the lines laid down in the 1978 Labour Government White Paper on public expenditure in which the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) made it clear that the proportion of income paid by council tenants should be increased?
    Sir George Young: If the Labour Government had adopted the policies enunciated by their own Treasury Minister, there would have been no need for the very large increases that we have had to introduce.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister appreciate that the real problem is that, because local authorities are being starved of funds for their housing programmes and forced to increase rents against their will, they cannot build the houses so desperately needed by people, such as those on the growing waiting list in the city of Leicester?
    Sir George Young: If local authorities spend the money allocated to them for the current year, there should be a cash increase of about 30 per cent. over last year's spending—the first increase of that magnitude in about seven years.

    Council and Public Sector Housing (Sales)
    Mr. Heddleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of local authority and other public sector tenants who have bought their homes since May 1979.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): It is estimated that up to 31 March the number of local authority, new town and housing association dwellings sold in Great Britain since the Government came to office was approximately 300,000.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that 300,000 tenants will now be grateful to the Government for having enabled them to realise their lifetime's ambition? Does he also agree that there may well be a further 100,000 to 150,000 tenants who would like to exercise their democratic rights and buy their own homes but who are frustrated in that wish by Labour-controlled local authorities imposing exorbitant service charges and onerous restrictive covenants and moving difficult tenants into houses next door to those who wish to buy their homes?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As there are about 2·5 electors per council dwelling, about 1 million electors will now be very grateful to the Government for the opportunity to buy their homes. I also agree that many more will be able to buy their homes during this Parliament. Council tenants should also be aware that the Labour Party's publication "Labour's Programme '82" proposes that a future Labour Government should have the right in perpetuity to oblige
    388
    council tenants who have bought their homes to sell them back to the local authority, thus denying owner-occupiers who were previously council tenants the right to sell their own homes at a price of their own choosing.
    Mr. Alton: How many homes have been sold in areas of high unemployment and how many were designated as hard to let?
    Mr. Stanley: I cannot say how many were designated as hard to let, but it is extremely encouraging that in a number of areas of high unemployment there has been a substantial demand for the right to buy, not least in areas such as Liverpool, Skelmersdale and Knowsley.
    Mr. Foster: While the Minister is berating Labour authorities for their lack of activity in this direction, will he bear in mind the activities of the Teesdale district council, which is controlled by Tories and Independents, and is now attempting to rob tenants of gardens which they have enjoyed for the past 30 years and which should be covered by the right to buy legislation? Will he deal with that problem?
    Mr. Stanley: The definition of what land tenants may buy with their homes is set out in the Housing Act 1980. I shall be glad to look at the specific case to which the hon. Gentleman refers if he will write to me about it.
    Mr. Squire: Has my hon. Friend read the report of the attitude of Sheffield council to would-be home purchasers and its use of service charges? Will he ask his Department to investigate whether there has been a deliberate breach of the 1980 Act?
    Mr. Stanley: I am well aware of the concern among tenants in Sheffield about the council's policy on the imposition of service charges. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I met representatives of the council on Monday this week.
    Mr. Graham: Although it is true that some housing associations have been selling their houses, will the Minister congratulate Ken Livingstone, leader of the GLC, on revealing this week the disgraceful affairs of the Strongbridge housing association, which has enjoyed subsidies from both taxpayers and ratepayers for many years? Will he also comment on the effectiveness of the Housing Corporation's monitoring function, particularly in relation to the 1980 Act, which seeks to avoid relationships of the kind that have now been revealed, and the way in which the provisions of the Act have been treated with contempt nowhere more clearly than by his Conservative friends who are GLC councillors?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Housing Corporation is conducting a fact-finding exercise into the housing association that he mentioned. So far as I know, in all the matters raised by the gentleman to whom he refers, the right to buy is not an issue.

    Local Government Expenditure (Cash Limit)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to review the 4 per cent. cash limit for income of local government expenditure in 1983–84, in the light of present and prospective wage and salary measures and the probable inflation rate for this period.
    Mr. Heseltine: I met the local authority associations on 19 July and heard their arguments for an increased cash

    389
    provision for local government current expenditure in 1983–84. In considering the Government's response I shall take into account current and prospective pay and price levels in local government.
    Mr. Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are two kinds of council, the stupidly extravagent and the sensibly economical, and that most of the latter are Conservative-controlled? Does he appreciate that in the past two years many Conservative councillors have followed his policy of being extremely hard in making economies in their spending? Will he therefore promise that he will not penalise them in the next year, as it is important that those who have helped him should now have his support?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reassure him that I have tried consistently to recognise the co-operation that I have received from the more prudent local authorities, by expecting them to make fewer economies than those at the other end of the spending scale.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend in the next financial year to maintain the GREA exemption for local authorities that spend above his ceilings? Secondly, in view of the great uncertainty that prevails among local authorities about their finances in the current year, will he state categorically that he does not intend to impose a mid-year hold-back penalty on local authorities in this financial year?
    Mr. Heseltine: Certainly, it is important to give the clearest and earliest indication to local authorities of the Government's view about their expenditure plans for 1983–84. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have already announced a hold-back exercise for the current year and I shall shortly be making the Government's final views known in respect of any additional hold-back.
    Mr. Bulmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it costs more than £25 million per year to pay local government employees' wages and salaries physically, but that if they were to accept credit transfer half that money could be saved? Will he see what can be done to encourage local authorities to follow that course?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Clearly, we wish to encourage anything that will save unnecessary expenditure which adds nothing to the quality of service provided.
    Mr. Cryer: Is it not nonsensical for the Department to try to make local authorities cut expenditure when it knows full well that the result will be more people on the dole due to a deliberate act of Government policy, which in turn will mean that the Department of Employment will be paying much more unemployment benefit and the DHSS much more supplementary benefit? Is it not better to give local authorities the money to provide the services so as to keep people in jobs?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that he has seen only one side—the wrong side—of the argument. High levels of expenditure with consequent high rates destroy far more jobs than they create.

    Local Authority Staff
    Sir William Elliottasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the total numbers of architects employed full or part-time in England in local authority departments in each of the past three years.
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of staff, principals and their assistants, employed full or part-time in England in the town and country planning departments of local authorities.
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of staff employed full or part-time in England in the refuse collection and disposal departments of local authorities in each of the past two years.
    Mr. Heseltine: From figures available in the joint manpower watch, the total numbers of staff, full or part-time, employed by local authorities in England were as follows:
    In architectural services, including professional and administrative staff, at March in each of the past three years:

    1980

    23,152

    1981

    21,708

    1982

    20,265

    In planning departments, including building control staff, at March 1982: 20,044;
    In refuse collection and disposal services at March in each of the past two years:

    1981

    46,294

    1982

    43,640

    Sir William Elliott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if public architects' departments in local authorities were reduced in size a considerable saving could be made and architectural contracts could be put out to competitive tender?
    Mr. Heseltine: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I can commend all local authorities to review the services that they provide and to test whether they can provide them more cheaply through the private sector.
    Mr. Steen: Although my right hon. Friend will be delighted to learn that the number of local authority days lost through strikes was reduced from 1·25 million in 1977 to 0·25 million in 1980, does he agree that the best way to protect the ratepayer from the powers of the unions is to contract out as many services as possible to private enterprise?
    Mr. Heseltine: I welcome what my hon. Friend said. I shall not cease to encourage local authorities to pursue that course of policy.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend not worried that the rise in local authority employees from 2 million to more than 3 million between 1965 and 1980 has put heavy pressure on the rates? Does he agree that services can be performed better by private enterprise? Will he try to push services out to private enterprise from local authorities wherever that is possible?
    Mr. Heseltine: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. He will realise that local authorities are autonomous bodies and that I do not have the power to compel them to act in that way. There is considerable scope for more private sector competition for local

    391
    authority services. The evidence, such as it is, shows that where such competition exists the ratepayers get a better deal.
    Mr. Hoyle: When the Secretary of State gives that advice, will he be giving any advice on the terms and conditions that should be adopted by private enterprise? Will he follow the lead that he gave when he appointed Arnold Montague Alfred as chief executive of the PSA on £50,000 a year, plus VAT, which is paid into his management consultancy service company, which is owned by him and his wife? Will the right hon. Gentleman give that advice, which will cost more money rather than save it?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for the opportunity to refer to the appointment of Mr. Alfred as head of the Propery Services Agency. He is now presiding over one of the fastest decreasing Government Departments in Whitehall. If I were asked to give local authorities guidance, my answer would be clear. As the private sector can usually provide a better service at less cost, local authorities should try to achieve those terms.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend examine examples in other Western industrialised countries and note that in each one, including Sweden, there is much less local authority activity, especially in refuse collection? Is he aware that many more services in those countries are hived-off to the private sector than in Britain, much to the benefit of their citizens?
    Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend has made a study of these matters. I have recently taken the opportunity to visit Southend—not quite as far afield as my hon. Friend went—where it is quite apparent that the employees of the private sector firm, the firm itself and the ratepayers—the people whose refuse is being collected—are delighted with the change. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will ask their local authorities the same questions that they are now asking me.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that when there are countless thousands of unemployed construction workers in the North and when the city of Newcastle upon Tyne has a waiting list of 12,000 for council houses, the local authority is employing 22 per cent. fewer architects than when the right hon. Gentleman took office? Does he agree that that is deplorable?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to ask about the reasons for the capital reductions that he was keen to support when the party of which he is a member was in office. The Government have witnessed the first reversal in capital allocations to local authorities since 1975. Local authorities have responded to that by underspending on capital receipts by £400 million.

    Central Berkshire (Housing)
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses must be built in central Berkshire under policy HI of the central Berkshire structure plan.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Under policy HI, the local planning authorities have to make available sufficient land to allow the construction of 31,700 houses in central Berkshire.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Would I correctly understand the complicated matter if I said that if Berkshire could demonstrate, in respect of its number of houses, that its commitment was met by existing planning consents, it need not feel that the Department of which my hon. Friend is a distinguished member will be chasing it for substantially increased housing that is bitterly resented in central Berkshire?
    Mr. Shaw: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's assiduous concern for the welfare of the citizens of central Berkshire. Nevertheless, he will be aware that we are dealing with land upon which houses may be built. As far as I understand it, about 19,500 such consents are available, within the overall total of 31,700, for the period of the structure plan. That leaves a significant shortfall.

    Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a document assessing the operation of the Wildlife and Country side Act, following its first year of operation.
    Mr. King: I see no need for a report on all of the different parts of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. However, assessments of tae provisions of the Act which concern the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission will be made by the bodies in their annual reports which are laid before Parliament.
    Mr. Dalyell: How can we explain the continuing and irretrievable loss of so much unique habitat, not least on the Minister's own doorstep at West Sedgemoor?
    Mr. King: The problems of protecting habitat have been with us for a considerable time. We are worried about some of the impact of this. I am worried about some of the incidents that took place during the consultation period before the notification of an SSSI. I take the matter seriously. I shall discuss it with agricultural and landowning interests. If we cannot achieve a satisfactory outcome of that we shall face a much more difficult circumstance, which will have to be considered carefully.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend say what action he is taking with regard to West Sedgemoor, which is facing erosion as a result of the activity of local farmers, before it is decided whether to designate it as an SSSI?
    Mr. King: The matter is under discussion between the bodies concerned. Considerable consultations are taking place. My hon. Friend will be aware that the most important basis on which we can secure a proper agreement is by good will and sensible consultations between the parties concerned. There are conflicting interests, but we shall not protect the countryside and valuable habitats simply by Acts of Parliament and imposing legislation. We must secure the support of all parties. That is the Government's approach. It is the sensible one at the moment.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of anxiety in the North-West of England about the future of Kinder Scout? Will he do all that he can to help the Peak District national park to purchase that land if it is otherwise unable to do so because it is outbid by private interests? Will he insist that such private interests should respect all of the access

    393
    agreements and should not change the character of the moorlands or ruin them, as many other agricultural developers have done?
    Mr. King: I am aware of the anxiety about Kinder Scout, but I would rather not comment further now. The matter is being considered by the bodies concerned. The type of consideration with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar as a result of his interest in these matters is in our minds at the moment.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 went through Parliament its foundation, which was recommended to us, was the voluntary method of reaching agreement? Does he agree that it is clear from what he has said today that such voluntary agreement has broken down, as many of us feared it would, and that there have been serious consequences for important sites, the drainage of wetlands and use of scarce resources? Will the Minister take the matter seriously? We must return to it to protect the countryside and wildlife. Does he agree that we may need planning law to achieve that?
    Mr. King: I repudiate entirely the opening part of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution. If we are to have an effective response, it requires co-operation and good will among the parties concerned. I hope that he will lend his good offices and those of his right hon. and hon. Friends to try to make the system work and not ally himself with certain bodies which are concerned to prove that the system cannot work, which could do lasting damage to the British countryside and habitat. The system can be made to work. The Government are determined to make sure that it does.

    Construction Industry (Orders)
    Mr. Guy Barnettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the most recent information he has on the construction industry's prospects indicate any improvement in orders during the current year.
    Mr. Stanley: I am glad to say that the latest construction new order figures published this afternoon show a number of improvements. In the past three months total construction orders were 11 per cent. higher in real terms than a year ago. Commercial orders were 10 per cent. higher, and so far this year have been at a higher level in real terms than in any year since 1973. In addition, in the past three months private housing orders were 41 per cent. higher in real terms than a year ago and public housing new orders were 46 per cent. higher.
    Mr. Barnett: While welcoming signs of improvement—and slight ones at that—of the appalling situation that this country faces, will the Minister bear in mind that thousands of construction workers are out of work all over the country and that there is an appalling situation in many constituencies, for example in my constituency, with regard to the size of housing waiting lists? Is there not a need for a massive increase in the work of the construction industry? If the Government take seriously the unemployment figures that were announced yesterday, will they take into account the fact that the construction industry is labour-intensive? That is the way in which we need to get people back to work.
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to take into account the fact that in the financial year that has
    394
    just been completed local authorities underspent by more than £400 million on the capital allocations that were made available to them. This year the increased provision that we have made permits an increase in cash spend on capital for housing by one-third. I hope that we shall have the support of the hon. Gentleman in asking all local authorities to make the fullest possible use of the increased provision that has been made on the housing side, reinforced by what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in his Budget.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the encouraging answer that has been given by my hon. Friend. Does he not agree that capital investment would be of tremendous benefit to the construction industry and a way of reducing unemployment? Will he therefore encourage my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the introduction of index-linked construction bonds as a way of encouraging private capital into the provision of construction projects to improve our infrastructure?
    Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friends regularly consider proposals for private financing of construction work. With regard to the public sector, we must take into account what is the most economic way of debt financing for construction work. I share my hon. Friend's sentiments. It is very much the Government's wish, within the overall public expenditure constraints, to make the greatest possible provision for capital expenditure, bearing in mind the benefits of employment in the construction industry.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Minister agree that while the construction industry is used as an economic barometer, it would be impossible for local authorities to gear their programmes to their capital allocations? Does he further agree that while 400,000 building workers are out of work, it is a downright scandal that 500,000 British people are in homes without inside toilets, running hot water or bathrooms?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is impossible for local authorities to gear their programmes to the capital allocation system. About one-fifth of all authorities last year spent 90 per cent. or more of their capital allocations plus their capital receipts. With regard to the other point, we have made an increased provision for home improvement grants. I am glad to say that in the last quarter the number of home improvement grants was at its highest for more than six years.
    Sir William Clark: If my hon. Friend speaks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about more capital for the construction industry, will he tell him that to issue index-linked bonds for construction is merely putting off the evil day, and that future taxpayers will have to pick up the bill?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Absolute nonsense.
    Mr. Stanley: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), in all forms of public debt financing we must look at the most economic way of providing debt financing for construction in the public sector.
    Mr. Kaufman: After the Government's unprecedented attack on the construction industry, is it not unseemly for the Minister to rejoice on finding a few twitches of life in the body of his victim? If the Government persist in

    395
    passing the phoney debating point about underspend or capital receipts across the Floor of the House will the Minister agree, as he is concerned about capital spending, to increase the housing investment programme allocation of any local authority that tells him that it wants to spend more so that we can get rid of the 30 per cent. unemployment in the building industry which the Minister has created?
    Mr. Stanley: There is nothing phoney about hundreds of millions of pounds of genuine cash receipts going to local authorities, which this Government alone made it possible for them to spend. One gets the impression from the right hon. Gentleman that anything is phoney if it does not reinforce his prejudices. The right hon. Gentleman talked about damage to the construction industry. I see that the Labour Party is now committed to the establishment of a national construction corporation based on the acquisition of one or more contractors, the extension of the activities of local authority direct labour organisations and the establishment of a building materials corporation. In terms of damage to the construction industry, that programme of nationalisation and municipalisation would be the greatest single disaster for it.

    Council Houses and Flats
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses and flats are standing empty; and what proportion of this total are (a) awaiting repair and (b) awaiting purchasers.
    Mr. Stanley: According to the authorities' own estimates, 97,000 council dwellings were vacant in England on 1 April 1981. The reasons for vacancy are available only for the 24,000 local authority dwellings that have been empty for more than a year. Of these, 11,700 were awaiting or undergoing repair or improvement and 4,500 were awaiting sale.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that the hundreds of thousands of badly housed and homeless families find it extremely offensive that there are so many empty properties around them? They find it particularly offensive, when they live in areas such as Wandsworth, to see the numbers of empty council properties that are awaiting a purchaser. Does the Minister agree that that is a scandal? Will he monitor the situation more carefully and take steps to bring it to an end?
    Mr. Stanley: Wandsworth council has a number of empty dwellings awaiting sale. The hon. Gentleman referred to a scandal. However, in the Labour-controlled city council of Manchester, of the number of dwellings that have been vacant for more than a year, the number awaiting sale was 596. Many people who are seeking houses find offensive the political position of the Labour Party which, in undertaking to repeal shorthold, will deliberately deprive many people of short-term rented accommodation.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would make a great deal of sense for local ratepayers if every council were required to publish a list, not only of council homes that have been standing empty for more than three months, but of any council homes that have been refused by two sets of people to whom they have been offered, so that other people can take over the homes and, if necessary, do the repairs themselves?
    Mr. Stanley: I agree that more attention should be given to the number of local authority dwellings that are subject to two refusals. In some cases there are more than two refusals. The number of properties that have been standing empty for a long time feature in local authority HIP returns. If my hon. Friend would like to table a question on that matter, I shall give him details of all the empty properties.
    Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency more than 100 excellent houses are standing empty which belong to the Home Office and were formerly prison officers' houses? Does he regard that as a scandal? Will the Minister suggest to his right hon. Friend, who is sitting next to him, that he should do something about those houses?
    Mr. Stanley: As my right hon. Friend is next to me, I am sure he heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Squire: In view of the plethora of statements that my hon. Friend mentioned as coming from Labour hon. Members, can my hon. Friend name one that will in any way reduce the problem outlined by the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs)?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is right. It is the Government who have introduced shorthold and encouraged homesteading and improvement for sale. It is a Conservative Government who have sought to resolve the problem of empty dwellings.

Buckingham Palace (Security)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
When I reported to the House on 12 July, I said I would make—as soon as I could—a further statement about the major breach of security at Buckingham Palace on 9 July. I have now received and considered a further report from Assistant Commissioner Dellow. I thought it right to place in the Library, and make available to right hon. and hon. Members in advance of this statement, a detailed account of the incident, the background to it, the failures that occurred and the subsequent action.
On 19 July I informed the House of the resignation of Commander Trestrail, the Queen's police officer, following his confession to having had over a number of years a homosexual relationship with a male prostitute. The confession raises further grave questions concerning the arrangements for the Queen's security. Accordingly, I have invited Lord Bridge to investigate the appointment as Queen's police officer and the activities of Commander Trestrail with a view to determining whether security was breached or put at risk; to advise whether in the light of that investigation any change in security arrangements is necessary or desirable; and to report. Lord Bridge is chairman of the security commission, but would conduct this inquiry sitting alone. I am glad to say that he has agreed to undertake the task. I shall, of course, inform the House of his findings. Although I have no evidence of a connection between this matter and the incident on 9 July, I am arranging for Lord Bridge to see all the papers relating to the events on 9 July so that he can make any further inquiries he considers necessary and advise on the adequacy of the police inquiries.
I turn now to the events of 9 July. Mr. Dellow's inquiry has revealed that, although there were technical failures, the basic cause of the breakdown of security was a failure by the police to respond efficiently and urgently. Furthermore, the incident revealed slackness and weaknesses in supervision. The commander, A district, has resigned from the force and the chief inspector at the palace has been transferred to other duties. Those were the two officers charged with the supervision of the uniformed officers at the palace.
Mr. Dellow has also outlined the serious errors and omissions which exposed the Queen to danger. As a result, four other police officers are subject to disciplinary inquiries. One of those officers has been suspended and two have been removed from their former duties. I am sure that the House will accept that the officers concerned have a right to a fair hearing. I must remind the House that I have an appellate responsibility in police discipline cases and it is not proper for me to comment further on those individual cases.
I have considered with the Commissioner what further arrangements are needed to ensure efficiency, greater professionalism and effective supervision. I have accepted his proposal that the protection of Her Majesty the Queen, other members of the royal family, and their residences will be the single responsibility of a deputy assistant commissioner reporting directly to the Commissioner. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Colin Smith has been appointed to this new post. He will head a new department responsible for all aspects of royalty protection. The senior
398
officers in the new royalty protection department, including DAC Smith, will work from Buckingham Palace. This will ensure the closest supervision at senior level and also effect the most direct links with the household and staff of the Queen and the senior officers of the household division, who have promised their full co-operation.
Operational responsibility for all protection will thus be brought together. DAC Smith's first task will include a remit to make recommendations for revised arrangements for posting and training and to keep them under review. He will pay particular attention to establishing and maintaining a regime of duty which is adequately varied and testing.
Since the incident, the number of uniformed police officers on protection duties has been increased. Some new technical security devices have been installed; some existing devices relocated; and all thoroughly tested.
Assistant Commissioner Dellow's inquiry will continue in respect of assessments of further physical security measures. In this task, I have asked Mr. Dellow to draw on all sources of available expertise, in the public and private sectors. The results of this work will enable the completion of Mr. Dellow's inquiry. The work of keeping these matters under review will then be carried forward by DAC Smith. But all physical measures depend ultimately on the people who operate them being of high quality and properly supervised. The new leadership and arrangements I have outlined are designed to ensure this.
I have asked the chief officers of other forces in England and Wales, who have responsibilities for royal residences, to review the arrangements they have made, and make any further recommendations beyond those measures which have already been implemented. The chief officers concerned will work closely with DAC Smith. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has done the same within his area of responsibility.
I have decided to institute a new permanent group, comprising representatives of the royal households, the police, the Household Division and the Property Services Agency, chaired by one of my senior officials. This group will meet regularly to examine the effectiveness of the arrangements made. It will not in any way lessen the operational responsibility of DAC Smith and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The group will report personally to me.
I believe that the bringing together under a DAC of the responsibility for all protection for the Queen and members of her family, the changes in staffing, the improvements in equipment, and the monitoring of the new arrangements I have announced, constitute the best approach to improving palace security. I have also announced the terms of Lord Bridge's inquiry. Although I have no evidence that the incident of 9 July and the resignation of Commander Trestrail were connected, I have arranged for Lord Bridge to see the papers relating to the former event.
The shocking events of 9 July were handled by Her Majesty the Queen with great composure and resolution. But it is intolerable that Her Majesty should have been exposed to this intrusion and put at risk in this way. It is not the wish of Her Majesty, her Ministers or, I am sure, of this House, that she and other members of the royal family should be confined by measures of high security that deny private life and public accessibility, but the

399
safety of the sovereign must be paramount. There has been an appalling lapse of security and I know that the whole House—and the country—will demand that the lessons of this incident must be learned so that the protection that we give to the Queen and members of her family is the best that can be provided.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary aware that he has reported today on two distinct but obliquely related matters? On the question of Mr. Trestrail, and particularly his positive vetting, he has promised a report from Lord Bridge, the chairman of the security commission.
The Trestrail case raises complex matters of principle and practice, and I am willing to postpone comment on them until Lord Bridge reports to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary, as promised, reports to the House. On the other hand, is the Home Secretary aware that the numerous intrusions into Buckingham Palace can and must be commented on immediately?
Is it not appalling that breaches of security have happened so often and with so little response? After the previous incursions but before the events of 9 July were made notorious in newspapers, did the Home Secretary visit the palace to check on security? Did the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police visit the Palace to check on security? I am speaking of the period between the knowledge being received in Government and its being made public in the newspapers. If they did not make such visits, why did they not make them?
Will the Home Secretary confirm what is clear from his report, that the several incursions are the result of negligence at every level—failure by the police to respond effectively and urgently, slackness and weakness in supervision, and technical failures in security devices?
I share the Home Secretary's view that we must not jeopardise the prospects of a fair hearing for the officers who face disciplinary charges, but that does not apply to the entire force, and particularly to some very senior members of the Metropolitan force.
I believe that the whole House will agree that questions are necessary in a situation, which is almost beyond belief, in which the Queen, as the Head of State and a person particularly vulnerable to attack, should have been left in persistent danger.
I accept that the Home Secretary will take urgent and immediate action. I also accept that the action which he has reported today seems likely to prove effective. But one aspect of the whole incident continues to give great cause for alarm. Much of the report now in the Vote Office was quoted almost verbatim on television on Friday evening. If the report on royal security is not secure, what is secure, and how much faith can we place in those people who first leaked and who are now required to implement it?
Does the Home Secretary now agree that the bizarre story which he has told the House today is a further example of the inability of the Metropolitan Police successfully to discharge all the duties imposed upon it? It is too large, it attempts too many diverse tasks, it is badly managed, and it has no effective authority to control its actions.
Does not the evidence before the Home Secretary today, at least and at last, convince him of the need for a major revision in the governance and the organisation of
400
the Metropolitan Police? If he takes no action and if there are further failures and further fiascos, the responsibility will be his and his alone.
Mr. Whitelaw: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I do not think that I have raised any question throughout about the responsibilities—not operational responsibilities—which I share in the final event. I have my responsibilities and I accept them, and no one can suggest that I have not accepted them over the last weeks.
I visited the palace after the other intrusions. I did not visit the palace for the purpose of examining security. It is important to remember that the operational disposition of police officers is a matter for the police themselves. If one breaches that position, one gets into very serious difficulties.
The senior officers visited the palace to check on security. I do not know whether the commissioner did, but certainly his very senior officers, who are directly responsible to him, did so.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to speculation and to what was said in the report getting to the BBC. Among the many things that I have been deeply upset about over the last fortnight, I was deeply upset about that. I checked very carefully and most of it could be regarded as at best informed speculation and no more. I believe that to be the case, because I have checked very carefully with all concerned.
With regard to the future of the Metropolitan Police, I accept—and so would the Commissioner—that there were grave mistakes on this occasion. It would be wrong not to recognise at the same time some of the remarkable achievements of the Metropolitan Police which have been seen in this House and in this country on many different occasions. One might even refer to the considerable work done by the Metropolitan Police in the tragic events of yesterday. It is wrong to look at one instance and one only.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Come off it.
Mr. Whitelaw: No, that is only fair to the Metropolitan Police. One cannot condemn every officer in the Metropolitan Police for some particular instances. That would be wrong. I am only saying that mistakes must be judged but that at the same time there are successes. I do not think that anyone would deny that. I shall certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman said about the organisation of the Metropolitan Police. I shall look very carefully into it and discuss it with the new Commissioner, Sir Kenneth Newman, in October.
Mr. David Steel: The decision of the Home Secretary to establish a unified royalty protection department is welcome, but why were the steps that has now taken not taken after the previous entries into the palace described in his document? Why was there not at that time the tightening up of discipline and the reorganisation that he has now announced? Why did it have to await the appalling incident of 9 July?
Is Lord Bridge to review the positive vetting procedures?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, that is within Lord Bridge's terms of reference and no doubt he will do so.
With regard to the first point, the other intrusions were all properly and successfully repelled. It is important to remember that.
Mr. John Wheeler: In view of the special responsibilities that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Smith is to assume, could my right hon. Friend tell the House about the experience that that officer has and why he in particular should do the job?
Mr. Whitelaw: He was recommended to me by the commissioner. He is 41 years old and joined the Metropolitan Police as a deputy assistant commissioner in May this year, having served as an assistant chief constable in the Thames Valley police and before that in Sussex, so he has had experience outside the Metropolitan Police, which I think is particularly important. He is also young and extremely well-equipped for the task.
Mr. John Morris: Does the Home Secretary recall the famous complaint of Mr. Macmillan when he was Prime Minister, that nobody told him anything?
Is it not extraordinary that the Home Office officials took such a long time to tell the Home Secretary of the events of the weekend? Is he satisfied with his control of his Home Office officials and his relationship with the Metropolitan Police? When precisely was he told of the other incursions into Buckingham Palace?
Mr. Whitelaw: With regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point about the affairs of Commander Trestrail, I am perfectly clear that I was told at the proper time in the proper way when I could be given a full report in order for me to come to Parliament at the earliest opportunity on Monday afternoon to make a full statement of all the facts. If I had not done that, there would have been accusations of cover-ups of all types. No one can accuse me at any stage of the proceedings of having sought to cover up anything at all. I hope at least that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give me the credit for that, because I have certainly not done so. With regard to the previous intrusion, I was warned on the telephone in my car as I was travelling north to my constituency in Cumbria. I was finally told at one o'clock when I got to my home on that Friday afternoon.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: Since the chief officer of police—in this case the Commissioner—and not the Home Secretary is totally responsible for operational matters within his force, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there has now been established within the Metropolitan Police a sufficiently clear line of responsibility for the security of Her Majesty the Queen on all occasions?
Mr. Whitelaw: That is the purpose of the measures that the Commissioner has proposed to me, and which I have approved and announced to the House today.
Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Home Secretary appreciate that a Home Secretary of any other party would have been crucified by the House and by the media for this affair? Is it not important for us all to realise that what happened at the Palace was a spectacularly dramatic illustration of a type of inefficiency that is rampant throughout British institutions—the failure of superiors properly to supervise their subordinates? How many times in the past three years have I nagged the Home Secretary to get the Home Office properly to exercise its functions as the police authority for London? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is not one civil servant in the Home Office exclusively
402
engaged on the job of police authority for London? Will he now take that matter more seriously in the future than he has in the past and perhaps have a meeting with London Members of Parliament to discuss how he will do it?
Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the need to exercise the functions of the police authority of the Metropolis. I have taken that to heart. The organisation inside my police department is a matter for myself and my officials, but we shall take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Edward Gardner: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the measures that he has decided upon to improve the protection of the Queen and the royal family, but does he agree that one of the most extraordinary features of the break-in at Buckingham Palace on 9 July is that, following the murder of Earl Mountbatten, £2 million was made available for the improvement for security of Royal residences? In spite of that, is it not a fact that one alarm beam at Buckingham Palace was found to be at the wrong place and another, which might well have trapped the person who was trying to break in, was out of alignment? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that that was a most extraordinary state of affairs?
Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly, the expenditure of £2 million on improving the technological devices for the Royal residences in those years has been a considerable expenditure of taxpayers' money. I think that that is right. The failures on this occasion were serious, but I must return to what Mr. Dellow said and what is contained in paragraph 8 of the document that I circulated. He
"emphasised that if police officers had been alert and competent, Fagan would have been apprehended well before he got close to the Private Apartments."
That is the essence of the matter. The technological equipment was there—in some cases it was not used and in other cases it was not observed.
Mr. George Foulkes: Has the Home Secretary noticed that there is usually quick action and vigilance immediately after such an event but that soon after there is a lapse into the previous poor practices? As a Member of the House was actually murdered, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the security in the Palace of Westminster, since many hon. Members including myself have noticed a lapse in security over the past few weeks?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly discuss that matter with the House authorities, but I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for security in the Palace of Westminster is a matter for the House authorities and that they must satisfy themselves on the matter.
Sir William Clark: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that the more the fiasco at Buckingham Palace unfolds, the more astounded and shocked the British public are as to what went on. While one pays tribute to the bulk of the police force, surely my right hon. Friend will agree that there was sheer and gross incompetence on this occasion. While those involved must have a fair hearing, why is it that more people have not been suspended? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be something wrong with the law when, as I understand it, the intruder, Mr. Fagan, cannot be sued?
Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend refers to the question whether Mr. Fagan should be prosecuted. I shall consider

403
that matter. The law of trespass is complicated, but I shall consider that matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
With regard to my hon. Friend's first point, of those officers directly responsible for the supervision failure, one has resigned and one has been transferred to other duties.
Mr. Leo Abse: Are not the statements of the Home Secretary both on Monday and today a charter for blackmailers and a triumph for the lure of cheque-book journalism? Since Commander Trestrail has had no criminal offence charged against him and, despite the innuendo contained in the statement today, there has apparently been no breach of security on his part, is it not disgraceful that what has occurred is the substitution of public pillory for the penal punishment that this House rightly abolished? As a consequence, since it leaves open again the possibilities of blackmail, is it not more rather than less likely that there will be breaches of security as a result of the irresponsible statements made on both occasions by the Home Secretary?
Mr. Whitelaw: I should have thought that many people in the House and in the country would have believed that for an officer in Commander Trestrail's position to have had the association that he had with a male prostitute must have carried risks of blackmail. Surely it would have been criminally negligent not to pay attention to that information about a man in his position as soon as it came to the notice of the authorities.
Mrs. Jill Knight: Following the changes announced by the Home Secretary this afternoon, the most important question of all to ask my right hon. Friend is whether he can assure the House and the country that the Queen, who is inexpressibly dear to and honoured by her subjects, will henceforward always be safe in her own home?
Mr. Whitelaw: I would simply refer my hon. Friend to the best assurance that I believe any Government, any Parliament or any country can give, that the protection we give to the Queen and members of her family is the best that can be provided, always remembering that the safety of the sovereign must be paramount.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: Since three young Germans managed to scale the Palace walls in June 1981 and it was then decided to make those walls more secure, why did it take more than 12 months to build an alarm system and a barbed wire fence? How could it have taken so long once the palace and the Metropolitan Police had been alerted to the dangers?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall look into all those matters. The Property Services Agency does the work. It has been doing a great deal of work at all the other residences. I shall discover why it took so long.
Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend will know by now that there is deep disquiet in the country. The Queen's safety concerns not only him but every one of her subjects. While there may be general approval for the announcement today that there will be one executive officer responsible and that that is where the buck will stop, will my right hon. Friend say why, when
404
he is the police authority for the Metropolis, that officer reports to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and not on this matter directly to him?
Secondly, will Lord Bridge be able to recommend improvements in the palpably ineffective system of personal vetting?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, the reason why this officer reports direct to the Commissioner is an important constitutional ore, and it is that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, like all chief officers of police throughout the country, is operationally responsible for his force, and the work at Buckingham Palace is one for which the Commissioner is operationally responsible in the constitution. That is most important, and it must be preserved for the future.
In answer to my hon. Friend's second point, Lord Bridge will be able to make such recommendations.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House is aware, I normally bring these questions to an end at four o'clock. I shall allow four more questions on either side, which will mean an exceptionally long time.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Does the Home Secretary agree that the most extraordinary aspect of the excellent report that has been put in the Vote Office by his Department is the fact that, following Earl Mountbatten's assassination, a complete review of royal protection arrangements was carried out with his agreement by the Metropolitan Police? That review cost £2 million, and it was completed barely 18 months ago. Yet in spite of that review and the £2 million that was spent, there has been an enormous lapse in the security arrangements. Does he not therefore agree that the buck has to stop somewhere for accountability, and that it cannot be left with the hapless Commander Trestrail? It has to stop somewhere else, if it is not to stop with the Home Secretary himself.
Mr. Whitelaw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that the report is very full, and I am sure that the House will agree that everything that could have been put in was put in. I have held nothing back from the House. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said.
In answer to what he said about the work that has been done, I come back to what Assistant Commissioner Dellow said—that in the end much of the work that is done depends on those people who work it, and the officers who were responsible for working it. That is where the lapse of security came. I believe that this was a matter of supervision. The commander of the district concerned, who was directly responsible, has resigned from the force, and that is right.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although examining the vetting procedure is vital and necessary, it must be stretching credulity beyond breaking point to believe that Commander Trestrail's proclivities for male prostitutes were not known by those who carried out the vetting? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Lord Bridge should investigate the people who did the vetting and that any appointments made by those people and by Commander Trestrail must be investigated in their turn, to

405
make sure that the right people have been appointed, and that they were not subverted by the likes of Commander Trestrail?
Mr. Whitelaw: All these matters will be looked into by Lord Bridge, and it would be wrong for me to prejudge the outcome.
Mr. Christopher Price: As the measures announced by the Home Secretary will clearly involve extra public expenditure, and as Deputy Assistant Commissioner Smith's responsibilities will now extend beyond Buckingham Palace to other royal residences outside London, is it fair and right that the expenditure involved in this exercise should fall solely on the ratepayers of Lewisham and other London boroughs, and not be taken up as a national responsibility, as it clearly should be?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the arrangements for police financing mean that the Government give a direct 50 per cent. grant on all expenditure, and, on top of that, a proportion of the rate support grant. That has been the way that police financing—
Mr. Price: We are responsible for 25 per cent.
Mr. Whitelaw: I believe that the method of police financing is correct, and I should like to stick to it.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It may sound surprising, coming from me, but may I tell the Government and my right hon. Friend that the majority of Conservative Members have total confidence in my right hon. Friends and the Government in the steps that they have taken to deal with this shocking breach of security at Buckingham Palace, and that we are greatly encouraged by the proposition which my right hon. Friend has put to the House? I wish to ask him only one question. Will he ensure that, where police officers have been incompetent in the operation of their duties, they are dismissed rather than moved to one side, so that all right hon. and hon. Members can be totally confident that the security of Her Majesty is not only paramount in this House but paramount with the police?
Mr. Whitelaw: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I take note of his second point, but as I have already said, it would be wrong for me to prejudge the disciplinary inquiries on the police officers concerned.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Since the major resignation so far tendered would not have been required if Lord Justice Diplock's recommendations and comments on homosexuality had been accepted—
Mr. A. J. Beith; Oh yes, it would.
Mr. Faulds: That is debatable; my argument is that the resignation would not have been required.
—and as no superior figure directly responsible for the major offence—the intrusion into the Queen's bedchamber—has yet resigned, when can we expect further resignations on this matter?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall not enter into the debatable point. On the second point, I do not think that it would be reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to expect any more resignations.
Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these grave events, which have deeply disturbed the whole nation, would have been the subject, in Her Majesty's Forces, of courts martial? Will there be similar undertakings in the Metropolitan Police, and will there be the necessary drastic reforms afterwards, so that the public can regain the confidence in the police which is so essential?
Mr. Whitelaw: Confidence in the police is essential. That is why I said that, although these events cast doubts on and undermine that confidence, the many other actions taken by the Metropolitan Police and other forces point in the other direction. The disciplinary procedures will proceed, as is proper in a public service. They are different from the procedures in the Armed Services, but they will proceed, as is proper.
Mr. Michael English: The Home Secretary missed something out of his statement, and I hope that he will include it. Under the Secretaries of State—not just the right hon. Gentleman but all of them—the people responsible for Her Majesty's personal security are the Officers of the Household. In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I assume that he intends to introduce legislation to transfer that responsibility to himself and the police. For example, there, is a person—I think his responsibility is outside the palace walls—the Master of the Horse, who has not offered his resignation. Can we ensure that, apart from sacking the monkeys, something will also be done about some of the organ grinders who have sinecure posts where they accept responsibility—admittedly unpaid?
Mr. Whitelaw: It is very unfair of the hon. Gentleman to attack those servants of the Queen who are not in a position to answer for themselves.
Mr. English: Some of them are on that Front Bench. They are Whips. They can answer here.
Mr. Whitelaw: By making the arrangements that I have with the new deputy assistant commissioner in charge of all royalty protection, working closely with the senior officers in Buckingham Palace and with the Household staff of the Queen and the senior officers of the Household Division, I believe that I have taken the right action. The operational responsibility will remain with that DAC who is responsible directly to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and not to anyone else.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Bearing in mind the Diplock commission recommendation that the whole of the Civil Service should ordinarily not be subject to the rule that homosexual tendencies are a barrier to recruitment, and that that should be dealt with henceforth on a case-by-case basis, will my right hon. Friend confirm that henceforth all senior police officers who are put in security positions will be subject to positive vetting?
Mr. Whitelaw: That point was raised in Lord Diplock's report and the position is that positive vetting excludes most police officers other than the most senior ranks and members of the Special Branch. That is what Lord Diplock recommended and it remains the position.
Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary will be aware that most attention this afternoon has been focused on the performance of individual police officers. In the light of that, will he confirm that paragraph 9 of the document that he put in the Vote Office concludes:

407
"This divided organisation has not encouraged the professionalism and dedication that would have prevented the incident on 9th July."
Does he understand that most of the Opposition's complaints are not about Metropolitan policemen but about the structure and constitution of the Metropolitan Police?
Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman has already made that point to me and I have said that I shall consider it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman resign?
Mr. Speaker: Ten-Minute Bill, Mr. Dennis Canavan.
Mr. John Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have always understood that where an hon. Member indicated to you that he had a constituency interest—Mr. Fagan is my constituent—it is customary to call that hon. Member. Will you comment on that?
Mr. Speaker: I did not believe that it was a constituency interest. The whole House has the same interest in the matter.
Mr. Grant: This is victimization—
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr. Grant rose—
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) come back to his place? Very well. [HON MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] The whole House can keep cool for a moment. The hon. Gentleman is obviously in a state of agitation.
Mr. Skinner: I think he has resigned.
Mr. Speaker: Has he? I am reluctant, in the absence of the hon. Member, to take any further action.
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand your natural reluctance and I have a natural reluctance to say what I am about to say. The fact that an hon. Member has walked out in a fit of temper does not mean that he is entitled to use the words that he just used of any person of any party who happens to hold your office. I shall repeat them if you wish, but I see no need to. However, the matter must be dealt with through an appropriate channel.
Mr. Speaker: In view of that statement, I shall send a message to the hon. Gentleman asking him to be in his place tomorrow. I did not hear the words. I am very fortunate because there is much that I do not hear. However, I shall ask him to be in his place tomorrow because it appears that he owes an apology to the House.

Scottish Parliament
4.13 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set up a Scottish Parliament; and for related purposes.
It is three years since the Tory Government repealed the Scotland Act 1978, against the wishes of the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament and the majority of people who voted in the 1979 referendum. The need for a Scottish Parliament has become more urgent and apparent.
Because of the existence of a distinct legal system and body of Scots law, Scottish legislation affecting only the people of Scotland often requires different Bills and orders, but, because there is no distinct Scottish legislature, the Scottish Bills and orders must go through this place. We see the results in the difficulty in arranging the business of the House. For example, until 2.30 this morning the House was kept up debating a proposal by the Secretary of State for Scotland to reduce the rate support grant for Stirling district council by more than £l million.
I put it, even to hon. Members who are lukewarm about home rule for Scotland and to those who are absolutely opposed to it, that there may be some advantage in my Bill. If we had a Scottish Parliament dealing with Scottish business in Scotland, hon. Members on both sides of the House could get to their beds earlier instead of having to wait up until the wee small hours debating Scottish business that many of them do not understand.
More seriously, this morning's business was yet another example of the Tory Government using their Commons majority to push through decisions that are against the interests of the majority of Scottish people and against the wishes of most of their elected representatives both in Parliament and in local government. The Secretary of State for Scotland has taken dictatorial powers not only to reduce local authority budgets, but to push up rents and so force local authorities to sell council houses. In education, he has closed colleges, deprived children of their legal rights to school milk and meals and switched public money from local education authority schools to private, fee-paying schools. The United Kingdom Parliament also passed the iniquitous Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 that gives the Scottish police draconian powers of arrest, search and detention.
We often hear hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, talk about a lack of democracy and, rightly sometimes, about the lack of democracy in some Eastern European States, but Scotland has less autonomy than many Soviet satellite States. The Secretary of State for Scotland has autocratic powers that any Stalinist dictator would envy. Scottish people have the democratic right to take decisions that affect them. Those decisions should be taken by their elected representatives.
The Bill is not an SNP invention. It is in line with the policy decisions taken at successive Labour Party conferences in Scotland. My Bill proposes that the functions for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible should be devolved to a Scottish Parliament that could legislate on such matters. The Parliament would form its own Executive to administer those functions, which include housing, health, education, social work services, agriculture, fisheries, criminal justice, transport, the environment, the Manpower Services Commission as

409
it operates in Scotland, and industrial intervention powers, including the Scottish Development Agency, so that the Assembly would have some powers to help the 348,000 unemployed in Scotland. The Assembly would also have revenue-raising powers that, combined with its legislative powers, would merit its being called a Parliament rather than an Assembly, unlike, for example, the Common Market Assembly, which is just a talking shop with no real legislative powers.
If in future the Scottish Parliament wishes more powers to be devolved to it, my Bill contains the necessary provision. If the concept of rolling devolution is acceptable to the Government for a gerrymandered Province such as Northern Ireland, it must be acceptable even to this Government for Scotland, because it is a country in its own right and the people of Scotland form a nation. They are entitled to as much self-determination as they wish. That is a principle that the Prime Minister seems ready to apply to the people of the Falkland Islands, but not to the people of Scotland.
Unlike the Scotland Act, my Bill would not be contingent on a rigged referendum. The previous referendum opened the way for the 40 per cent. wrecking amendment which was introduced by a Member of Parliament who has since defected to another party which is now trying to con the people of Scotland with phoney proposals for what it calls "decentralisation". I think that the people of Scotland will see through the phoney promises of a party which includes the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and the right hon. Members for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) and Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who never showed any enthusiasm for devolution or home rule when they were Cabinet Ministers.
410
The people of Scotland have already seen through the phoney promises of certain Tories, such as Lord Home, who, in the referendum campaign, advised people to vote "No" because a future Tory Government would produce better alternative policies for devolution in Scotland. They have produced nothing. We have waited three years for alternative proposals from the Tory Government. We have waited in vain and that is why I am asking for leave to introduce the Bill.
All who are genuinely interested in a decentralised democracy ought to support me, because the Bill will be the beginning of a process of meaningful devolution of power, which will eventually be to the advantage of all the people of the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. David Lambie, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. R. McTaggart, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Robert Party, Mr. John Morris and Mr. Gerard Fitt.

Scottish Parliament

  SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
  Mr. Dennis Canavan accordingly presented a Bill to set up a Scottish Parliament; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 20 October and to be printed. [Bill 170.]
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the House to introduce a Bill at this late stage in the Session when there is no hope of its ever being passed?
  Mr. Speaker: I shall be brief, to save time, as many hon. Members wish to speak on the main business. I should not be surpised if we had another similar motion on Wednesday of next week, if it is in order.

Orders of the Day

  SUPPLY
  [27TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I have not selected any of the amendments to the amendment.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
  'believes that events have shown that Common Market arrangements for the Budget, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom and that the Treaty of Rome cannot provide a sound and secure basis for long term fruitful co-operation with the United Kingdom's European friends and allies'.
  It is strange that on a Supply day one has the privilege of moving an amendment before the Government speak to the motion.
  Today's debate is undoubtedly overshadowed by the statement that we have just heard from the Secretary of State on the security of the Royal household and particularly by the tragic and awful events that took place yesterday in various parts of London. Therefore, I do not expect that this debate will receive many headlines, and I do not expect the entire press corps to be present to hear about Common Market matters.
  Despite the other serious events that have taken place, discussion of the Common Market is of great importance to the future of our country. At no time should we apologise for having important debates of this kind. The debate is on the report on "Developments in the European Community, July to December 1981." That was when the United Kingdom had the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, and it is therefore important to discuss what happened during that period.
  The report says that
  "the Government's hopes for this period and how they were realised"
  were summarised in the then Foreign Secretary's speeches to the European Parliament on 8 July and on 17 December 1981. That means that we can have a wide-ranging debate, and the Opposition have put down an amendment that gives us the opportunity to broaden the debate to sake in all or any aspects of the Common Market.
  In addition to dealing with budgetary issues and the CAP, the report deals with political co-operation, ranging from East-West relations to the Middle East and South-East Asia.
  I should have liked to express a view on many, if not all, of those matters and I should particularly have liked to say something about the Middle East and the views that I and other members of my party hold on that question. I
  412
  should have liked to say something about Poland and Latin America, but time will prevent my getting too involved with such questions.
  I propose to make a brief comment on the steel discussions, in which the Minister for Trade is involved. The Daily Telegraph today contains an interesting and important report. It says that officials from the Department of Trade and British Steel are travelling to Washington to start direct negotiations on quotas with the United States of America, and that the Minister for Trade is reported as saying after the Brussels talks:
  "We will carry more clout."
  I find that interesting, because we have always been told that the important thing was that when the countries of the Common Market came together they were more united and determined and had more clout than if they acted individually. The hon. and learned Gentleman is making the point which some of us have made for some time, which is that, when it comes down to it, national interests have to be put before just about everything else. I am not arguing with the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I put it on record that I find it interesting.
  On Friday—and this is why I do not propose to debate the matter now—there will be a full debate on the proposed budget for next year. There are some interesting points in that proposed budget and I am sure that that will be an important debate.
  The previous Foreign Secretary, in his speech on 8 July 1981, spoke of three main tasks facing the EEC. The first was the reform of the common agricultural policy to end its high costs and scandalous surpluses. He said:
  "It cannot be right that about half of the Community's budget should be spent simply on the storage and disposal of surplus food."
  The second task, which relates to the first, was to direct EEC resources away from agriculture into industry and services. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the 1950s it was reasonable to suppose that agriculture needed support but industry just needed free competition, but
  "That is no longer the case."
  The third task was budgetary reform. The Minister said that no country could ever get out exactly what it put in, but that
  "every Member State has to be broadly satisfied that the Community's financial basis is sound and equitable."
  The Foreign Secretary set out the Government's objectives at that time with admirable clarity. I must say, I hope with equal clarity, that the Government have failed to make satisfactory progress towards any of those objectives.
  The Common Market is now heading towards record food surpluses. The Government's opposition to the CAP has been no more than token and their attempt to veto this year's 9·7 per cent. price increase was nothing but a tactical ploy. They had already agreed in principle to an increase of that size.
  There has been a similar climb down over the budget. There was a time when the Prime Minister made budgetary reform a personal crusade. All hon. Members will remember that. She made a great point of how she would deal with the budget. I note—I hope that hon. Members and the country have noted it too—that she seems to be keeping her head well down on this issue.
  I could raise many interesting points on the budget, but I raise only one in passing. I notice that the Commission

  413
  has proposed an increase of 351 staff posts, including seven for the publications office. The bureaucratic set-up is obviously increasing the whole time.
  Britain and West Germany remain the only net contributors to the EEC budget. France and Italy took out nearly £350 million last year, and Ireland very little less. The Government's commitment to a long-term solution of the budgetary problem evaporated earlier this year, and they accepted a one-year deal.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I shall not go the whole way with the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister has done a good job in difficult circumstances to get some of our money back.
  However, the hon. Gentleman will know, as I do, that there are people traipsing around Britain saying that the Community budget cost only £6 million last year. Have the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members seen the piece of paper that I have from the Treasury? It is a cash flow document that shows that in 1980 the budget cost Britain £706 million, that last year it cost £397 million and that this year, as all hon. Members know, it will cost us considerably in excess of £400 million in cash flow terms. Therefore, the miracle that the Euro-fanatics are talking about has not happened. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ensure, as I shall, that Britain knows full well what is happening in this regard.
  Mr. Heffer: On some occasions it is wrong to give way, but on others it is right to do so. The hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly underlined my basic point. I shall return to some of the points about the budget, but I shall not deal with future budgets.
  The two failures of the common agricultural policy and the budget are ultimately of far less importance than the second priority that was mentioned by the then Foreign Secretary, that of redirecting resources into industry and services.
  Unemployment in the United Kingdom now stands at well over 3 million. Most of the responsibility for that rests with the Government. However, our membership of the EEC should not be ignored as the EEC controls much of our trading and industrial policies.
  The then Foreign Secretary said that free competition was not enough. The truth is that free competition is a major cause of our problems. Free competition is a relic of nineteenth century laissez faire concepts. Contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), it is preserved in the Treaty of Rome. It does not, as some pro-Marketeers claim, lead to prosperity for all. It does not lead to equality of wealth between nations. On the contrary, it perpetuates inequality and allows the strong to dominate the weak. That has always been the Labour Party's most fundamental objection to the Treaty of Rome.
  One of the nation's leading economists, Lord Kaldor, predicted with great accuracy what would happen to British industry under the Treaty of Rome. The de-industrialisation that he predicted has come to pass. The 3 million plus on the dole are proof of that.
  Let me give some figures to show what has happened to unemployment since Britain joined the EEC. I am not claiming that our entry into the EEC was in itself responsible for all unemployment, but I remember, as I am sure every other hon. Member does, the debates at the time
  414
  of Britain's entry into the Common Market. We were told that unless we joined the Common Market we would have massive unemployment, that there would be no jobs for the boys and that the only way to get jobs for the boys was to go into the Common Market and stay in it.
  The total unemployment figures on a seasonally adjusted basis, and therefore excluding school leavers, were, in January 1973, 741,000, a percentage rate of 3·2 per cent., and in June 1982, 2,910,000, a percentage rate of 12·2 per cent. In January 1973 those unemployed under the age of 20 numbered 114,000, and in January 1982, 525,000
  I want to contrast those statistics with figures from other European non-EEC countries. In 1972 Austria had an unemployment rate of 1·9 per cent. and in 1981 one of 2·4 per cent. In 1972 Norway had an unemployment rate of 1·7 per cent. and in 1981 it stood at 2 per cent. There was no great and rapid rise. In 1972 Sweden had an unemployment rate of 2·7 per cent., which was not much different in 1981. Switzerland is perhaps peculiar, but, nevertheless, in 1981 it had a rate of unemployment of less than 0·2 per cent. None of those countries is a member of the EEC.
  We were told "If you do not join the European Economic Community your industry will collapse and you will find a massive rise in unemployment", but the facts prove the opposite. We could have dealt with these matters in our own way without being inveigled into the Market by the pro-Marketeers. In the six months from October of last year to March this year, our deficit in manufactures with the EEC stood at £2,131 million. In our trade in manufactures with the rest of the world we had a surplus of £3,297 million. This is a long-established pattern. It is our deficit with the EEC that is destroying our industries.
  Those who were saying that we should join the Common Market have been proved wrong. Britain's membership of the Common Market has meant—
  Sir Anthony Meyer rose—
  Mr. Heffer: I am not giving way at the moment.
  There has developed a massive deficit in our non-oil balance of trade in manufactured goods with the EEC. There has been the burden of substantial annual net payments to the Community budget. There has been the denial of access to cheaper supplies of essential agricultural products, the imposition of unnecessarily high consumer prices for food and the acceptance of an agricultural regime that distorts the rational pattern of production. There has been the takeover by the EEC of significant powers to make laws and to levy taxes that apply to Britain.
  Even the most ardent pro-Marketeers cannot possibly claim that Britain has really benefited from its membership of the EEC. An interesting written parliamentary reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East on 8 April showed that between 1 January 1973 and 31 December 1981 the United Kingdom paid £8,799 million to the EEC budget and received £5,314 million. The ratio of payments to receipts is five to three. At the same time as we are paying a levy of 52·92p on every pound of butter coming into the country from outside the EEC, subsidised butter is being supplied to the Soviet Union because of the manner in which the common agricultural policy works at the expense of the British people.
  That is one example. There is insufficient time to give all the examples, but if one adds up the whole list the result

  415
  is fantastic. The amount in 1980 was 142,000 tonnes. Equally, total food levies in the last few years have gone up from £46 million in 1976 to £234 million in 1980. I wish to refer especially to the amounts in 1976 and 1977. The claim is made that the Government achieved a better deal than the Labour Government. It is necessary, however, to take account of the transitional arrangements under the Treaty of Accession. The Labour Government could not possibly have begun to deal with the situation until the transitional arrangements were out of the way. It was then possible to see what was happening. My right hon. Friends made a very good job during that period of defending the interests of the British people. We have nothing to be ashamed of.
  Conservative Members accuse the Labour Government of not achieving as good a deal as this Government. The truth is that we were caught by those transitional arrangements.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: They were Tory transitional arrangements.
  Mr. Heffer: That is right. They were brought in by the Conservatives. Our amendment states that
  "the Treaty of Rome cannot provide a sound and secure basis for long term fruitful co-operation with the United Kingdom's European friends and allies."
  The Treaty stands in the way of Britain's being able to carry out the necessary measures to deal with unemployment and industrial decline. It is argued that the French are carrying out such measures irrespective of the Treaty. That is not true. They have already retreated on a number of issues after coming up against the Treaty.
  The Opposition wish Britain to return to full employment as soon as this is humanly possible. To achieve that we believe that it is essential to have control over our own future. We wish, therefore, to avoid open and continual conflict with members of the Community. We could act as some other members of the Community appear to be doing. We could try to get round the provisions of the Treaty by subterfuge. We could ignore the Treaty, pretend that it was not there, and simply go bald-headed for our own interests. Our way is properly to negotiate Britain out of the Community by discussion and agreement. That is what Labour intends to do. In the meantime, while those discussions are going on, we shall carry out the measures which we believe are essential to get British industry back to work and our people fully employed.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what was said to him by his Socialist colleagues in Europe in response to the proposal that we could negotiate ourselves a special status without prompting any counteraction?
  Mr. Heifer: If the hon. Gentleman would like me to speak for another hour I should be able to give a full rundown of what happened at those meetings. I have no intention of doing so. The meetings were fairly well reported in most newspapers, although sometimes totally inaccurately. However, we have given reports to our own people. I shall therefore not become involved in explaining the matter to the hon. Gentleman.
  It is necessary to get people back to work and to restore full employment. We shall need to take measures to manage our trade, including controls over the levels of manufactured imports. Such measures are specifically
  416
  forbidden under article 12 of the Treaty. We shall need to restore and to strengthen our exchange controls and to take powers to regulate the flow of direct investment overseas. Such controls will contravene articles 67 to 73 of the Treaty. We shall need to introduce a comprehensive planning strategy, which will of necessity include selective aids to industry. The Labour Government found to their cost that aids could be contrary to articles 90 and 92 of the Treaty, and we had to water down those aids. We shall need to take measures to control prices and inflation. The agricultural policy of the EEC will not allow us to reduce food prices by obtaining food imports from the cheapest sources of supply.
  For all those reasons, the Labour Party believes that the time has come to begin the process of negotiating our way out of the straitjacket of the Rome Treaty. I wish to make it crystal clear that Labour believes in European unity, but a wider European unity not based on the Treaty of Rome. We believe that Europe's future will be best served by the development of democratic Socialist concepts throughout the whole of Europe. The Treaty is not the great Socialist measure that some Conservative Members think. In fact, it stops such a development taking place.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend will, I know, wish to get the facts absolutely straight. On at least a couple of occasions he has used a carefully worded phrase to explain how Labour would negotiate its way out of the Treaty of Rome. Will he be more specific? Will he ally his remarks to the complete and fundamental basic commitment passed at conference that Britain will withdraw from the Common Market without a referendum, and so dispose of any ideas that may lurk in the minds of hon. Members, including myself, that the negotiations might take a considerable time? Let us be emphatic about this. My hon. Friend has a great opportunity to lay the Labour Party's policy straight on the line.
  Mr. Heffer: I should have thought that everything that I have said adds up to a clear statement of the party's policy. When one says that one is negotiating withdrawal from the Treaty of Rome—the Common Market is based on the Treaty of Rome—that is making absolutely clear what is intended. I have never denied—I am sure that this goes for the entire Labour Party—that I support the policies and ideas of the Labour Party, as agreed at the annual conference.
  As I was saying before I was so nicely interrupted, the Opposition believe that the Government have failed to keep their promises. They have not reached a firm agreement on future budget contributions. There is no firm assurance that the Luxembourg compromise will be maintained. They have not secured any real changes in the common agricultural policy, and there are few signs that such changes will come about. They have not secured agreement on a fishing policy that is in the interests of the British fishermen and people.
  There are hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who argue that we should stay in the Common Market and change it from inside. That appears to some extent to be the meaning of the amendment tabled by some Conservative Members. For 10 years we have tried to change the Common Market from the inside. What has changed does not add up to a row of beans. We are arguing that it is time for a real change. That is why I ask the

  417
  House, including those hon. Members on the Government Benches who obviously agree with the views that I have put forward, to support the Opposition amendment.
  4.52 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, the report that we are debating covers the period of the British Presidency—the second half of last year. That may seem an odd quirk in our procedures, given the passage of time since then, but the report can provide the basis for useful debate. It shows the essential nature of the Community and its working, the sort of European Community that we want and how we are working towards that end. It enables the Government to restate, and the House to examine, our clear commitment to Europe and the future of Great Britain inside the Community.
  A Presidency of six months is, to a large extent, an artificial concept, as we made clear from the beginning. It is rare for any Community proposal to be conceived and brought successfully to birth during one Presidency. That is why it has sometimes been suggested that each Presidency should last for one year. I think that that would be probably too heavy a burden.
  During our Presidency about 70 new Community measures were agreed. They vary greatly, and not many of them were spectacular. Few of those measures gained publicity. Even when they are reported, there is sometimes a tendency to mock such achievements and describe them as trivial. Those arrangements often provide a direct benefit to the individual. As examples I cite the decision of the Environment Council in December on measures against pollution and greater public safety; the agreement on social security provisions for the self-employed and help for the disabled; progress in energy—guidelines for dealing with a limited shortfall in oil supplies. Under the guidance of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington the Community agreed to an important strengthening of its procedures for co-operation on foreign policy. Each of those achievements is limited, but each is significant. Taken together, those 70 measures illustrate the steady, and I think irreversible, construction of the European Community and its political co-operation in foreign policy.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Irreversible? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Great Britain's adherence to the EEC is with the continuing assent of Parliament? Does he suggest that the development of its institutions is inevitable and irreversible and that it is not possible for the country and the House to disengage from that organisation?
  Mr. Hurd: No, of course not. The hon. Gentleman can be listening with only half an ear. I am coming to his point shortly. I believe that steadily, year by year, measures agreed by the member States are building a Community which will not be reversed.
  From what was said by others after our Presidency, it is clear that we gained some respect for the brisk and businesslike way in which we handled Community business. I mention—I have never seen it mentioned elsewhere—that we ran the British Presidency in 1981 at a cost, in real terms, of little more than half the cost of the
  418
  first British Presidency in 1977. Nevertheless, as happens with all Presidencies, and as the hon. Member for Walton pointed out, we did not achieve all that we had hoped. We did not achieve major progress towards the completion of Common Market agreements for services—insurance and air transport. We believe that that is necessary to fill a lamentable gap in the carrying out of the treaty. We have not yet achieved a long overdue agreement on a revised common fisheries policy. We have not found a satisfactory long-term answer to the problems of the Community budget and Great Britain's contribution. As always, there remains plenty of unfinished business. We regard that as a reason for perseverance rather than the despair that the hon. Member for Walton described.
  I turn to the present position and the future. We have debated one of the continuing problems—fish—within the past week. I shall not add much, except to stress that the vital interests of our fishing industry will not allow for much more delay in reaching an agreement on a common fisheries policy. There has been good progress towards that in recent months, particularly in bilateral talks. We hope that during the Danish Presidency that progress will continue until an agreement is reached.
  I believe that it would be right to record the position about decision-making and the budget problem. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has reported fully to the House his discussions about future decision-making procedures. At the meeting on 20 June he left our partners in no doubt about our view that, where any member State considers that very important interests are at stake, discussion must be continued until unanimous agreement is reached. That was the practice followed by the Community after the adoption of the Luxembourg compromise in 1966.
  That position, restated by my right hon. Friend on 20 June, was supported unreservedly by two member States and by two others with some qualifications. Obviously we should have preferred, as he made plain, a more clear-cut outcome, but the Luxembourg compromise was an agreement to disagree, and that remains the position. In the light of the discussion on 20 June, we judge at present that decisions are in practice likely to be taken on the basis that the Community has followed since 1966, with the one exception of 18 May.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Government, in the person of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said that there was no question of there being a linkage of agricultural policy, fisheries policy and the budget, as those matters were quite distinct. He stated that in the House. At the negotiations, where the Government sought to invoke the Luxembourg compromise, they were linking them. Do the Government now take the view that it is a legitimate exercise of the Luxembourg veto to link matters that are proceeding in other Councils and thereby prohibit their process of decision-making?
  Mr. Hurd: We covered that point to some extent in the debate on the Genscher-Colombo proposals. The essential point is that, in a Community of sovereign States, a member State must be the judge of what its important national interests are. If farm proposals cost a lot of money and a member State feels that the general arrangements for distributing burdens in the Community are unfair, there is a direct relevance. The stand that my right hon. Friend the

  419
  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took at the Agriculture Council was entirely justified by the past and by the interests of this country.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: The Minister said "we judge" when speaking of the present state of the Luxembourg compromise. Is it a formal decision of the Council or the EEC that is recorded or merely a description of the Government's state of mind?
  Mr. Hurd: It is our present judgment following the discussion that I have reported, which resulted in an agreement to differ of more or less five to five, restating the Luxembourg compromise, which was an agreement to differ of five to one.
  The House will recall that we reached agreement on 24 May on refunds to our budget contribution for 1982. That has given us a valuable breathing space. The £500 million refund for 1982 was less than we would have wished, but that was largely because our net contribution for 1980–81 turned out to be much lower than anyone had expected. That was a point that the hon. Member for Walton failed to take. Taking the three years covered by the 30 May agreement together—1980, 1981 and 1982—we can be reasonably satisfied with the outcome. As I said, it is a breathing space, not a permanment solution. We have achieved what the Labour Government singularly failed to achieve—a reduction during those three years of our net contribution to a level which, although still high, has not been intolerable.
  The hon. Member for Walton made an extraordinary excursion into history when he claimed that the Government of 1976–77 was caught helpless by the transitional arrangements, but that entirely ignores the effort over which a great many trumpets were blown at the time—the renegotiation of 1975 carried out by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and his colleagues. We were told at the end of the renegotiation that it was all right; the great errors of the Conservative Government had been redressed. In particular, we were told about a financial mechanism that would deal with the problem. An elaborate and ingenious financial mechanism was worked out, but it did not work. It did not begin to solve the problem. We had not a penny of refund.
  We do not claim that what we have achieved is perfect. I stressed that it has provided only a breathing space, but it is a great deal better than what was achieved, or rather not achieved, before.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend said that he wanted to look forward, and we want to look forward with him. There is a possibility that the Community budget will run out of funds. We are better able to spend funds frugally than those within the Community. Will he tell the House that the Government have set their face as flint against devising any other sources of Community funds that will be payable from the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Hurd: I am prepared to look forward with my hon. Friend. We hold that the 1 per cent. VAT limit, with which he is thoroughly familiar, should remain. No other proposals are yet before us for any other way of dealing with the own resources problem. The problem is not imminent in the sense that the Community is not at present running out of cash, so I cannot add to what I have said.
  My hon. Friend is adept at intervening in other people's speeches. In an intervention in the speech of the hon.
  420
  Member for Walton he brought forward a set of figures about the net position that he had derived from the Treasury. The difference between the two sets of figures is mainly because they are calculated on a different basis, and either basis would be fair. The refunds can be included in the year to which they relate or in the year in which they are paid. The £6 million net figure that my hon. Friend challenged is entirely correct. It takes account of our refunds for 1981 which are being paid this year. The £400 million figure that he quoted takes account only of 1980 refunds, the bulk of which were paid in 1981.
  Mr. Marlow: That is not even right.
  Mr. Hurd: I have sought to answer my hon. Friend's point.
  Before long we shall have to tread the stony path of our budget contribution again. That is a pity. We had hoped by now that it would have been possible to achieve a longer-term settlement so that we did not have to reopen the files and the argument year by year. Our partners have agreed to decide on measures for 1983 and later by the end of November. Again, we shall have to invest much energy in the task. It is a thankless but necessary effort.
  It is worth recalling that it is not by our wish that there is the specifically British item on the Community's agenda. In essence, it is a European, not a British, problem. To a large extent, it reflects the illogical lack of balance between agriculture and other items in the Community's spending. The lack of balance means that not only Britain but other member States may from time to time find themselves at an unfair, or even crippling, disadvantage. For example, under present arrangements, there is a risk that Portugal, when it joins the Community, will be a net contributor, even though it will be one of the poorest members
  For that reason my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in May last year at The Hague that the problems should be tackled on a European, not simply a British, basis. We regret that the approach was brushed aside and we were left once again to negotiate, as we did, a refund for Britain.
  In the long run, the right answer must lie in achieving a better balance of policies. We need to curb the excesses of the agricultural policy. I do not believe that there is much controversy in the House about that. At the same time, we need to build sensible industrial and social programmes for the Community where the Community can do better through shared action than nation States can do individually. We spent a lot of time on that during the long discussion last year under chapter I of the mandate of 30 May which dealt with non-agricultural policies. We showed that the British are willing to identify and build up such programmes, particularly where they will help to deal with problems of unemployment.
  We agree that the financial resources of both the regional development and social funds should continue to grow in real terms and that, in particular, we should continue to direct them towards areas of greatest need within the Community. A revised regulation for the regional fund is being discussed, and a major review of the social fund will start soon.
  We want to make sure that both funds can make an increasingly important impact on the Community's regional and social problems—for example, industrial decline and youth unemployment. That is important. We shall continue to contribute energetically to that aim.
  Mr. Roger Moate: My right hon. Friend has already moved some way beyond the point on which I wished to question him. He answered my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) in a way that could hinder rather than help us. My hon. Friend asked him to reaffirm that not only would the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling be retained, but that no other new sources of revenue would be made available to the Community. My right hon. Friend did not give that latter confirmation, yet the Prime Minister has confirmed that no new revenue resources would be made available. This is not a pedantic point, nor is it a question of debate. If my right hon. Friend does not give that same assurance, the Government will lose their only leverage to secure the reforms about which he is now speaking. Will he therefore give the assurance that I and my hon. Friend have been seeking?
  Mr. Hurd: Obviously, I cannot give an assurance for ever. At present there are no proposals for an increase in own resources, and we do not believe that at present any such proposals would be justified. That is as clear a statement of the position as anyone could reasonably expect.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Prime Minister or not?
  Mr. Hurd: I think that I have repeated what the Prime Minister has said. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is usually the position—
  Mr. Spearing: Not today.
  Mr. Hurd: —and I do not think there is any great difficulty about it.
  I was talking about the need for a better balance in Community policies. As that is still lacking, continuing refunds to Britain will still be necessary, and we shall negotiate hard to achieve them.
  During the present lull of a few weeks before fresh discussions on Britain's budgetary problems begin, we must remind our partners that this subject cannot be ignored and will not go away. There is still occasional confusion on this subject in the European press. Contrary to what is sometimes written and said, we have honoured our obligations under the treaties. We accept the principles of the CAP as they are defined in the Treaty of Rome. We are not asking for a juste retour. We are willing to remain a modest net contributor, and here I follow word by word the Prime Minister's position.
  Our trade has adapted itself to Community membership faster than many thought possible. We badly want to find a solution to this problem so that energies can be channelled elsewhere. A solution will be needed—our partners should be aware of that—to remove this real and justified grievance from the minds of those in the House and elsewhere who debate and decide the form and the fact of our membership of the Community.
  The future enlargement of the Community to include Spain and Portugal is another important subject. That is important for the strengthening of democracy in Europe, and the Community has accepted that the political benefits from this enlargement are overriding. At its meeting at the end of June, the European Council reaffirmed what it had said previously, set out the Community's commitment to complete the accession negotiations and stressed the importance of progress.
  Mr. Leighton: What are the benefits?
  Mr. Hurd: These two countries, with which Britain has had close traditional links, have thrown off one form of dictatorship and not shackled themselves with another. They have told the Community "We want to belong, because we believe that belonging will strengthen our democracy." Anyone with a sense of European history will regard that as important. That request has been made mainly on political grounds, which it would be irresponsible to turn down.
  The European Council also asked the Commission to prepare a new inventory of the different problems. We think that would be useful.
  Some progress has been made in these negotiations. There have been a number of meetings with Portugal and Spain this year. I shall not go into the details, but they can be given at the end of the debate if hon. Members are interested. There will be a further ministerial conference with both applicants in September and October, which we hope will draw the sides further together. The main chapters not yet tackled—I say this to show that there is still a long way to go—are agriculture, fisheries, institutions and social affairs.
  The French have recently expressed concern at the problems posed by enlargement, particularly with regard to Mediterranean agriculture. They have argued that these problems have not been properly tackled inside the Community. We do not disagree with the French claim that there are substantial problems, but in our view the best way to resolve them is to get on with the negotiations. We hope that the Community is not far from agreement on a reform of the wine regime, and progress is being made on fruit and vegetables. We see no reason why negotiations on these matters with Spain and Portugal should not start soon. That is what we are urging on our partners. We want to get on with what is still a difficult job.
  The other important international issue facing the Community is the need to deal with the looming problem of our trading relationships with our major trading partners—the United States and Japan. There is the major problem of steel, to which the hon. Member for Walton referred. The Minister who has taken part in the negotiations will deal with that when he replies to the debate.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it would be against the spirit of the Treaty of Rome if there were any closed frontiers between two Community countries?
  Mr. Hurd: Not just against the treaty, but it is inconceivable that there should ever be a closed border between the territories of two members of the Community.
  We listened to the hon. Member for Walton with great care. He again made the case for British withdrawal from the Community, although in terms that were not sufficiently precise to suit his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I do not think that that is a credible policy for the Opposition to put forward. For a start, it is repudiated in explicit terms by the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and the Opposition spokesman on home affairs, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It is questioned within the TUC, particularly, if press reports are right, by the TUC

  423
  steel committee, in forthright terms. From recent election results, we can see that it is proving an absolute dud as a vote winner.
  The policy of withdrawal has simply not got off the ground as a political issue. That is because most people, whatever their criticisms of the Community, many of which are valid, believe that it would be foolish to put at risk the thousands of jobs that are dependent on exports and even more at risk the jobs that are dependent on inward investment which clearly and explicitly results from our membership of the Community. Therefore, although I was a little apprehensive about it a year or so ago, it is clear to me from all that has happened that the so-called policy of withdrawal is a dud.
  Mr. Jack Straw: We are used to hearing scare stories about the number of jobs likely to be lost if Britain withdraws from the Common Market. It is interesting to note that the numbers involved vary according to the spokesman. The Minister said that it would be hundreds of thousands, the Secretary of State for Industry suggested 1 million and the CBI 3 million. However, the claims have one thing in common—there is absolutely no substance in them.
  What systematic study has the Foreign Office or the Department of Trade made about the effects of withdrawal? If none has been made, will the Government institute a study and make the calculations and conclusions available to the House?
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman should listen with care before he intervenes. I did not say that jobs would be lost. I said that they would be put at risk. I believe that is a fair statement. Moreover, I referred to thousands of jobs, not to hundreds of thousands. I do not believe that the figure can be quantified. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the Labour Party carried out the policy outlined by the hon. Member for Walton and put on that degree of control, I believe that jobs dependent on exports would probably be lost. Therefore, they are at risk. Even more certainly, quotations from industrialists investing in Wales and Scotland especially make it clear that they have brought those jobs to this country because of our membership of the Community. Therefore, it was entirely fair to say—I chose the phrase very cautiously—that thousands of jobs would be at risk if the Labour Party carried out its policies.
  Mr. Richard Body: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: Perhaps I could continue for a little.
  The reason why the dominant faction of the Labour Party follows that policy was put clearly and honestly by the hon. Member for Walton. Those members of the Labour Party believe that the Treaty of Rome, being based fundamentally on principles of competition that the hon. Gentleman regards as outdated, would prevent the Labour Party from carrying Socialism in one country to the lengths that it plans. On the contrary, some members of the Conservative Party seem to believe that the Community is an ideal vehicle for Socialism.
  The truth seems to be that there is nothing in Community membership to prevent elected Governments from carrying out the policies on which they were elected, so long as those policies—this is an important proviso—do not destroy the elements of competition and freedom that
  424
  are fundamental to the functioning of the treaties of the Community and are written into the treaties that member States have signed.
  It is that limitation—and there is no real doubt about it—that irks the extreme members of the Labour Party, because they wish to go much further in import controls and in multiplying State aids than either the French or the Greeks, to name two Socialist Governments now within the Community. The Community and its institutions, without being dogmatic, work in the general direction of free industrial and economic policies while seeking to reconcile that with support for agriculture. I suggest that for a British Conservative there can be nothing strange in trying to run those two aims in harness—general free industrial and economic policies combined with support for agriculture—although we may and do criticise the way in which it is actually done.
  Other hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, favour a more sophisticated approach than withdrawal. They would like to pick and choose between different aspects of Community membership, keeping some and discarding others. Some, for example, would like political co-operation to continue, but would reject actual membership of the Community, while others would like to see continuation of an industrial free trade area but wish to opt out of the common agricultural policy.
  I believe that those who wish to pull Britain out of the CAP have not squarely faced the effect that that would have on British agriculture and, thus, on the British economy. I think that most people would agree that British agriculture should be sustained and encouraged. Yet it is common to hear criticism of the CAP—we heard it from the hon. Member for Walton—on the grounds both that it puts up food prices for the consumer and imposes an unfair burden on the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either British agriculture would be sustained by efficiency payments, in which case the taxpayer would bear a heavy burden, or it would be sustained by levies, in which case prices in the shops would be higher than world prices.
  Mr. Heffer: It has been understood since the end of the last war that there must be some public expenditure to help the farmers. Our objection is to helping not our farmers, but the French farmers and all the others in the Common Market.
  Mr. Hurd: As I have said, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has squarely faced the implications of what he says. He criticises the CAP on the grounds both that it keeps food prices up and imposes a burden on the taxpayer. We criticise its excesses, as I have already done. The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the order of cost—I do not think that the Labour Party has faced this—that would be imposed on the British taxpayer if we returned to deficiency payments. One estimate is £2,000 million, and I understand that an academic study is about to appear suggesting that the cost would be £2,400 million. Those are enormous sums even when compared with our total contribution.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My right hon. Friend is not doing justice to the case against the CAP. There are two other aspects with which he has not dealt. First, in many instances, farmers are prohibited from being efficient by the controls imposed on them by the CAP. An example of this is our hyper-efficient milk industry which

  425
  cannot expand as it otherwise would due to the levies imposed on it to prevent precisely that. Secondly, if the restrictions on food imports were lifted, we would be able to import food at world prices from our old markets outside the Common Market. Therefore, the cost to the consumer would be reduced in significant areas.
  Mr. Hurd: I was dealing with the budgetary cost of sustaining British agriculture. We are among the critics of the CAP, but those who wish to demolish it altogether have not squarely faced the resulting cost of sustaining British agriculture. As my hon. Friend will certainly know, British agriculture has done much better out of the CAP in recent years. Indeed, one of the reasons why our net contributions to Europe have been smaller than expected is precisely—contrary to the impression given by my hon. Friend—that British farmers have done a great deal better out of the CAP.
  Mr. Body: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is an underlying fallacy in what he says? As a result of the CAP, there has been a major shift in British agriculture away from livestock production to two cereal growings? If we continue to grow vast quantities of cereal, he is right to say that the cost of subsidising agriculture would be horrific—perhaps £2,000 million—but if we reverted to the previous system we should be encouraging livestock production again and we are far better at that form of agriculture.
  Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that my hon. Friend's view would be shared by the British farming industry as a whole.
  Mr. Spearing: Because they get too much out of the system.
  Mr. Hurd: No, and I shall rest the argument at that.
  Mr. Spearing: It is our money.
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is our money anyway, but it is misleading and dishonest to give the impression that all the money would be saved if the CAP were demolished.
  I am trying to deal fairly with the argument for an industrial free trade area without an agricultural policy. That takes us right back to the 1950s, because it was commonplace in those times. The late Mr. Reginald Maudling worked with great skill to negotiate just such an outcome, but he could not manage it. During that period, neither the Government of this country nor the House, I think, really understood what was going on in Europe or the political impetus that was creating the Community. For years we thought that we could pick and choose and that everyone would be grateful to serve up to us whatever we fancied from the European menu. That was a mistake then, and it would be a mistake and a backward step now to return to those misconceptions of the past. That approach did not work before and it is even less likely to work now.
  There can be and is some flexibility in the matter. We have recently witnessed two examples of Community policies in which all members acquiesced, but in which not all joined. One example is sanctions against Argentina. Italy and Ireland did not join, but they did not obstruct.
  Mr. Straw: Pull the other one.
  Mr. Hurd: That is a clear statement of fact. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to challenge it?
  Mr. Straw: I shall willingly take up the challenge. Surely the Minister does not suggest that the Common Market's disarray over sanctions against Argentina is a sign of its cohesion. It was a serious blemish, even on the record that the right hon. Gentleman presents to the House.
  Mr. Hurd: Again, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I was using that as an example of a policy being adopted, but not all members joining it. They did not obstruct it.
  The European monetary system is another example. We accept that other members join in the exchange rate mechanism within the EMS, but we do not take part. It would be rash to push that principle too far, as the examples that I have given were additional policies. In neither case—indeed, in no case that can be quoted—has any member State tried to reverse or undermine an existing or accepted Community policy.
  It is probable that if that right were ever claimed by one member State, it would be claimed by others, and we should rapidly witness the unravelling of the Community. At worst, that could lead to the destruction of the European idea. No hon. Member who has a sense of history would like to see protectionism or excessive nationalism rampage through Europe all over again following the collapse of the Community. At best, the suggested change of policy by Britain would lead to the survival of the Community as a Continental bloc based mainly on France, Germany and the Low Countries. No doubt we could take part, as is suggested, in peripheral arrangements. There would be a smile and a chair for us when we turned up to discuss matters of mutual interest. But that Continental bloc, which is our biggest customer, and several times more economically powerful than ourselves, would take economic decisions that directly affected the livelihoods of most British people, and they would be decisions over which we would have no power or control.
  Mr. Spearing: Is that not the case now?
  Mr. Hurd: The whole thrust of British foreign policy through the centuries has been to prevent that type of development.
  Those are some of the ideas that persuade us that our policy must continue to be based on full and energetic membership of the Community. That is the negative side. When faced with the Opposition, it is reasonable to point out the negative consequences to Britain of their obstinate antagonism to Europe. However, the real argument is positive.
  Progress in building the Community has been slow. Many examples of that may be found. It has been so slow that exasperation and impatience are natural. Nevertheless, it is absurd to imagine that, after so many centuries of dispute and war, Europe could be built in a day or even in a decade.
  I do not believe that I am a dreamer or a fanatic in these matters. It is hard for anyone who attends meetings of the Council of Ministers to be either. The grind of day-to-day business is wearing, but the point that Opposition Members miss is that, despite that grind, disappointment and delay, the work moves forward.
  I hope that Opposition Members will take my views as personal views. Sometimes, after hours of long

  427
  discussions, one finds that, in spite of the slow and exasperating ways of the Council, there is a sudden move forward and a willingness to make progress. There is even, dare I say it, a feeling of community. Those moments are still few and far between, but they occur. There were a few during the British Presidency. It is worth waiting and working for those moments in the British national interest. Our commitment to do so will remain.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Until he ran into some flack at the end of his speech, the Minister of State had, as he usually does, presented a suave and rather reassuring picture of developments in the Community. We can assure him that no hon. Member is in any danger of mistaking him for either a dreamer or a fanatic. But there was one point at which the mask slipped a little. That was when he applied to the developments the adjective "irreversible". That led to an exchange with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Following that exchange, the Minister of State redefined "irreversible" as meaning what will not be reversed. It would be an interesting disquisition, not suitable for this type of debate, to ascertain the difference between "irreversible" and what will not be reversed. Interesting philosophical regions could be traversed on the way.
  I shall refer to one such development that is pregnant with irreversibility in one sense or another. From the beginning of this business of Britain and the European Economic Community, the way has been strewn with assurances and reassurances. At every stage, from the election of 1970 onwards, the public were assured that it was only so much, what they could see in front of them, what was present just at that time, to which they were being asked to give their assent. The House was told over and again that any expansion, any further excursions, any excrescences upon the structure that we were joining, could not happen without the prior consent of the House of Commons. We were reassured at every stage that we would go only as far and as fast as we could carry Parliament and the public with us.
  The process has worked differently. It has been a process that reminds me of Professor Housman's description of a man walking—a person putting forward first one foot and then, "by a strange inconsistency", the other. It has been the alternative movement of the minimalist and maximalist feet. At one moment we were reassured that nothing was really happening and then, a few breaths later, the Government explained how they were building a new addition, a new storey, on the great European edifice.
  I shall restrict myself to the striking example of that process that is given in section III of the Blue Book. It is headed "Political Co-operation". Surely political cooperation is not merely harmless but positively desirable between nations, between friendly nations, between nations which, for the most part, although there are exceptions, are allied. What could be wrong, asks the minimalist foot, with political co-operation? If we happen to agree, if our interests happen to march with those of other member States of the Community, surely we should do the same thing. That is all we are talking about. That is all that political co-operation means. But to an increasing extent we come to the conclusion that our interests, points of view and intentions happen to be the
  428
  same—surprise, surprise; hurrah, hurrah—and therefore there is Political Co-operation and we do the thing together instead of doing it separately.
  That is one side of the coin but there is another, which was unequivocally exposed in the Report on European Political Co-operation that was issued last November and which is referred to in that section of the Blue Book which is before the House. Throughout that report "Political Cooperation" is not in lower case letters. It invariably appears with capital letters as an actual institutional entity. The careful reader both of that report and of the Blue Book will find that that is so. It is stated in the report:
  "The development of European Political Co-operation over these years has shown that it answers a real need felt by the member states of the European Community for a closer unity in this field".
  I shall not waste any time on the inherent contradiction and even ungrammaticality of the words "closer unity", but I shall proceed with the following sentences:
  "It is a mark of its proven value that European Political Cooperation has steadily intensified and its scope continually broadened. This development has contributed to the ultimate objective of European Union."
  That last is what it is about. There is now an institutional framework which is to "contribute to the ultimate objective", taken for granted, "of European union"—institutional union.
  That is something different. That is something to which the assent of Parliament and people has not been secured. It is true that two or three months before the ratification of the Treaty of Brussels the Prime Minister of the day, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), announced the object of political and economic union by 1980. That date has, reassuringly, gone by. But he had not secured any vote, even in the House, let alone any expression of opinion on that behalf, let alone, to hark back to an old phrase, full-hearted consent from the people. Yet here European union is assumed as an "ultimate objective", and the development of political co-operation is seen as "contributing" to it. So we have moved on. We have moved, in a series of substantial steps, towards the assumed "objective of European union".
  The minimalist, or the European in his minimalist phase, might say, "Well, as the EEC is an economic community, there must be some aspects of international affairs which are bound to impinge on any economic community, particularly upon an economic community which, by its structure, absorbs the external trade policies of all its members". For example, it might be argued that if some question arises in foreign policy of using economic weapons—of imposing sanctions, for example—the mechanism of the European Economic Community would be brought into play. One could see an argument being got on its feet that if, in such a context as Poland, Afghanistan or even Argentina, economic action was called for, it would be only natural that the institutions of the Community and the members of the Community should co-operate politically in the economic sphere of international policy.
  However, one would not get far with that contention. A study of section III of the Blue Book illustrates that. I shall take two of the three examples that I have given. On Poland the Blue Book states:
  "The Ten have made their views clear to the Soviet Government and the Russians can be in no doubt that direct intervention would have grave consequences for their relations with the Ten and for East/West and international relations generally."

  429
  That may be a correct statement. It may be an admirable sentiment and a desirable policy. But no one could mistake it for a policy deriving from and circumscribed by the economic functions of the EEC. It has become a statement of international policy. Ultimately it has become a threat of the use of not merely economic but other forms of force.
  On Afghanistan, the Blue Book stated:
  "The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in his capacity as President-in-Office"—
  not as Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—
  "went to Moscow on 6 July to present the European Council's proposals for a two-stage international conference on Afghanistan to the Soviet Government on behalf of the Ten."
  One or two points in that formulation are worth noting. The proposals are the proposals of the European Council, which is a body not provided for nor allocated any functions in the Treaty of Rome. It was not a body that existed when the assent of the House was obtained to our joining the EEC. We find now that the European Council, initially an informal meeting of the Heads of Government of the member States, has become a persona in international affairs, slapping on the table at Moscow, by the hand of Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he is President-in-Office, its proposal for dealing with Afghanistan.
  That way lies one of two things—either making a fool of oneself or running into disaster. Fortunately for us, it was the former that happened. We were made a fool of; it was obvious that behind that proposal there lay nothing whatsoever. There lay behind it no intentions; not even the fleabite of economic action lay behind it. It was just the European Council endowing itself with an international persona for the sake of the exercise of building up political co-operation.
  One goes on from one instance to another. One can leave the area where any economic factors are likely to come into play for the EEC and find the same thing happening. I take this specimen, for example, from the section on the Middle East, which is rich in instruction:
  "The Ten heard of the assassination of President Sadat with the greatest shock".
  One imagines the Ten sitting there in a row with simultaneous shock as if an electric current had passed through them. However, it was not that ludicrous aspect to which I wanted to draw attention, but to what was said next:
  "But they were encouraged"—
  they cheered up—
  "by the orderly transfer of power in Egypt and by the commitment to continuity shown by President Mubarak, who has their full support."
  Those are not my words, but the words that are printed. President Mubarak has the "full support" of the Ten. What does that mean?
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: That they support him.
  Mr. Powell: I see. It means that they support him. If his regime in Egypt were in any danger, what would be the support? When we talk about support in the House we have a fairly precise idea about what we mean by support: we shall get someone into the Lobby. Into what Lobby will the Ten go in their support of President Mubarak? Either that is nonsense—talking for the sake of talking, chattering for the sake of chattering—or we are making a commitment—or rather a commitment has been made on
  430
  our behalf, because I think that we are one of the Ten—to do something to sustain a certain regime and state of affairs in Egypt.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a couple of years ago in the real world Mr. Abba Eban was right to choose the word "bizarre" when he said that he found it bizarre that European politicians should squabble among themselves about whether to support American policy on issues such as Afghanistan, the hostages and so on?
  Mr. Powell: I shall come to the larger matter of foreign policy and foreign policy in the Middle East. I shall examine how far the expression "squabble", or "squabble amongst ourselves", is applicable, or ought to be acceptable, to the House. Meanwhile I take another example from the same area:
  "Four members of the Ten, with the agreement of their partners, agreed to a request from the United States that they should participate in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai."
  It says in "the" Sinai, so I suppose it has a definite article. I repeat—
  "with the agreement of their partners."
  This country was among the four which did so. However minimal in physical terms was our participation, a participation in such a force was a significant political and national act. That was done with the agreement of our partners. What does that mean? Does it mean that if we did not have the agreement—the assent to our participation—of Luxembourg or of the rest of what are called the "Ten" we would not have sent our force? Are the Ten acting as a unit to the extent that one black ball disqualifies? Is this already a unitary policy?
  Mr. Hurd indicated dissent.
  Mr. Powell: The Minister of State indicates dissent. In that case, what is the meaning of "the agreement" to the action of the four, signified by Luxembourg and the other five? It means nothing at all, if we would have done it anyhow and if it was an independent decision of ours to take part in such a force, right or wrong.
  A larger matter is clearly our relationship with the PLO and with Israel. This goes back to the major event that occurred at the European Council in June 1980 which issued the Venice declaration on the Middle East. That was issued by the Ten. It is quoted as evidence of the Ten continuing
  "to play an active role in the search for a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement in the Middle East".
  When that announcement was made, I remember asking the Prime Minister whether this was the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government or whether it was a collective foreign policy—whether the States had, as individual sovereign States, adopted the policy. I was told, and the formula was repeated again this afternoon by the Minister of State, that this is a concurrence of completely independent sovereign States which all, no doubt after discussion, hit upon the same foreign policy.
  So let us consider this, in the terms in which it is propounded to us, as United Kingdom foreign policy. Does anyone seriously suppose that the United Kingdom would, as a matter of United Kingdom policy, have confirmed the assertions of the Venice declaration and in particular would, in the terms of the declaration, have recognised the PLO and committed itself to such statements as

  431
  "the right to existence and to security of all the states in the region, including Israel"
  and
  "justice for all the peoples which implies the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people"?
  That is repeated again:
  "A just solution must finally be found to the Palestinian problem … The Palestinian people, which is conscious of existing as such, must be placed in a position to exercise fully its right to self-determination".
  Note the word "must". That is a word of power. This is the Ten—Luxembourg and the other nine—saying that these things "must" happen at the other end of the Mediterranean and that these things "must" come to pass. The word "must" is being used. They do not say that such things would be desirable or that it would be an agreeable scene or that mankind would rejoice if these things happened. They announce with the verb "must"—if "must" is a verb—that this is what is to be made to happen. There is an implication of the use of power behind those words.
  Mr. Maclennan rose
  Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman simply uncomfortable or does he wish to intervene?
  Mr. Maclennan: Not uncomfortable, but increasingly puzzled. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking about a procedure of international consultation which is not novel and not confined to the European Community. We have seen it as recently as in the resolutions of the Security Council in its collective denunciations of the Argentine. The right hon. Gentleman made no complaint about the fact that the British Government fully participated with others in coming to mandatory resolutions in which the word "must" was employed.
  Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has advanced my argument considerably. We took a decision as a nation and as a Parliament to join the United Nations and accepted the terms of membership. Whether or not we should have done so, we did. That was a conscious and deliberate decision, debated and taken in the open. The Venice declaration is not the result of any such decision, either of the House or of the country. This excrescence or cancer is growing of its own accord. The Blue Book bears witness, as does what is called the London report on political co-operation, to such a growth.
  Therefore, are we concerned with a new mandatory body? I am obliged to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for his interpretation of the word "must". Is this to be another mandatory body to which we shall presently find that we shall belong by no volition of the House or country?
  I do not believe that it would have been possible for any Government to persuade the House that it was right, or necessary, for the United Kingdom to attach itself to those far-reaching propositions—contradictory and, in some respects, ill-defined as they are—end to change its stance in relation to the PLO. Even after debate in the House, I do not think the Government would have succeeded in doing so. Certainly they would not have dared to do so without the authority of the House behind them.
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is labouring mightily to produce a mouse. We combined voluntarily on several occasions with others in Europe to produce joint statements, or joint initiatives. One may criticise the
  432
  merits or the phraseology of this or that example, but it is a voluntary effort that increases in scope because we find increasingly that this is the way to exercise influence. If we had not agreed with the terms of the Venice declaration, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not have put her name to it. We did not have to agree, but we did. The sentiments in that declaration have been repeated ad nauseam from the Government Front Bench since the declaration was made by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary as British policy.
  Mr. Powell: The Minister of State has not taken the point or appreciated the seriousness of what is happening. Are we being told that these are the congruent policies of ten independent sovereign States and that this, therefore, is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, or are we being told that this is a policy that ought to be acceptable, or perhaps a policy that is practicable, because it has been simultaneously adopted by the Ten? That is the first question. Is the declaration commended to us as inherently right and sound for the United Kingdom as a sovereign State, or is it commended to us as something upon which the ten States of the EEC, whose modus of association has nothing to do with the Middle East, have been able to agree at the Venice summit?
  The second and more serious point is the relationship with this House. It is to that that I was tending and on which I wish to conclude. It is because these decisions, announcements and initiatives—to use the Minister of State's word—are undertaken collectively by the Ten that the House finds itself in the position to which it has become accustomed—confronted with the result of a collective bargaining operation, either in the European Council or in the Council of Ministers—of being told, "You cannot unpick this now." That is very different from the exercise of the known and the understood prerogative on behalf of Her Majesty by the Government. The Government have an undoubted right to take a decision in foreign policy, even a decision of war and peace, and then submit themselves to the judgment of the House and, ultimately, of the country.
  But that is not what is happening here, that is not what happened with the Middle East. The Government did not say "We propose a new initiative in the Middle East which we shall back with all the authority, moral and whatever else we have, of the United Kingdom, and if necessary behind which we shall align ourselves in practical ways. This is what it is. We want to tell the House of Commons what it is. We want your approval and support for it." In those circumstances, it seems to me extremely improbable that this House would have given its assent to that sharp, grave and far-reaching departure which happened as a result of a few paragraphs added to a communiqué of a meeting of the European Council.
  Everything which is gained by the European Community is lost by this House. That is axiomatic. What the Community gains in authority, what it gains in institutional strength, what it gains in development, is so much taken away from the control of this House, and therefore from the control of the people of this country.
  What I am saying is that Political Co-operation—with capital letters—in an institution which is designed to contribute
  "to the ultimate objective of European Union"

  433
  has its natural consequences. European union in the end means, by definition, the obliteration of the self-governing institutions of the United Kingdom. Under our noses, without so much as a by-your-leave—except that we get a "take note" motion, with an amendment to the motion—that process is going on month after month and year after year. It is time for us to say "Stop".
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is right to draw our attention once again to the many instances in which we can discover, in document after document, words which lay down ultimate objectives of European union or such things as a European foreign policy. The fact that we then get denials from the Government Front Bench that such an objective exists, or statements that it is impractical, does not alter the fact that those words remain there and remain apparently as objectives.
  I thought that the concept of a European foreign policy, if it has any meaning at all, was undermined, not enhanced, by our experience with the Falkland Islands. It was welcome at the outset of the crisis that a number of European nation States supported our objectives. Indeed, that was as it should be, because I trust that they, too, share our belief in democracy and our opposition to aggression and tyranny. But I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, certainly the Foreign Office and certainly the House a week later, when the Community faltered and there was not the full-hearted renewal of the sanctions, felt a sudden and fundamental change of mood throughout the House and country.
  I did not believe that the feelings in the House about the Community would ever be the same following the moment when the Community failed to renew the sanctions, except on a weekly basis, and when two members of the Community opted out of those sanctions. It is impossible to describe that as a Community policy on behalf of all the members of the Community when one of them, Italy, opted out, on the reasonable ground that it had a large number of its nationals living in the Argentine and, more significantly, when Southern Ireland opted out on the ground of neutrality. How is it possible to conceive of a Community producing a single foreign policy when one of its members professes neutrality? It can only work, presumably, if we are prepared to compromise on neutrality or to become neutral ourselves. I was reassured by Southern Ireland's pronouncement of its position, because it seemed to me to put paid, at least for the time being, to the extraordinary objective of a Community foreign policy.
  The Government's motion asks us to take note of the period of our Presidency. It was a period which was not particularly noteworthy, so the motion is hardly controversial. But the Opposition have tabled an amendment which, by rejecting the Treaty of Rome, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) accepted, effectively means withdrawal from the Community.
  Several of my hon. Friends and I tabled an amendment which has not been selected, but perhaps I may refer to it as an expression of opinion. Had we had more notice of the Opposition's amendment, I suspect that, rather than having seven or eight names on our amendment, we could
  434
  have got 40 or 50 names. It was an expression of opinion which effectively rejected the likelihood—or indeed the desirability, as expressed on the Order Paper—of withdrawal from the Common Market, but it called for fundamental reform. I am glad that the Opposition have tabled their amendment, because it allows us to express our point of view very clearly.
  The Government have frequently referred to the need for fundamental reform, but I regret deeply—and the words of my right hon. Friend rather confirm the feeling—that, while the words "fundamental reform" might come well from the Prime Minister, they do not seem to be supported very strongly by the Foreign Office, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or by other Government Front Bench spokesmen. I believe that the demand for fundamental reform is widely supported in the House and throughout the country, but I do not believe that at present the Government have in hand the necessary plans to secure the fundamental reform to which they are—or were—committed.
  I should like to explain why I think that withdrawal from the Common Market is no longer a question of practical politics or a reality. The Labour Party may well adopt that as its official policy, but it is interesting to consider the experience of the Greeks. One of the paramount considerations in their general election was the proposal that Greece should have a referendum on withdrawal from the EEC. The election was won partly on that proposition. Has Greece withdrawn from the EEC? It has not withdrawn, and the likelihood of its doing so recedes all the time. I suspect that exactly the same experience would be encountered if, as is most unlikely, we were to have a Labour Government elected at the next general election.
  I suspect—and I believe that this feeling is shared by many sceptics on the Labour Benches—the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), in his splendid duffel jacket, would go up the steps of the Elysee Palace and would, before long, be hand in hand with his Socialist friend, President Mitterrand, or his friends in West Germany or elsewhere. I suspect that a Labour Government would soon find that there was a necessity to co-operate and work together, and that they would begin a period of renegotiation which might or might not be meaningful.
  I suggest that the likelihood of withdrawal from the EEC, under a Labour Government—even if that proposition were supported by the Labour Party at a general election—would be very remote. Therefore, let us forget about it.
  It is a fact of life that we have joined the Community, so let us look for fundamental reform. Let us try to reform the Community and ensure that Europe co-operates on the meaningful basis of free nation States. I do not believe that the present position of the Government or that of the Opposition is likely to produce the result that the people want.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument very closely, but there is a link which seems to be missing in his argument. He says that there should be a demand for a fundamental reform but if there is not the certainty of obtaining that fundamental reform, the consequence of withdrawal from the EEC must presumably follow.
  Mr. Moate: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point fully, but there is no certainty in life. All we can do is to try to secure the best we can. The Labour Government were in office for many years and there was no withdrawal from the Community. The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that he is now sitting on the Opposition Benches rather than on the Government Benches because he believed that there was a prospect of the Labour Government taking us out of the Community. It did not happen, and I believe that it will not happen. Therefore, we must look for fundamental reform. In response to the right hon. Gentleman's point, I suggest that the best bet we have for getting the fundamental reform that we want is in the person of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend will not achieve that fundamental reform unless she gets much stronger support from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with some of the questions of reform. He at least acknowledged that some of us are asking for a reconsideration of our membership of the Community in terms of the CAP and other matters. He dealt with it superficially. I should like to know whether a proper study has been made of the consequences of changing the nature of the common agricultural policy. He said that figures had been produced. I should like a Government study showing the consequences of not having a common agricultural policy as presently envisaged. I suspect that there is no readiness in the Foreign Office to concede the possibility of fundamental change. That is why I laboured the point earlier about the limitation on own resources.
  What is our leverage to secure the reform that most of us wish to see? If withdrawal is not an option—I believe it is not—what are we left with? I thought that we had the power of veto, which is an extremely powerful lever. I shall return to that later in my speech. If we do not have the power effectively to block progress in the Community by use of the veto, our position will be undermined and it will be much harder to secure the reforms that we need.
  Another lever is own resources. It is not a strong lever, because the Community could carry on, although unsatisfactorily, within its existing resources. It would not work well, but it could continue. In practice, given the ambitions of the Community, that limitation would produce some change. However, from what my right hon. Friend said I suspect that there is no determination by the Government to deny the Community additional sources of revenue. I am extremely concerned about that aspect. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reaffirm what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to me in answer to a quesion some time ago—that there is no question of providing additional resources and that there is no question of increasing the 1 per cent. value added tax.
  I turn now to the veto and the Luxembourg agreement. The House and the country are entitled to a clearer, fuller and stronger explanation from the Foreign Office about its present position and intentions with regard to the veto. We entered the Community with the understanding that we had the right to veto matters which we believed affected our national interest. There is no doubt that it was left to each country to judge what it felt to be in its own national interest. the Luxembourg agreement, which was so fundamental to our membership and to our ability to defend our national rights, was swept away last year in a most offensive and deliberate manner. My right hon.
  436
  Friend the Prime Minister and even my right Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is not known for his antipathy to the Community and its institutions—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Recently.
  Mr. Moate: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is right. There were early days when he was more critical. Both of them spoke angrily about the way the Community had behaved. Since that date we have not restored the position, and we cannot pretend that we have restored it. If next year we were to be faced with an identical situation with regard to farm prices and the linked question of the budget, other members of the Community could do again exactly what they did this year. They could use their votes and override the British veto.
  The position has not changed. Have we lost the veto completely? My right hon. Friend said that there was a further debate on that matter and that there was a further disagreement. The majority agreed with us and the minority disagreed with us. So we have this further disagreement about the original agreement to disagree. It is hardly satisfactory if that is what we are left with to defend our national interest. Bearing in mind the comments made by the Prime Minister and others, we are entitled to an assurance from the Government that they will seek a reinstitution in some form or other of that right of veto.
  I should like to remind the House of how clearly that right was expressed. In the debate on the European Communities Bill, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
  "But assuming that a question arose on which there had been strong feelings in this House, prima facie it would be a matter in the national interest and a British Minister would have power to insist in the Council of Ministers that it was a matter of major national importance which required a unanimous decision and that he could not be part of that unanimous decision."—[Official Report, 15 Februay 1972: Vol. 831, c. 277–78.]
  That is what we were told on the Floor of the House, and that has been completely thrown away. There is no evidence that the British Government are now fighting hard to restore that right of veto.
  Mr. Spearing: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument closely Is this not also of great relevance to his plea for and belief in the possibility of reform? If, indeed, changes can be effected by a majority decision against the interests of Great Britain, then, as the hon. Gentleman said, we want the reintroduction of the veto. But the veto would also be available, if it were reintroduced, to those who wished to stop the reforms that he and Britain wants. Does that not illustrate an irreversible movement, to which the Minister of State inadvertently referred in his opening remarks, that reform is impossible, and that withdrawal is the only way to protect Britain's national interests?
  Mr. Moate: Withdrawal is not an option. Therefore, we have to find another way of seeking reform.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Moate: I believe that there is an alternative and that that alternative will eventually be forced on the Government of the day by the wishes of the British people and the majority feeling in the House, certainly on the Conservative Benches. We shall have that reform. Ultimately we will amend the Treaty of Accession in such a way as to make it acceptable. The pressure will come not only from this House. It may come from France, which is

  437
  just as assertive of its national rights. I suspect that in time France will find the Treaty of Rome does not meet its ambitions.
  I do not want to hear the Government say that they will try to achieve an entrenchment of our veto powers by accepting something akin to the Genscher-Colombo proposals. I was alarmed to hear my right hon. Friend say that we must go along with the Genscher-Colombo proposals for European union because contained therein is a clarification of the voting procedures.
  Mr. Hurd: I did not say that.
  Mr. Moate: My right hon. Friend said that he did not say that. I do not think it is unfair to say that that impression has been given. Even taking that point, those proposals do not restore the veto position as it has been understood through the Luxembourg agreement. Even if it were, I suggest that we should not accept the Genscher-Colombo proposals in any form. That would be totally offensive to the philosophy and spirit of this country at this time.
  It worries me that sooner rather than later the Government will say that this proposed act of European union—that is one of the phrases used in the explanatory memorandum—will be accepted. As it will be not a legally binding document, which means the veto will not be entrenched anyway, but just an aspiration and an expression of ultimate objectives, the House may not have an opportunity to accept or reject it.
  I wish to emphasise why I find the document so alarming and alien to the wishes of the British people and, indeed, the British Government. If the Government were to accept it, I believe that they would do so only in the usual sense of compromise within the Community.
  The explanatory memorandum on the European Community document states:
  "The preamble reaffirms the commitment to create a United Europe through the progressive construction of European Union on the basis of the Community Treaties … The Government have welcomed the basic aim of the initiative, which is to give a new political impetus to the European Communities and to European Political Co-operation."
  This document is very grand in its European objectives. It states:
  "The Government will approach the new text with a view to securing provisions satisfactory to the United Kingdom on these points".
  The impression is that the Government seek changes of detail, but will accept the document in principle. The document is riddled with expressions of view which, in my opinion, are not supported by the vast majority of Members of Parliament—and I mean the vast majority, including the dedicated supporters of the Community.
  As an illustration, I refer back to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he reported to the House that we had lost our power of veto on farm prices. I shall quote what he said in a moment, because it links with paragraph 2.4 of this document about the commission:
  "The Heads of State or Government underline the particular importance of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties of Paris and Rome and as a driving force in the process of European integration. They confirm the value of making more frequent use of the possibility of delegating powers to the Commission within the framework of the Treaties."
  Are we really to accept a document that enhances the position of the Commission
  438
  "as a driving force in the process of European integration"?
  I do not know who would accept that proposition. I wonder whether it appeals to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who, in his statement on 19 May, said:
  "Together with Denmark and Greece we strongly protested when the Presidency, encouraged by the Commission, announced that for the first time since 1966 the principle of obtaining unanimity where a very important national interest had been invoked was to be violated".
  Further on he said:
  "I placed it on record that I considered that the conduct of the Presidency of the Commission and the member States who had joined in this procedure had created a very sad and damaging day in the Community's history".
  Finally, he said:
  "With regard to the role of the Commission, over the whole period of the Luxembourg compromise since 1966 it has been no secret that the Commission has always been opposed to it and has been in favour of majority voting. The Commission did everything it could to encourage those who were using that device yesterday".—[Official Report, 19 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 352–56.]
  Is it not extraordinary that the European Civil Service should adopt such a positive role in the formulation of the constitution of the Community and in policy making in the Community? I regard that as totally offensive. Many people seem to accept it as a matter of course. That is their concept of the European Community. I regard it as abhorrent that the Commission should adopt such a role. Nevertheless, it has that role and power. I hope that the House will not accept documents which seek to enhance the Commission's position
  "as a driving force in the process of European integration".
  That is what we could be landed with if the Genscher-Colombo proposals are used as a vehicle to restore the previous position on the veto.
  There are many issues on which I could speak, but in fairness to the House I shall not do so. However, I want to make one or two points in connection with this document. We are now approaching the budget renegotiations, and the House and the country will judge the Government as a whole on the outcome of those negotiations. We should remember that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proceeded—somewhat in disregard of Foreign Office advice, according to the newspapers—with a determination to secure a substantial return to this country, and she won. I hope that in the next round of budget negotiations she will not be impeded by others who, for the sake of Community good will and European co-operation, will say "We had better not go too far." It is vital that we are not faced next year with the prospect of paying £500 million, £600 million or £1,000 million. That is what the amount could be. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has the backing of her colleagues and the determination to use every possible leverage that this country has to secure a major and permanent change in the budgetary arrangements.
  I conclude by saying again that fundamental reform is vital. That fundamental reform will come only through a positive determination by the Government expressing themselves clearly in favour of it. We must get away from vague expressions of Community and European union, and the like, and get down to the realities of political bargaining.
  Mr. David Myles: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's advocacy of fundamental reform, but he

  439
  gives no guidelines for that fundamental reform. We cannot have a reform until someone spells out exactly what the reform is. It is easy enough to say that we must have reform, that something is wrong, but it is difficult to achieve reform unless it is spelt out. Will my hon. Friend try to spell it out for us?
  Mr. Moate: Much has been going on in the past few years of which my hon. Friend is apparently oblivious. Documents have been produced setting out clearly what we believe the reforms should be if we are to change the basis of the Community. It would be unfair to spell out those proposals in detail now, but fundamental reform is certainly attainable. I hope that the treaty will be changed immediately to remove the powers whereby the Community can make laws which are directly binding on this country. I do not believe that such a simple reform would break up the Community.
  On economic policy, the common agricultural policy should be totally recast on the basis of individual national agriculture policies that could well be supervised and co-ordinated, if necessary, by the Commission. Sooner or later we shall have to get away from the present CAP. I believe that we should start afresh and get back to something approaching the original system that worked so well in this country. There will be many proposals.
  I only wish that the Government would say that they were examining fully and properly the many alternatives that are available. At the moment, unfortunately, we seem to be stuck in the trench warfare of years ago. If we criticise the Community, we are told that we are trying to break it or that we want to get out. That is not true. I hope that my right hon. Friends will at least recognise the sincerity of those of us who say "We want fundamental reform. We are not advocating withdrawal from the Community, but we must have fundamental reform." The British people will stand for nothing less than that.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I understand the calls from the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and his hon. Friends for fundamental reform. I understand, too, why the Government and those who assist them find it increasingly difficult to obtain those reforms. However, I shall not pursue the matter, because I am afraid that the machine is wound up in such a way that it was intended that they never should. I shall come back to that subject at the end of my speech.
  The Minister of State emphasised some of the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) without referring to the words of the amendment. The words in the amendment are clear. They assert that we are not getting any advantage from the policies set down there, and that the Treaty of Rome is an unsuitable basis for "fruitful co-operation" between this country and her European friends and allies. The Minister made no attempt to dispute the assertion that the
  "arrangements for the Budget, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom".
  Not once did he contest that assertion. Nor, I believe, will any other hon. Gentlemen do so in this debate. If they do, I shall be extremely interested to hear the grounds on which they attack the proposition contained in the amendment.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) is not here—nor the right hon.
  440
  Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), nor the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), nor the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), all of whom asserted to the contrary. They are not here to attack the assertion made, justifiably, in the amendment.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I cannot participate in the debate because I am having dinner with Mr. Speaker later. I have frequently argued the proposition that the hon. Gentleman claims no one will argue, as have many of my hon. Friends. Although there are serious defects in the budgetary policy and the common agricultural policy, on balance the United Kingdom gains from them. I am prepared to argue the point at any opportunity.
  Mr. Spearing: I did not mention the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) but I suggest to him that each matter put down here is quantifiable. The next time that he makes a speech, I shall listen to his arithmetic. He cannot assert that the effect of either of those matters or of the balance of trade is in the interests of the United Kingdom. He and his hon. Friends always introduce extraneous philosophical factors that are non-quantifiable. Although they are important, they do not add up to the interests of this country.
  The hon. Member for Reigate should be especially worried about the economic effects of entry of the EEC. There was an exchange earlier about employment and jobs at risk. Those who said that jobs would be at risk at the time when we entered the Common Market were presumably arguing against our entry. But Conservative Members who advocated entry took no notice of the risk to jobs then. The word "risk" is used frequently, but the figures show clearly that there is a £3 billion deficit in our manufactures balance of trade with the rest of the EEC. Many jobs have been lost because of that deficit. No Conservative Member could deny that, not even the hon. Member for Flint, West, many of whose constituents in the steel industry lost their jobs as a consequence of the deficit.
  Reference was made to enlarging the Community budget and an important exchange took place between the hon. Member for Faversham and the Minister of State. In trying to redress the agricultural balance, the right hon. Member for Hillhead and others say "Spend more on the regional fund and economic aids". It is curious that Conservative Members, who are against public expen-diture, should wish to redress the balance in that way, forgetting that, in doing so, they must raise the money with which to do it.
  The Government will be forced to agree with the rest of the Community to enlarge the budget in some way as a quid pro quo for getting some benefit for Britain either in the fisheries negotiations or in the budget negotiations. That is the one thing on which the Government can give way and the one thing on which the Community will ask them to give way. The Commissioners have publicly advertised the possibility of an oil tax.
  We must face the possible enlargement of the EEC budget, again at the expense of the taxpayer, not for expenditure that we can decide in the House during an Estimates review but for repayments to Britain out of the Brussels budget, the nature of which will be decided by people in Brussels for people in Brussels and according to their priorities. If the budget is enlarged and we obtain a fair balance, it will mean loss of power to the House and the country.
  Mr. Marlow: If any such additional tax which is payable into the European kitty were to be agreed, the Government would promote it in such a way that it must be passed by the House. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Government would promote it in such a way that it need not go before the House. If it were to pass before the House, is not the hon. Gentleman fairly confident, as I am, that it would not be agreed?
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has uncharacteris-tically failed to remember a major feature of the Treaty of Rome that we claim fails to provide a basis for
  "fruitful co-operation with the United Kingdom's European friends and allies."
  He will correct me if I am wrong, but is he not aware that the European Council, in pursuit of its common economic policies under article 3 of the treaty, could impose a common tariff on oil entering the EEC? That would have the effect of increasing energy costs and notionally increasing the book value of North Sea oil. It would create taxation in Britain, and the House could do nothing about it because the proposal would come direct from Brussels.
  The powers of Brussels are even greater than the hon. Gentleman believes, because the Commission could impose such a tax unilaterally, without any debate in the House of Commons. We may try to discuss the matter, but no decision of the House would be required. It is an example of the creeping competence of those who wish to have a European State. Sometimes those who speak from the Dispatch Box also advocate that policy.
  Pages 16 and 17 of the White Paper list agricultural items, but there is no reference to cereals. However, on 19 July, in a written answer, the Minister of State set out a table that shows where the surplus of grain from Britain has been sent. That may surprise some of those who did not know that we had a surplus of grain. The common agricultural policy distorts the proper agriculture of Britain, as was brought out in an intervention by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). In 1980 Britain sent abroad 2,900,000 tonnes of surplus cereals. No less than 1·5 million tonnes were sent to Eastern Europe, 1 million to Poland and 600,000 to East Germany. That was not normal trade but was carried out with the help of export subsidies that are paid for by the British taxpayer. That assistance cost about £18 million for Poland and about £21 million for East Germany. Although the taxes on that are sent to Brussels, it counts against what Britain spends. When we work out in the EEC budget the "cost to Britain", we must include the £40 million that the intervention board shells out for the export of surplus British grain to Eastern Europe. That fact may shake even those who support the agricultural policy. I hope that it shakes the hon. Member for Flint, West and perhaps he will tell us so in a later debate. If he is not shocked, perhaps he will tell us why.
  I understand that the New Zealand butter quota is to be reduced from just over 90,000 tonnes to 89,000 tonnes because of lower butter consumption in the Community. That is not surprising because it is so expensive. I also understand that one of our European "partners" wishes to reduce the quota still further to 60,000 tonnes. Many of them would want to phase it out altogether. I do not believe that many of those who support our EEC membership would want to see that. However, that is the result of our membership and that is the sort of pressure that is being put on us all the time.
  442
  I do not need to refer much to fisheries because we had that debate last week and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food more or less had to admit that he could only try to get the best deal that he could, but that he had no bargaining power to do so. It looks as though we shall have a bad deal about which we can do nothing because the veto, such as it is, is not in our hands, but in those of other parties.
  The budget repayments have been agreed for one more year and the Minister agreed that that did not present a good picture. We shall come back in another year and ask for another extension. As I said in questioning the Prime Minister a few months ago, we have become a client State of the EEC. If we are a client State, we have to do what the other States say. That means that time after time, when we return to the EEC in all these respects, we have to do what it wants.
  All this means that we are moving ever towards the state of a European union. The hon. Member for Faversham pointed this out well in his comments on the Genscher-Colombo proposals. At some stage, we shall be asked to assent to some aspects of those proposals, and we shall have to choose between that and not having a continuation of our budget repayments. Make no mistake about it, because of the increasing costs of the CAP, there will have to be some change in the way that the budget is built up in succeeding years.
  I fear that the movement towards a European union, both in respect of internal policies and prices, and its effect on external policy, as expounded by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), will inevitably go forward. The machine will be set up in that way to achieve that purpose. It has inbuilt ratchets that progressively destroy the power of the House and with it the power of the British people to make their own choices.
  I agree that in this world we are interdependent and cannot say that we go it alone in every respect. However, we should have the power in this place to decide the balance of advantage on the merits of the case before us. We are increasingly unable to do so because policies that are the concern of people at every stage and level of production and in every part of our society are increasingly being taken out of our hands and put elsewhere, particularly in Brussels.
  Therefore, when we are invited to take note of this report, we should take note that at every stage the movement is of power away from the House towards Brussels. The only way that we can arrest this movement is to do as our motion implies and get out of the EEC.
  6.44 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: For a number of reasons I shall be brief, but I should like to have this opportunity of saying a few words. This is not the speech that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) called for, in which I quantify the case for our staying in the EEC. However, I make the point that was originally made when we applied to join. The benefits of joining are difficult to quantify but almost certainly larger than the benefits of staying out, which were easily quantifiable. That still remains the position.
  Various hon. Members have made our flesh creep with the awful consequences of our being a member of the EEC. It is easy enough to make the case against membership, even if the case that has been made by Labour Members is full of holes, and if I had more time

  443
  I should try to demonstrate that. It is simply not enough to make the case against membership. One can say that as members of the EEC we have had an adverse balance of trade and manufactures, but those who say that always leave out oil, for reasons that I cannot understand.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend, who always interrupts everything. Oil is the result of exploration that has involved large investment.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall not give way. Oil has to be assessed with everything else. We have a favourable balance of trade. Even if, to give my hon. Friend his point, we deal only with manufactures, the balance of trade, adverse though it is, is better covered by our exports to the EEC than is our trade with other major advanced countries such as the United States or Japan.
  It is true that our subscription has represented a drain on the resources of the country. To put that drain into perspective, even at the rate at which it was running two years ago, it still represents only £10 per inhabitant. That is an appreciable sum, but not a crippling one.
  We always hear about loss of sovereignty and the creeping advance of the European union, but it does not look like that from Strasbourg or to any dispassionate observer. On the contrary, the dispassionate observer is impressed by the increasing loss of momentum towards any kind of European union.
  Even if it can be demonstrated that the balance of our trade in manufactures is adverse, that the subscription is intolerable and that we are losing some mythical sovereignty in a world in which interdependence is more clearly defined than ever before, the case is still not proven. Two further things have to be shown. It has to be demonstrated that there is a better, more satisfactory and more profitable relationship for this country with the EEC than is provided under the present arrangements, and one that will guarantee us a market for our exports, relieve us of the obligation of paying for dear food and enable us to find assured supplies of food on a dodgy world market.
  That is hard enough to demonstrate, but even if one could—I have yet to hear any hon. Member on either side of the House give a convincing alternative to our membership—it then has to be demonstrated that we have the bargaining strength to achieve it. Let no hon. Member try on me the theory that the other EEC countries are so dependent on our market that they cannot possibly afford to see us pull out. There is no EEC country other than Ireland for which this country provides a substantial export outlet. That may be the case for the EEC as a whole, but for the individual member countries, apart from Ireland, 7 per cent. is the largest proportion of exports that we represent.
  The true strength of our bargaining position in the EEC is that if we pull out we begin a process of disintegration of something that seems to me and to many other hon. Members the most hopeful experiment in international relations that we have seen for a century or more. If that is the strength of our position, we should have scruples before using it.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for
  444
  Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), because I concur with his views. I am not a student of these debates. Whenever I hear one of them coming, I find myself something else to do, usually in my constituency. Today, I have been asked to be present and take part in the debate. I have always read the debates with keen interest.
  The hon. Member for Flint, West was right when he said that nobody had yet advanced any alternative to the EEC. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) started talking about cheap food, but stopped, and we did not find where the cheap food was, where it was coming from and whose standard of living was depressed so that we should have that cheap food. If one wants something for nothing in this world, somebody has to give up something. We have never yet had it explained to us where the cheap food would come from.
  I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) coming into the Chamber. I followed his speech tonight and, as always, it was extremely interesting. I normally read the speeches of hon. Members, but today I have listened in person. They are usually all much the same, but the hon. Member for Faversham updates his and that is his great asset. One hears a little extra each time he speaks.
  The hon. Gentleman pinpointed a major issue upon which he finds himself in disagreement with the official Opposition. He spoke of the intervention by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in the speech of the hon. Member for Walton asking him to address himself to the amendment tabled by the official Opposition The hon. Member for Bolsover clearly asked why his hon. Friend did not say what was said at the Labour Party conference, namely, "We are coming out". The hon. Member for Walton then did a pas de deux about five times. I am not sure what he actually said, but he did not say "Yes, that is the position." Perhaps the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) will say "Yes" in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, because that is exacly what he means.
  I want to address myself to three areas of the Blue Book, Cmnd. 8525. Paragraph 9.2 is one that I find particularly interesting. It refers to a paper published by the Commission on new technology and social change. That is certainly a matter of great importance to Britain. It says:
  "All were agreed on the need for a coherent Community wide strategy for new technology but views were divided on a claim from workers' representatives for statutory rights to information, consultation and negotiation when new technology is introduced."
  The House is entitled to know the Government's attitude to that issue. Were the Government one of the dissenters referred to? With 3,200,000 registered employed, there can be little doubt that the Government must be aware of the dangers of any changes in new technology that are proposed in Britain. Therefore, I should like to know the Government's attitude to the proposed directive on workers' information and consulta-tion in large companies.
  I understand that the initial reaction of the 10 Community Governments has been surprisingly favour-able to such a directive. Asking around, as they say, I am given to understand that only the United Kingdom virtually dissented. I am told that the Commission's proposals were challenged and that the vast support for the business lobby came from the Secretary of State.

  445
  Obviously, the multinational companies need to have the mandatory requirement as put forward by the Commission. The Commission's proposal would make it mandatory for multinational companies to inform their work forces of any key developments in the operations of their subsidiaries. They will have to consult the workers' representatives where the interests of the work force are at stake.
  Not surprisingly, almost all the business organisations in the Community have come out against the proposal, while—equally not surprisingly—the trade unions have come out in favour of the proposal. The Secretary of State for Employment was apparently the only Minister of the Ten to express direct opposition to the directive.
  These discussions all take place at closed meetings, so that one is only hearing, as it were, from people alleging to be there. It is said that the Secretary of State claimed that the Community should rely on a voluntary code, but that he was firmly told by the French, the Germans and the Danes that experience shows that a voluntary code does not work. The German view was that, while voluntary codes may work under national legislation for national companies, they were wholly inadequate for multi-national companies. The Danes took the same view. Therefore, it is important that the Minister should tell the House the Government's attitude.
  In paragraph 9.3 it can be seen that the Standing Committee recognised that certain other actions were needed, particularly
  "the training and retraining of teachers, the use of technology to aid the handicapped, the improvement of technical qualifications and the demonstration of the employment potential of new technology to small and medium sized firms."
  If ever a country has many teachers who need training and retraining, Britain has, but that is not the attitude of the Government. We should hear tonight what the Government have to say about that.
  Paragraph 10.4 relates to the paper on energy strategy. I am one of those who have always believed that we should work towards a common European energy policy. So far, that has always eluded us. I recall my time on the Energy Committee of the European Parliament when we strove manfully to develop a common approach. The nearest that we got was when the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—the then Secretary of State for Energy—committed all the United Kingdom oil to the International Energy Agency for its emergency oil scheme. For the first time, one Minister out of the Nine made a positive contribution to the concept of an energy policy for Europe.
  Does the Minister confirm that view today? Does he approve of the action of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, and is that still Britain's position? Have we assigned all our oil to the IEA emergency oil scheme? Is it the Government's intention to take the lead in achieving a more effective energy policy within the Community? If so, what steps will the Government take to achieve that? There are few countries better placed than the United Kingdom to lead a fight to obtain a common policy. We are a major oil, coal and natural gas producer. Therefore, it is right that we should do the best we can for our partners in Europe.
  I should also like to press the Minister on paragraph 9.11 relating to the anti-poverty programme. To dismiss that vital subject in four lines hardly does justice to it. The recent study on poverty in Europe has established that 30
  446
  million people live in poverty in the Community. That number is increasing as unemployment increases. Therefore, the scope of the problem becomes frightening.
  The massive increase in the number of unemployed has added to those who are classified as the traditional poor. The burden of the economic crisis has fallen dispropor-tionately on the unskilled, the young, the immigrants and those with mental or physical disabilities throughout the Community. Therefore, there is a need for member States to establish as a political priority an anti-poverty Community action programme. It is incumbent upon the Minister to tell us tonight exactly what he and the Government have in mind.
  It is insufficient for the Government to give platitudinous replies, saying that they are concerned. Everyone is concerned. Hon. Members are entitled to ask what the Government are actually doing. It is disgraceful that the document should contain nothing more informative than paragraph 9.11, which shows virtually no interest whatever. The paragraph indicates that Ministers have not read their own report, which ranged over the previous five years. The Minister must say what action the Government propose to take about poverty. It is becoming an increasing difficulty in our own country.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to say what the Government are doing individually and together with our partners to come to grips with this enormous problem of poverty. The evaluation report to which paragraph 9.11 refers states:
  "To postpone action is to risk damage to the social fabric which could last a generation".
  It ends by asserting:
  "The case for resolute action does not rest on any crude calculations of costs and benefits. It rests on equity, compassion and solidarity."
  Hon. Members are entitled to expect full support from the Government in bringing forward urgent programmes to deal with these important problems.
  7.1 pm
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I cannot recall the identity of the person who remarked that if one wanted to keep something secret the best method was to make a speech in the House of Commons. I feel sometimes that there is a great deal of truth in the statement. If, however, anyone gets round to flipping through Hansard and finds my speech, I hope that he will also go back a few pages to find the speeches of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).
  My remarks are consequential upon points already made. I endorse wholeheartedly the reservations that have been expressed about the Treaty of Rome. There can be no question of this country coming out of the Common Market on a unilateral basis. There is a real danger that if the reforms mentioned in this debate are not carried out the Common Market is likely to fall apart of its own weight and the shortcomings of the terms under which it now operates. No unilateral move by the United Kingdom would be necessary to bring this invaluable Community to a close.
  I should like to mention in more depth some of the dangers that I see facing the country should we continue membership under the present terms. The gravest danger, outlined by the right hon. Member for Down, South, is

  447
  that the whole impetus of the Community at the moment is towards a federation. A federalist system is utterly against the wishes of the British people.
  Sir Russell Fairgrieve: Rubbish.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend says "Rubbish". I have no doubt that the vast majority of the people of this country are determined to maintain an independent and integral sovereignty. They will resent bitterly any attempt by some supranational State created in Europe to override that sovereignty. That is the view, I believe, of a large majority of the Conservative Party as well as of those who voted for other parties at the general election.
  Because of the insidious manner in which sovereignty is eroded by the development of Commission rules, regulations and directives, there is a grave danger that the minority opinion that exists in the Commission, in the European Parliament and among some of my hon. Friends will mean that we shall finish up with a federal State, contrary to the desires and wishes of this House. Both my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary continually deny any such intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I hope that they will guard against the danger that they might be guided along a path which they are not aware they are following and into a federation which this country has no desire to join.
  Another danger to which insufficient attention has been given is the weakening of the Community by Southern European States which are now, or shortly will be, members. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench will accept that I state this as a friend, and not as an enemy, of the European Community. I do not wish to see the Community destroyed. I do not wish to see the United Kingdom come out of the Community. I wish wholeheartedly to see the Community reformed so that it contributes to the best interests of all member nations and, most importantly, to my own country.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State talked of the strengthening of democracy by the widening of the membership of the Community. I cannot see how this country has any lessons to learn about democracy from the experience of Spain now struggling to create democracy for the first time for many years. I cannot see how we have any lessons to learn from Portugal, which experienced what was, fortunately, a bloodless but nevertheless violent revolution a few years ago and which is still struggling back to some form of democracy. Nor have we any lessons to learn from Greece, where the legacy of the colonels is still to be seen everywhere. If any lessons are to be learnt from democracy, it is we who can teach the rest of Europe. I hope that those lessons will be learnt and that a Community will be formed in which our version of democracy rules. I trust that such aims will not be overridden by some form of Government of which we do not approve.
  There has been talk of the need to safeguard British interests in the Community. I endorse those remarks. It is vital that the budget contribution of this country should be brought somewhere near to parity. What we pay out should come within fighting distance of what we get back. I agree with the Minister that it would be absurd for us to quibble over demands that the sum coming out should be exactly
  448
  the same as that going in. We have to be realistic. We have to make some contribution. This need not necessarily be year on year. It is, however, necessary for us to make some contribution from time to time towards the operation of the important institutions of the Community as they develop, despite the fact that I hope that they will not develop in ways that have Peen outlined.
  There is a clear need for reform of the common agricultural policy. I do not believe that anyone, apart possibly from my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), is under the impression that the policy as it stands is acceptable. As the other Southern European countries enter the Community so the gap between Northern methods of agriculture and the prosperity of the Northern farmer will come into greater conflict with the poverty and poor performance of the Southern European farmer. It will be increasingly difficult to have a common agricultural policy that is appropriate for the olive growers of Spain and for the milk producers of Cheshire. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State appeared to be under the impression that British farmers are living in the lap of luxury under the common agricultural policy. I can only suggest that he asks my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has happened to farm incomes over the last two or three years.
  As a farmer—I declare my vested interest—I car say that the income of United Kingdom farmers is 40 per cent. down in real terns compared with three years ago. That state of affairs can hardly be said to underline the success of the common agricultural policy. There has already been reference to the export credits that we have to pay. Exports from the Community under the common agricultural policy cost the Community £8 million a day. A large amount of that subsidy goes directly towards providing cheap food for the Russians. I can imagine no greater folly than to subsidise the food of our natural enemy, which spends 19 per cent. of its gross domestic product on arms with the sole purpose, in my view, of attacking Europe when it feels strong enough and independent enough to do so.
  Dr. Mabon: Does not President Reagan defend the sale of cheap American cereals, wheat and grain to the Soviet Union on the ground that this absorbs a large amount of currency which the Soviets would otherwise use to purchase advanced military weapons?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am not interested in the arguments that President Reagan may use to support a policy that is necessary for him to prevent the extreme poverty of American farmers. I believe that it is absolutely wrong for us to 'provide cheap food for Russia, whether from the European Community or from the United States of America. The common agricultural policy needs reforming for those reasons and because it takes such an enormous chunk of the Community budget. There are many areas of need other than agriculture that should be explored in the interests of European countries.
  The mammoth percentage of available money that goes into agriculture stultifies the efficiency of many sectors of farming. We have to discover a different and better system to ensure adequate prosperity for farmers and reasonable price levels for food. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham is right when he says that we should return to a national domestic structure and that it would be in this country's interests and those of the Community if we were to move along those lines.

  449
  I move on to a point that has not been mentioned, and that is the stream of petty legislation that is formulated by civil servants in Europe and overrides what the House and the country feel is right. There has been a stream of unbelievably petty legislation during the past two or three years. We have been told how much noise our lawn mowers should make, what size car wing mirrors should be, the size of packages and the method of packaging and the way in which goods should be labelled in shops.
  Those are matters about which our domestic civil servants spend their lives creating regulations. Such regulations are then swept out of the window and other similar ones are swept in at vast expense to taxpayers. I should like to draw the attention of the House to two fatuous examples. I was in the House about a year ago when one of my hon. Friends said to me "You really must stay later this evening, because look what is coming before the House." The heading said something like "European directive 533 part B/3". When one looked more closely, one discovered that it said that it would no longer be lawful for the Government to prevent foreign doctors from Europe practising in this country on the ground that they could not speak a word of English.
  I found that unacceptable. I stayed and made an impassioned plea to a House containing at least five other hon. Members. There was a vote on the matter and the Whips, as usual, sent people in appropriate directions, and I think that there were about five or six hon. Members who voted against the introduction of the rule. Even if it had been defeated, I question its legality, because we would have been overridden by the Treaty of Rome and what was decided in Europe. I do not think that the House could have prevented the horde of foreign doctors who do not speak English whom I confidently expect will shortly invade our shores.
  A second and more up-to-date example of this folly was handed to me recently. It is headed:
  "The Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. Section 6 direction"—
  I gather that it comes from a European directive that deals with the care and the maintenance of European tortoises. I do not know how many hon. Members have young children, as I have, but the next time a young child goes into a pet shop, if the pet shop owner is to do his duty properly, the child will be confronted—assuming he is old enough to read—with a form that he will be asked to sign.
  The form deals in some detail with how a tortoise should be properly looked after. I am not against children being told how to look after animals, but it should apply equally to other animals. Subsection 2 says:
  "Constant access to food and water, except when preparing for and during hibernation. Food supply must contain fruit and vegetables (especially green vegetables) and must be supplemented occasionally with canned dog food, vitamins (particularly A, D3 and E and B 12) and calcium."
  I am sure that that is right. I hope that every member of the Community who has a tortoise will feed it regularly with dog food, although I venture to doubt it. When I had tortoises in my youth, it never entered my head to give them dog food. It seems absurd and beyond the point of humour that a child who fails to feed his tortoise occasionally with dog food should be liable to a fine of £400 under the provisions of this directive.
  The Government's efforts should be directed towards getting the Commission to give its attention to rather more
  450
  useful ways of spending its time than producing a plethora of petty, tiresome legislation, which could be equated to a minor wasp sting. However, a minor wasp sting received often enough, or from a large enough horde of wasps, is as deadly as the deadliest snake.
  More seriously, I believe that the threat to our sovereignty is something that the House cannot accept. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West—I am sorry that he has an engagement that has taken him away from the House—referred to "the myth of sovereignty" that was being threatened by the Community. Our sovereignty is not a myth. It is the most important element of the work of the House. It is the one safeguard for the people of this nation. We heard recently, in connection with the Falkland Islands, a great deal about self-determination. It would be ironic if, at the same time as we fight for the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders, we should give away our own right to self-determination through the back door to a horde of overseas civil servants.
  I do not believe any such move is acceptable. I believe that those who died in the Falklands, those who died yesterday, those who fight constantly for the right of our people to live in freedom, would not allow the creation of a European State to take away the justifiable pride and self-determination of a great British people.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: I was interested to hear the speech by the hon. Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor), because I did not hear a word of praise for the Common Market. I heard a long catalogue of criticisms and grievances. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is in tune with British public opinion.
  I was extremely pleased to hear the debut—I do not know whether I am allowed to call him my hon. Friend—of the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) as the spokesman for the Social Democratic Party on Common Market matters. It was an interesting speech. I thought that we might have heard the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). He had some connection with Common Market affairs, was paid a modest salary and, I believe, received a modest pension. He might have given us a tour d'horizon.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch restricted his remarks to prosaic matters such as industrial training boards. I make no complaint about that. When the spotlight is turned on the issues, they hide in corners. In these debates we hear only criticisms; we do not hear from the parents of the arrangement.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: In the debate on 26 May in Volume 24 of the Official Report, c. 955, at 5.52 pm my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) made his speech. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was present.
  Mr. Leighton: The occasion was more auspicious. The burden of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on that occasion was that the budget was lopsided; it was spent almost entirely on agriculture; and, as we were not an agricultural nation, it did not benefit us. Why did he not take action during the three years that he was running the show?
  Mr. Spearing: I remember the debate well. The right hon. Gentleman declined to give way to me. Perhaps he thought he was still in Brussels.

  451
  I disagree with my hon. Friend about the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). I fancy that the SDP does not agree with the arrangement, but he did not tell us why.
  Mr. Leighton: The Social Democrats invented the Common Market, and, whatever monstrosities it commits, they will stick with it, through thick and thin.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I pointed out the contretemps between the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). The hon. Member for Bolsover did not believe that the hon. Member for Walton was making a proper case for the amendment. He even persuaded me not to vote for it.
  Mr. Leighton: I did not think that the hon. Gentleman would vote for the amendment, but I shall. By a six to five majority at conference the Labour Party decided to make a central part of its next election manifesto that in friendship and amity Britain should leave the EEC. If the understanding of Front Bench spokesmen is different, no doubt they will say so, but I thought that that was what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said.
  We are discussing developments in the Community between July and December 1981. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the professed goal of the European Council for full union—economic, monetary and political—by 1980, to which it solemnly agreed about a decade ago, has disappeared. I do not believe that that aspiration retains a shred of credibility. It was a noble but naive hope. It was a unique experiment by a group of dedicated nations which hoped to pool their resources and sink their differences into a brave new Western super-State. That hope is now dead. If it is not, the right hon. Members for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), for Hillhead and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and all the others would he here glorying in the phenomenon.
  We are basically discussing the period of the British Presidency. At the beginning there was a resuscitation of hope. Great enthusiasm was expressed, but that has been disappointed. The document before us is extremely dispiriting. It contains no hope. In page 6 it states:
  "The Foreign Affairs Council in December approved a Commission list of requests for action by Japan aimed at improving the Community's balance of trade with Japan."
  It is stating that it is bad that Japan has a trade surplus with the Community and action must be taken.
  As the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) will appreciate, I am enough of a free trader not to worry too much about the Japanese trade surplus. It has no oil. If it is to buy oil, it must have a trade surplus with Western Europe. If the surplus is spent here, we benefit. But the Community is worried and is determined to take action about the surplus. Why is it worried if it believes in entirely free trade? Secondly, should we not be more worried about our larger trade deficit with EEC countries?
  The Japanese have one-tenth of our motor car market and the EEC over four-tenths. We have a deficit with the French of more than £500 million per annum and with the West Germans of well over £1 billion. If it is right to restrict Japanese cars coming to Britain, why can we not restrict cars from other EEC countries?
  If the Secretary of State for Trade instructed his officials to impose import quotas or tariffs on other EEC
  452
  countries, the Attorney-General would point out that he was contravening the Treaty of Accession. If he persisted, any British businessman could arraign the Government before the European Court, and Community law would prevail over our law. That is not satisfactory.
  Reluctantly, the Labour Party believes that we are in such a weak competitive position that we need managed trade. I do not mean the beggar-my-neighbour policy that already operates with competitive interest rates and deflation. I should like planned growth of imports; but that would be contrary to the treaty.
  The theme that runs through the rest of the document is one of futility. In item after item and chapter after chapter one is reminded of the futility of it all. In page 7, referring to the Foreign Ministers meeting on 14–15 December, it says:
  "They had a particularly thorough discussion of the budgetary issues, on which there was general agreement that the United Kingdom faced a problem which should be corrected"—
  this is the interesting bit—
  "but not on how to correct it."
  They are always having discussions. Discussions do not cease, but the Ministers never come up with anything sensible. During the period covered by the document there have been no sensible solutions to any of the problems.
  The last line in page 29 of the document, under the heading "Social Security", says:
  "Agreement was reached"—
  "Wonderful", I thought, "at last agreement has been reached. What did they agree on?" —
  "on the basis for further discussion by officials."
  Is that not wonderful? The officials carry on discussing, but nothing is ever agreed. Page after page, it is all the same.
  The annexes are the most interesting parts of the document. They contain one speech by the Prime Minister and two by the then Foreign Secretary. The Prime Minister addressed the European Assembly on 16 December 1981. She referred to the European Council that was held in London on 26–27 November. She said that the main subject of discussion was the mandate of 30 May and that it was worth recalling how it originated. She said:
  "The problem arose when one of the Member States, my own country, found itself bearing an unacceptable and increasing budgetary burden as a result of the combined effect of Community policies."
  So the combined effect of Community policies was leading to unacceptable circumstances for the United Kingdom. The right hon. Lady continued:
  "The Community agreed, on 30 May 1980, that the problem should be resolved, and I quote—'By means of structural changes'. The Commission was given a Mandate to produce proposals as to how this could be achieved"—
  again, here is the interesting bit—
  "without infringing basic Community principles."
  How does one do that without infringing basic Community principles? Continuing, the right hon. Lady said:
  "The Commission's Report was produced in June and concentrated on three main areas or 'Chapters'. These were the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, the development of other Community policies, in particular economic, regional and social policies and the Community budget".
  They were all to be considered in parallel. The Prime Minister said that the 30 May mandate laid on the British Presidency the responsibility for reaching decisions by the end of the year. She was hopeful that that would be done. The Lord Privy Seal explained at the Dispatch Box that it would all be done. The Prime Minister, in her speech, continued:

  453
  "I had very much hoped to be able to report to you today that the European Council had been able to reach full agreement on all these matters. Unfortunately I cannot do so. Much progress was made. But on four main areas"—
  they were the important areas—
  "we were unable to reach any measure of agreement."
  Complete futility again. A complete waste of time— failure.
  The Prime Minister said:
  "We asked our Foreign Ministers to meet informally"—
  perhaps she thought that, as they never came to an agreement when they met formally, they might do so if they met informally; the right hon. Member for Hillhead had explained over the brandy, coffee and cigars that that might be the case—
  "as soon as possible in a further effort to resolve these matters and to report to Heads of Government. That meeting took place on 14 and 15 December. Despite their best endeavours, Foreign Ministers were not able to reach agreement on the outstanding points."
  Once again, there was complete deadlock and failure.
  Having given the burden of the Prime Minister's speech, I shall now deal with that of the then Foreign Secretary on 8 July 1981. The Lord Privy Seal will be interested in what I have to say as I am referring to the good old days. It is rather piquant. Matters have worsened considerably since then. In his speech to the European Assembly, the then Foreign Secretary—this is the good news—said:
  "First, there was the agricultural price-fixing last March when agreement was reached with a pleasant absence of the delay and acrimony which has occasionally characterised this exercise in earlier years."
  Everything went right that year. We all know what happened the following year. All hell was let loose. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not experience that pleasant absence of delay and acrimony. The veto was discussed. We know that the Minister's veto was overruled. I asked the Foreign Secretary
  "what progress he had made in reinstating unanimous voting in European Community Council of Ministers' procedures".
  He replied that he had requested that that should be done on 20 June.
  "Five members supported the principle that decisions should be deferred where a member State considers that its important national interests are at stake. The position is thus, as it has been since 1966, that there is a division of opinion on this question."—[Official Report, 12 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 272.]
  It emerged that there was no agreement and no veto. I was referred to his speech on 22 June, when he said that his position was
  "unreservedly supported by two member States and by two others with minor qualifications … In view of what happened at the Agriculture Council on 18 May, I would obviously have preferred a clear-cut result."—[Official Report, 22 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 155.]
  Perhaps he would. But what were we told at the referendum? I have a copy of the official Government manifesto that was issued to all voters at the referendum. It asked in large type:
  "Will Parliament lose its power?"
  The document continues:
  "Fact No. 2: No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament."
  Later in that part of the document, it said:
  "It is the Council of Ministers, and not the Market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister
  454
  representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests. Ministers from other Governments have the same right of veto."
  That was the basis upon which the British people voted to remain in the Common Market. They were told that their democratic parliamentary self-government was assured. The British veto was the basis of that argument. That has been abrogated. The other document, which was issued by the right hon. Member for Hillhead, said the same thing.
  Mr. Spearing: I have the document here. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) and others went further. The document states:
  "All decisions of any importance must be agreed by every member".
  It did not say that such decisions would be on a matter of national importance. No wonder the people were misled by what was said by those who were still Members of the House.
  Mr. Leighton: That furthers my point that the basis on which we entered the Community has been abrogated. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
  In page 57 of the Blue Book it is stated:
  "The basis of the Community's renewal must be the restructuring of the Community budget and the review of the Community's expenditure policies that goes with it."
  There has been no restructuring. The budget is dominated by expenditure on one sector. The attempt at rectification for Britain has been botched up. The budget is ad hoc and temporary. No change has been made.
  We are told by the Foreign Secretary that there should be changes in the CAP
  "to discourage the production of surpluses and to limit the costs to which they give rise. It cannot be right that about half of the Community's budget should be spent simply on the storage and disposal of surplus food. This is an expensive and wasteful anomaly that must be corrected"—
  then comes the catch—
  "but not so as to undermine the principles of the CAP."
  How does one reform anything without changing it? I should like to hear the Government's view on that matter.
  I should like a change. I could explain exactly how to make a change. However, there is no way of making a change because the vested interests are so great. It would be sensible to end common policies on agriculture or for this country at least to opt out and to return responsibilities for agriculture to the member States and let them run their own agriculture as they see fit. At the moment we have a siege economy in agriculture. That cannot be right. The present CAP widens the gap between rich and poor because the subsidies that are paid via the high prices primarily go to the efficient. By definition, those are the rich farmers, who become very rich. No one can say that the prosperity and security of Europe depend on the CAP. It is a complete monstrosity and we should get out of it as soon as possible.
  Mr. Marlow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the European Assembly is recommending that £20 million should be made available for elections in 1984? Is he aware that that money is to be made available to the political parties—a small proportion will go to the European information office—and that £45,000 will be made available for each constituency, whereas the allowable expenditure in this country is £13,000 for each constituency? For the Conservative Party, some £32,000 for each seat or perhaps a little less will probably find its

  455
  way to Central Office funds. Is not that a lot of money? Is it not a matter of concern about which he, as I, would like to know more?
  Mr. Leighton: The hon. Gentleman has raised a relevant point. There is the vast expenditure of the Commission on glossy publications that land on my desk. Who pays for those? I suppose that the Community taxpayers do. Then there is the European Assembly, which is one of the most futile talking shops ever invented. It has the most minimal effect on Community affairs. If what I read in the newspapers is true, many European Members of Parliament travel to the Assembly solely to draw their exorbitant expenses without taking part in the debates—wisely, because the debates are useless and futile—and straight away go home. All that is at vast expense to the taxpayer, for no useful purpose.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leighton: I would rather not give way. The hon. Lady can make a speech in Strasbourg.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Leighton: I am always willing to give way to a lady.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, he will be glad to know that reform is under way so that only those who do the work will be properly paid.
  Mr. Leighton: I am pleased to hear about that reform. Those who do the work will be properly paid, whereas before people were paid exorbitantly at taxpayers' expense for doing nothing. We are told that matters will improve. I am sure that the hon. Lady will benefit because I have no doubt that she is a hard worker.
  The Foreign Ministers met on 14 and 15 December. On 17 December the Foreign Secretary said:
  "We were able to have a useful discussion. I would naturally have liked to be able to reach agreement on this matter during our Presidency".
  He was talking about the common fisheries policy. He said that agreement still had to be reached. He can say that again. If I understand it aright, two-thirds of the fish in the Community pool come from United Kingdom waters. If we were outside the Common Market we would have our own 200-mile exclusive zone. The fish would belong to us. Inside the Community, however, we shall see a sell-out of the British fishing industry and we shall be robbed of our reserves.
  In paragraph 10 of his speech on 17 December the Foreign Secretary said:
  "the Community has made disappointingly little progress towards full liberalisation in such fields as insurance and air transport."
  In other words, in areas where Britain could benefit, such as insurance and banking, the blocks have been put up. The Common Market has not been completed, so Britain loses out.
  In page 67, paragraph 15, the Foreign Secretary said:
  "Divergence among Community states has increased rather than diminished."
  That means that the rich areas have been getting richer and the poor areas have been getting poorer. That does not surprise me. The benefits of free trade do not fall equally. That is a fact of economics. If they did, there would be no need for regional policy. We have a regional policy to
  456
  readjust the effects of free trade. The United Kingdom has a regional policy for Scotland, Wales and the North to try to counterbalance the effects of free trade.
  Mr. Body: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the largest subscribers to the European Movement and to the "Yes" campaign, in industry, have invested vast sums in Belgium, Germany, France and other parts of Continental Europe, providing tens of thousands of jobs for people in those countries, instead of investing in this country and providing jobs for British people?
  Mr. Leighton: The hon. Gentleman is right. That problem has been exacerbated by the lifting of exchange controls. Last year about £4 billion of British portfolio investment flowed outside this country to re-equip our competitors, the better to compete against us.
  I have heard it said that we should stay inside the Common Market so that we should be the recipients of Japanese inward investment, but we would then become a conveyor belt for Japanese goods into the Community. We would not need foreign investment if we could keep a percentage of our own investment in this country.
  The experience, common sense and, indeed, self-respect of our people lead us all to the same conclusion—that it would be far better for us to leave this arrangement. It was not designed for us and it was not reformed for us. We should not have been so arrogant as to have expected anyone to reform it for us. Why should they? On the basis of friendship and amity, we should leave. The Labour Party conference had a five-sixths majority in favour of such a policy. I am certain that that will form the central point of our election manifesto at the next general election. I shall support it wholeheartedly.
  7.50 pm
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have always believed that far and away the most important reason for establishing the European Community was to safeguard the peace of Europe and, as far as possible, that of the rest of the world. It is a pity, therefore, that the period that is supposed to be under review by the House tonight does not strictly include the Falkland Islands crisis, when the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament backed us immediately and wholeheartedly.
  The Community's next most important task is to increase the well-being of its citizens. In this task nothing is more important than the combined work of the Community's three instruments—the European Investment Bank, the regional development fund and the social fund referred to in paragraphs 7.3, 7.4 and 9.1.
  In his opening speech my right hon. Friend referred to the illogical lack of balance between agricultural and other Community spending. He stressed that we need a better balance of policies and must build a more sensible industrial and social programme for the European Community in order to lessen the gap between its regions. No one can deny that progress is slow, but progress there is, and we would not be human if we did not want more rapid progress.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) quoted from the Prime Minister's speech in Strasbourg. My right hon. Friend was the first Prime Minister of a European country to speak at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Prime Minister as saying that we had been given the

  457
  responsibility of reaching decisions by the end of the year. He did not add that her next words were that that target was always ambitious. Ambitious it was, but nevertheless a great deal of progress was made under the dynamic leadership of the British Presidency.
  I have served on the regional and social policy committees of the European Parliament for seven years. For years we have demanded better co-ordination between the various Community instruments, which we felt at one time were completely unco-ordinated and at times overlapped or, even worse, worked in opposite directions. Gradually the three main instruments have been brought into harmony so that a concerted attack can be made on the problems of the Community. This is very well covered in the document now before us.
  However, the complete lack of comparable statistics made it very hard to work out a common policy. Statistics simply did not exist. We could not compare the policy of one Community State with another in any direction. We had no map to chart the journey that we wished to follow. That gap is now being filled, and in the period under review the Commission has published the first periodic report on the state of affairs in all the regions of the Community, giving information on all manner of subjects—unemployment levels, gross domestic product per head, demographic tables, and so on, for all the regions.
  That is an invaluable basis on which we can build proper European policies to defeat the scourge of unemployment that afflicts all European countries and the whole of the free world. Over the years the proportion of the budget spent on regional and social policies has steadily increased. The United Kingdom has done very well from those policies. In 1981 nearly £200 million came to the United Kingdom from the quota section of the regional fund to a very wide variety of projects. If the regional fund regulation is amended in the way that the Commission suggests, we will do even better in the future.
  Providing an industrial infrastructure in bricks and mortar is only one half of the story. Working practices are changing rapidly, and the social fund plays a major role in assisting the efforts, particularly of our MSC, in training or retraining people to fit the jobs of the future. This country has always been behind in training and we are rapidly trying to catch up. We are relying heavily on social fund assistance for the training programme that the House was discussing a month ago.
  Mr. Heifer: The hon. Lady says that we were behind in training and I accept that we were not as good as we should have been, but we had some training boards until the Conservative Government destroyed them.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I was not referring to that type of training. I was referring to the fact that 90 per cent. of the youngsters leaving school at 16 in Germany go on for further training or apprenticeships compared with roughly 45 per cent. in this country. Therefore, the Government are doing what a Labour Government failed to do to fill in that training gap. The Government have brought forward a programme costing £1 billion to fill the training gap and help our youngsters to catch up. For that we shall rely heavily on money from Europe.
  Spending from the social fund will be substantially increased this year. Last year the training programme was
  458
  considerably over-subscribed. Therefore, more money will be put in so that that gap can be plugged and young people helped to fill the jobs of the future that will become available as the economic upturn begins.
  One of the most useful instruments for helping industry in the assisted areas is the European Investment Bank. My own constituencies of Lancaster and Cumbria benefit substantially from European Investment Bank loans. The rates of interest are lower than those prevailing in the United Kingdom. They are fixed for the term of the loan, and that makes it much easier to plan ahead. The repayments do not begin until two years after the commencement of the loan, by which time the investment is usually earning its keep.
  The European Investment Bank is a flexible instrument. It has played a useful role in helping us to modernise our infrastructure. We in the North-West—this is one point on which the hon. Gentleman will agree—have the worst sewers in the United Kingdom. There is a major sewer collapse in the North-West every day of the year—and an extra one in leap year. The North-West water authority has received massive loans from the European Investment Bank, as has the North-West electricity board. Many of our large industries, such as paper making and shoe manufacturing, have also received loans.
  The European Investment Bank is not for the big boys only. Small firms and investment projects as small as £30,000 can receive loans. An increasing number are doing so, and thereby improving their capacity to compete in an increasingly competitive world.
  One of the unquantifiable benefits referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) is the free entry to a market of 265 million people. There is no country more dependent on world trade than the United Kingdom. If we adopted the siege economy mentality and policy of the official Opposition, we would have to leap over a common tariff wall to get our goods into Europe. It is hard enough as it is to compete in markets, but if we had in addition to pay tariffs, our trade and the jobs dependent on that trade would be decimated.
  I end as I began. Europe is a bulwark of democracy in a troubled world. My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor)—who, alas, is no longer in the Chamber—said that we had no lessons in democracy to learn from Spain or Portugal. Nobody has suggested that we have, but I believe very strongly that the Spanish and Portuguese might never have thrown off the yoke of tyranny if they had not had the hope of joining the European Community. I believe that the fragile democracies that now exist there will be strengthened and preserved by their joining the Community. Europe is not just about butter or lawn mowers, as my hon. Friend seems to think. It is about living together in peace in an increasingly dangerous world. I believe that that weighs a thousandfold in the balance against the niggling, querulous criticisms of the official Opposition.
  8 pm
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I apologise to the House for leaving during the earlier part of the debate, but I had to attend a sitting of the Services Committee, dealing with security—a subject of great importance, particularly at present. Therefore, I hope that the House will understand if I repeat points that were made in the earlier part of the debate.

  459
  We are dealing with a complex subject, and the period that we are discussing ended in December 1981. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was extremely agitated over the Middle East initiative taken by the Ten as a result of the Venice declaration. I did not fully share his views and anxieties about the declaration, although I accept that some of his arguments have been proved, with the events now taking place in the Middle East, to be partially correct.
  My interpretation of the Venice declaration concerning a European peace initiative was that it was a paper tiger. Its intentions—to be generous to those who drew up the declaration—may have been sincere, but it has proved to be a political damp squib. It was ill-conceived. It was expedient for the leaders of the Ten to have some sort of formula to bring back to their Parliaments and Governments, commenting generally on the position in the Middle East, but events have proved the document to be rather meaningless. Indeed, I should like the Minister, in replying to the debate, to tell us to what extent the objects of the declaration have been achieved. We have had a talking shop, and the events in the Middle East have been glossed over in many respects, because the former Foreign Secretary happened to be the President of the EEC Council at the time in question.
  None of the parties involved—Israel, Egypt and the United States—received the declaration with acclamation. It was coolly received not only by the countries which were signatories to the Camp David accords, but by the Arab world generally. The Minister of State nods his approval at that comment. It is no use the Government denying that opposition to the aims and objectives of the declaration has been clearly spelt out.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South said that European involvement was not necessary and that, generally speaking, the reaction had been unfavourable. He felt that the Government had given a total commitment. He asked whether there was a guarantee that the Ten would automatically respond to an invitation by President Mubarak on any of the issues affecting his policy in the Middle East.
  The spokesman of the PLO was clear about its attitude to the European initiative. The PLO says that it has the right to speak for itself. Its spokesman said:
  "We can never allow any party to interfere in our affairs, especially in two major matters: our non-recognition of Israel and our refusal to amend our national character in any way. I hope I am making myself clear to everyone everywhere, especially to the European countries. We have said over and over again that we refuse to recognise Israel. This is an unchangeable, permanent policy".
  That statement was made by Farouk Qaddame, head of the political department of the PLO, in an interview with the Beirut weekly, Monday Morning, in April 1981.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to President Sadat. I happened to be in Egypt when President Sadat was assassinated. People throughout the world mourned the passing of such a fine and worthy statesman who had brought some stability to the Middle East, but the PLO security chief, Abu Iyad, said:
  "We are happy over the assassination of the master traitor. Europeans like Kreisky, Mitterrand and Giscard d'Estaing are free to be sad as they want, but we are happy and we make no secret of it."
  I have a further quotation from the PLO on the death of Sadat:
  460
  "This is the best news we have had in many years! It is the Egyptian people that has got rid of Sadat. The Egyptian people has also rid itself of the shame and the dishonour that Sadat had imposed on the grand history of Egypt".
  How can one talk rationally, in the interest of peace in the Middle East or world peace, to people of that kind? It is highly regrettable that inflammatory comments of that sort are made. Such comments as I have quoted can never be relevant to achieving a permanent peace in the Middle East.
  We all deplore the tragic events now taking place in the Lebanon. We detest the horrors of all wars, whether large or small. They are immeasurable in terms of human misery. We have recently experienced in the Falklands a war of a minor character, but with very serious consequences for those who lost their lives or were maimed. But we have been reminded, in regard to the conflict between Israel and the PLO in the Lebanon, that we also relied on article 51 of the Unitied Nations Charter in defence of out action in the Falklands.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I am listening carefully to his speech, but I am having difficulty in identifying his current remarks with the amendment that we are debating.
  Mr. Cunliffe: My remarks are related to the section of the document on Middle East affairs, paragraphs 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The Falklands are not in the Middle East.
  Mr. Heller: The document covers not only budgetary matters of the Common Market, but discusses the Ten's views on the Middle East, South-East Asia, Poland and so on. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) may remember that I said in my speech that I should have liked to speak on those issues but lack of time prevented my doing so. My hon. Friend may have strayed a little from the subject, but, within reason, he is In line with what is set out in the document.
  Mr. Cunliffe: With respect to the House and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was trying to make out a case for the uselessness of the Venice declaration. That is the basis of my peroration today. It is relevant to discuss current events in the light of what has happened and to put into perspective what flows from reports of this type.
  It is appropriate to quote Disraeli, a Jewish statesman, who said:
  "It is much easier to be critical than to be correct."
  I accept his point. The Israelis have been subject to strong criticism and attack. There has been a degree of over-kill which Europeans, Asians or others have failed to prevent. It is regrettable, although inevitable, that the reservoir of friendship towards Israel has been somewhat diminished and damaged by recent events. I accept the point that the Prime Minister has made in statements over a period of time. In this case, I claim that two wrongs do not make a right unless they are atoned for.
  In defence of Israel's position, we must understand that it is a young nation that has faced continual hostilities and has at the same time an immigration problem. No rnatter what one says, Israel established a fine and reasonable democracy—the only democracy in that part of the world to sustain itself. We must try to understand the thinking and mentality that force the Israelis into their current

  461
  position. We must acknowledge that Israel is making positive efforts to bring about the evacuation of PLO terrorists from Beirut. They have granted access—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot see that the hon. Gentleman's remarks have anything to do with the amendment that we are debating. He must confine himself to the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Cunliffe: In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) about European grants. She said that the North West region had inherited paper manufacturing and other industries that had received substantial grants from the European Community. If she had been present in the House last week during the regional debates when every area was represented she could have examined the mammoth unemployment figures and compared those with the figures for the North West region, where there are 456,000 unemployed—the highest number of unemployed for any region—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Cunliffe: —the hon. Lady could have examined the built-in regional disparities that have existed in this country during the periods of different Governments and viewed them in the perspective and framework of the European grants that are available. She would have seen that, by a national Government decision—that of her own Government—80 per cent. of the North West region was degraded in aid status from 1 August.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has raised an interesting point, because my constituency was one of the worst in the North West when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) came to see us years ago, and he gave us no help at all. However, with the help of European and other aid, we have now brought ourselves up. Now we are not merely better than the regional average, but better than the national average. Much of that is due to the help that we have received from Europe. So one part of the North West has made positive use of Europe and has benefited from it.
  Mr. Cunliffe: I remember when the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was Secretary of State. Degrading proposals were introduced—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Downgrading.
  Mr. Cunliffe: Downgrading, degrading—call it what one will. It is the same thing. When an area goes down in the financial league in terms of grants, it is degrading. It is degrading the areas. Towns like Blackpool and Lancaster were upgraded. They were given an uprated financial status at that time, to the detriment of many of the older industrial towns and constituencies. Eighty per cent. of the North West region has been removed from assisted area status. This is perhaps a matter that the House could debate on another occasion. It was a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul. There was political chicanery to help marginal Conservative seats. There is no argument about that.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) finished?
  Mr. Cunliffe: Yes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Tom Normanton.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Tom Normanton: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have allowed me to catch your eye at this stage of the debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe). He may think that my speech is a strange successor to his contribution, but I happen to be chairman of the all-party political group, Friendship with Israel. In that sense, I go a long way with the argument that he made as a major part—however minor it should have been—of his speech.
  His reference to the late President Sadat is relevant to our membership of the Community and to the report of the Presidency, in that it was the first time that a statesman of such great and international importance sought permission to address the elected parliamentarians of Europe. That was his interpretation of the significance of the Community for his country—and, therefore, for Israel. His assassination was one of the greatest tragedies for Egypt-Israel relations.
  However, that subject is not the main purpose of our debate this evening, as you will be quick to remind me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to refer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), whom I am glad to see in his place. I apologise to him for having missed part of his opening speech. However, the part that I did hear convinced me completely that his views were thoroughly predictable and consistent with what he has said for a long time. That consistency is devoid of any serious comprehension of how the European Economic Community works and of our membership of it. Would that that lack of comprehension were restricted to the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members, but unfortunately it is not.
  Anyone listening to the debate would be justified in believing that it was a re-run of the great debate of "should we, shouldn't we; are we in or are we out?" To politicians both inside and outside the House, the "in-out" debate is as sterile and unproductive as any could be. I deplore the consistency with which that campaign is pursued because it is inimical to Britain's maximising the opportunities presented by membership.
  I shall not mention all the points in the report but touch on issues which have a bearing on it and which the Government might find a little embarrassing. First, the British Presidency that we are discussing was our first constructive Presidency since we joined. By "constructive", I mean that there was never any doubt in the minds of the political leaders, the Heads of Government and all concerned in the Community institutions that Britain was anxious to contribute energetically and dynamically to the collective benefit of Europe and especially Britain. That approach by Britain could and should have been spelled out in the report, although it may have caused a little shyness.
  Secondly, because of the calendar, the Presidency lasted a short six months. In effect, it was four and a half and not six months of intensive effort. That more limited period was restrictive for a Presidency that had made comprehensive and intensive preparations well before assuming it. In my nine and a half years experience in the European Parliament and experience of the Political

  463
  Affairs Committee where such matters are constantly discussed, that was a unique occurrence. The Government can take satisfaction from that achievement.
  Moreover, the impact that Britain made upon the political leaders of the other nine member States was profound and, though insufficient, will prove to be long-lasting. That impact should be compared with the impression made upon the political leaders of what were then only eight other member States, when the Presidency was in the hands of the Labour Government four and a half years ago. The impact of that Administration is that an albatross had been round Britain's neck for many years. At long last it has been removed by the clear and unequivocal declaration of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government that we are in Europe and that we are determined to be energetic and dynamic in our contributions.
  In case my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and other hon. Members believe that I am being sycophantic about the Government's performance during our Presidency, I have no hesitation in saying that they have a long way to go before Britain as a whole—the Government have a part to play—is fully au fait with the European Community system. But I am confident that the matter will be put into perspective when we remember that Britain has been a member for only nine and a half years, whereas the founding members set up the Community 25 years ago. It is obviously a political adventure for British Ministers, industry and institutions to enter Europe. It is new ground, but until we devote ourselves entirely to the Community we shall not benefit from the opportunities that are open to us.
  I am highly critical of some ways in which we approach the Community's policies. We all applaud the way in which British industry and its representatives—the CBI is only one mouthpiece of British industry and I am a member of the European committee of the confederation—is benefiting increasingly from our membership, but until industry understands how to influence decision-taking processes at Community level our industriial performance will fall short of what should be achieved. To illustrate that point, the European development fund represents about 5,500 million units of account, but the portion of that fund given to British industry is minuscule compared with what other member States have managed to grasp. That is because industry has not come forward with requests to tender for major contracts.
  A different perspective of Community membership was offered during a meeting with a German Minister. During our discussion, I asked, "I wonder for how much longer Germany will be the paymaster or the milch cow of Europe." I shall not repeat in English his exact words—he responded with ardour—but the tenor of his reply was "Do not talk arrant nonsense. For' every deutschmark that Germany puts into the Community, German industry benefits by three deutschmarks." As he put it, "Where can you get a better deal than that?"
  We shall get that kind of deal and we must benefit from that kind of involvement in our membership of the Community. It is up to industry, with the encouragement and stimulus of Government, to show that we can operate even more profitably and successfully than we are.
  In the normal way, I should never dream of talking about regional policy for the good reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman)
  464
  is a member of the European Parliament, is in a Committee and is recognised as being one of the most knowledgeable Members involved in this subject. We have to move away from the concept of substituting Community funds for national funds. Additionality must be the line that we should follow. Britain is not alone in this—every member State is falling short. We have to move more in the direction of the original intention that the regional funds would be additional to those from national Governments.
  I could not help being reminded, in the course of contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, of the trade union leaders pulling their voting cards out of their pockets and saying, "Here is my power." If that is, or were to be, the significance of the Luxembourg compromise, we should be doomed to disaster. It is not by the use of a veto that we shall achieve what Britain and the Community want. It will be by force of argument and by the determination of all who take part in Community activities—Government, Civil Service and industry alike.
  I cross swords with the Government on the subject of the size of the budget. It wall have to expand for a variety of reasons, each of which in itself would be the subject of a long debate in the House. Joining the EMS is a matter not just of timing but of political significance and again I do not subscribe to the views expressed on this point.
  My last point concerns civil servants. Some right hon. and hon. Members may ask what the debate has to do with civil servants. However, I wish that we would treat our civil servants, in the context of our membership of the Community, in the way that the French treat their civil servants. I commend to Ministers a close look at the full significance of this. No French civil servant who aspires to high office and influence will go anywhere unless he plays an energetic and dynamic role in the institutions of the Community. We should take a leaf out of that book.
  I strongly believe in the concept enuniciated by a former, well-respected right hon. Member of the House. I refer to a speech made by the late Sir Winston Churchill, in which he said that if Europe were to survive we had to move in the direction of a United States of Europe, or some such thing. I am not in the least concerned whether this is federal or confederal but I am determined—in my modest way I shall continue to play my role in this direction—to ensure that we move in the direction of unity of Europe. Without unity across the whole political spectrum, there is no future for Britain or Europe.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. David Stoddart: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normnanton) said that the debate was a re-run of the "in-out" argument. I have news for him. There will be many more re-runs of that argument, not only in the House but in the country. That is because many hon. Members and people in the country know perfectly well that we should never have gone into Europe and that we should not stay in Europe because our membership is inimical to Britain's best interests. Many people who voted to remain in Europe in the referendum have now come to the conclusion that they made the wrong decision. If they were given the opportunity, they would make a different decision now.
  Before we entered the EEC Britain was misled on every count by people who should have known better and who should have told the truth. We were told that going into Europe would enable is to take a great economic leap forward. We were told that we would sustain the cold wind

  465
  of competition that would make our industries blossom and make us more competitive in the huge market of 265 million people. The reverse has happened. Far from thriving in Europe, our membership of the Community has caused economic devastation, higher prices and many other ills that we could have avoided.
  There are few hon. Members in the House tonight to discuss this matter. There has grown up about the EEC a cynicism, a dislike and a feeling that the whole matter is irrelevant. However, people are mistaken. It is necessary to discuss the affairs of the EEC in detail on every possible occasion to see how Britains' influence and interests are being undermined by our memebrship of the Community.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said that hopes of a federal European State were dead. I assure my hon. Friend that they are not. Many hon. Members, particularly in the Social Democratic Party, would be delighted to see Britain merged into a federal European State.
  We must always be on our guard against that proposition. There is no doubt that some hon. Members have little regard for our present constitution or for the history of our people and little regard for, or at least understanding of, the future benefit of Britain. Therefore, they would be quite happy to see us merge into a federal European State, which is supposed to be the be-all and end-all. We must be ever-watchful that such people do not gain an influence in the House and the country that would enable them to undermine the British consitution that has lasted, developed and thrived over a thousand years.
  The document before the House is entitled "Developments in the European Community July-December 1981". It is worthless. There have been no developments during that period. There have been no developments in the CAP. We have been saying ever since we became members of the Community that the common agricultural policy upon which the whole Community is based must be reformed. Every six months a document comes before the House which says exactly the same. No reform has taken place. I assure the House that no reform will ever take place.
  The whole Community is based on the common agricultural policy. If the policy is undermined in any way, the Community will fall apart. Yet if the common agricultural policy is not reformed, this country will continue to get the neck of the chicken and the wrong end of the stick and will continue to be a big payer into Community finances. There have been no developments in the last six months or in any previous period of six months on the major and vital issue of the Common Market.
  We were assured before we entered the Community that, once we were a member, we would be able to reform the common agricultural policy. Is that not what we were told in 1975 during the referendum? It was argued that if only we could get into the Common Market we would be able to reform its institutions and change the Treaty of Rome. We have done nothing of the sort. We shall never be able to do anything of the sort. The sooner hon. Members realise that, the better it will be.
  There has been no real reform of our contribution to the budget, nor do I believe that there will be any. It is not in the interests of other powerful countries in the Community to bring that about.
  466
  Events have also gathered about us that show this country where its interests lie and those who are its friends. We saw during the Falklands crisis exactly those who would stand by us in a period of great trial. The first to come to our aid and comfort were the people we sold out in 1973—New Zealand and Australia. We almost crippled New Zealand's economy then. If some people had their way, its economy would be crippled even further.
  We saw how the EEC, at a crucial point in the negotiations at the United Nations, stabbed us in the back by refusing to continue sanctions for a reasonable period. We saw two members of the Community, one just across the water, withdraw sanctions completely and give comfort to an enemy that had invaded British territory and taken British people under its Fascist wing. We saw exactly who our friends were. They were not in Europe.
  Many of the countries of Europe stabbed us in the back one day and then, on the issue of the veto, held us to ransom the next. They were thinking of their own pockets and their own interests. They were prepared to take advantage of our trial and tribulation to line their pockets at the expense of the British consumer through higher prices in the shops.
  There were no real developments in the European Community in the six months to which the document relates. There were signs to show us who were our friends. I warn the House that even now suggestions and plans are being made further to injure those friends who supported us over the Falkland Islands dispute. There are plans to reduce the amount of New Zealand butter that can come into the country. If Eire, one of the countries which was least helpful to us, has its way, the amount of New Zealand butter entering the country will be reduced from 92,000 tonnes to 60,000 tonnes a year. That would be a devastating blow to New Zealand—to our people, who have been prepared to stand by us through thick and thin on many occasions. I hope that hon. Members will take note of what happened during those perilous times and of the people who stood by us and gave us not only moral support but material aid. I believe that hon. Members will eventually understand what they have to do.
  I want to refer to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It has not been moved.
  Mr. Stoddart: It is on the Order Paper. I am sorry that it has not been called. It would have been interesting if it had been.
  I understand the position of some Government Members. I believe that the feelings of members of the Conservative Party throughout the country are changing, and that the past six months have shown grass-roots Conservatives where they should go and where their loyalties should lie. Those Conservative Members who believed that they understood the EEC from the beginning have recently begun to understand it even more. They can take comfort from the new feeling in the Conservative Party. The amendment to the Opposition's amendment shows progress; it shows that Conservative Members are now prepared to stand up and be counted. I believe that the sooner more of them do that the sooner the country will realise its true potential, understand its heritage and withdraw from the absurd European Community.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) made interesting and direct comments, some of which I agree with. His remark that New Zealand has always stood by us in time of need is particularly relevant in the light of the recent events in the South Atlantic.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) also made a good speech. He would not expect me to agree with all his conclusions, but I hope that he will not be too offended if I tell him that he speaks much better from the Front Bench than from the Back Benches. I hope that that does him no harm.
  My hon. friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) mentioned the aids that were available from Europe. When the taxpayer is told that we contribute Y to the European coffers and get back Z, and that he has to pay the difference, and, on top of that, that we are getting money from Europe, I wonder what he thinks. All the money coming from Europe is merely British taxpayers' money recycled. We should be honest. It is a disservice to any organisation to pretend that it is different from what it is.
  I do not believe that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) really believes that Members of the European Parliament go there merely to draw expenses. The next thing that he will tell us is that Scottish Members come here merely to draw expenses. The expenses that I can draw would be the last thing that would encourage me to come here. We come here, and I imagine that the MEPs go to Europe, to influence what happens. But some of the things that come from the European Parliament make me wonder what they are doing. Seen from the United Kingdom's position, some of those things are frightening.
  I fully support the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor). Because of the time, I shall not go over in detail what they covered.
  We must start to look at fundamentals. In the six months under review much has happened in Europe and in the United Kingdom. Low productivity, endemic high inflation, high unit labour costs and the low profitability that has bedevilled us for many years are not a result of our membership of the EEC. The failings of management and the intransigence of the unions will not be altered by the fact of our being inside or outside the EEC.
  We must consider whether our membership of the Community as it is presently run is helping or hindering our prospects of improving our economic performance. Sadly, it does little to help us in these difficult times. If we cannot help ourselves to sort out our problems our standard of living will continue to deteriorate. That is why, with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham, I put my name to the amendment which has not been selected.
  Statements about trade, and in particular trade in manufactured goods, generally concentrate on the number of jobs that depend on exports to other EEC countries. I have looked at the figures. We sell in surplus to the rest of the world and in deficit in manufactured goods to Europe, so we must consider the jobs involved in exports to countries outside Europe. I repeat that our efficiency in trading depends not on the potential of a market of 255 million individuals, but on our capability to penetrate and
  468
  to perform consistently in the market inside or outside Europe. What is important is that we recognise that we must sort out our problems.
  For a long time I have been disturbed about the discrimination within Europe against insurance companies. The British insurance companies are the finest in the world, and I am pleased to say that the largest employer in my constituency is an insurance company. That corporation regularly performs well world-wide, but it could perform better in Europe if it were not discriminated against. That is contrary to all that we were told when we agreed to enter the EEC.
  I should like to comment on the trade embargo with the Argentine during the difficulties in the South Atlantic. I welcome the support that we received from the majority of European countries, but I regard the behaviour of the Irish Government as despicable. Once again, they stabbed us in the back. I have said that they stabbed us in the back, but let us consider what is happening. One of the whisky companies in my constituency has built up trade with the Argentine during the last 17 years to the point where turnover is now £3 million or 30 per cent. of whisky sales to the Argentine. That should be remembered by the Government, particularly when the Scottish people speak out against the action of the Irish Government and how member States behaved or did not behave.
  Scotch whisky is in world-wide competition with Irish whiskey, and that fact should not be forgotten—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) should not shake his head. Scotch may not be in competition in the Palace of Westminster, but it certainly is world-wide. The Scotch whisky industry has a remarkable export record. One does not need to be terribly clever to know that if sales to the Argentine are adversely affected on a permanent basis Irish whiskey will be sold instead and, therefore, the Irish will benefit at our expense. That will influence the way in which the electors of Perth and East Perthshire will judge the behaviour of Community members. In particular, they will look carefully at the way in which the Irish have behaved.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: I agree with the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but why does he think that the Irish Republic should be faithful supporters of the British Government?
  Mr. Walker: I was viewing the Irish as members of the EEC. We have been told that Europe works collectively on matters that affect a member or the Community as a whole. The behaviour of the West Germans, French and others during the South Atlantic conflict was impeccable, but the Irish Government deliberately stabbed us in the back. That must he placed on record and remembered.
  When the EEC seventh directive on VAT on used vehicles comes into operation, I believe that it will cause considerable problems to United Kingdom distributors of used vehicles, such as garages. I shall not bore the House with details, because I do not have time, but if the directive is implemented as intended people selling second hand cars will find that they are paying more VAT than the profit that they can possibly make.
  However one looks at that, it makes no sense. Anyone who handles VAT knows that that cannot happen with the input-output arrangement. But this can and will happen, and something must be done about it. The lesson from

  469
  West Germany is that the distributors of new cars do not sell second hand cars. Those of us who trade our cars in for new ones will find that we shall have to go to Charlie or somebody else down the road. The whole thing will turn into an enormous problem, so we must deal with it quickly.
  I am not anti-Europe. That is on record. At the beginning I worked to keep us out of Europe, but since going into Europe I have worked strenuously with the party to make Europe work. I still want it to work, but unless there are fundamental changes I believe that the Labour Party's posture of withdrawal from Europe will have more and more appeal for the British electorate. We must recognise that that will not benefit the Conservative Party, Europe or Great Britain. Therefore, we must ensure that those fundamental changes take place and that we benefit from them.
  9 pm
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I shall be brief because of the time. I entirely agree with the last remark of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker).
  I wish to make three points. The first was appropriately raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who opened for the Opposition. Our country's record of Community achievement is one of unrelieved failure. That point does not need labouring at this stage of the debate. We have failed to achieve any fundamental reform. The soothing and anodyne words in the various sections of the document have been repeated ad nauseam over the past six to seven years under Governments of both parties and we have got nowhere.
  I am looking forward, as other hon. Members must be, to the next report which will cover the period of our dismal failure over the Luxembourg compromise on majority voting. It will be interesting to see what anodyne expressions will be used to paper over not a crack but a fissure in the structure and fabric of the Community.
  My second brief point is about trade, as the Minister for Trade is present. Will he say why Ministers keep boasting about the increasing proportion of our trade, particularly exports, which goes to the European Community? What difference does it make whether we sell a motor car in Germany, Japan or Brazil? What matters is the total volume of our trade, not whether the proportion going to one part of the world is growing or contracting. There can be nothing inherently good in a greater proportion of a given volume of exports going to one particular part of the world.
  My third point is about political co-operation. I see great dangers here, although this seems to be our only success story in the Common Market. The first danger, concerns a common foreign policy. I shall not belabour it as it arose in Question Time a short while ago, when the Minister gave a Delphic answer to a question that I and others had raised about the difference between a common foreign policy and political co-operation. He said that the one depended on the other, but he did not make it clear whether the Government favoured or opposed the emergence of a common foreign policy.
  The second danger has already been seen. The Commission and the federalists in Europe, having noted
  470
  the success of political co-operation, will increasingly wish to bring it within the treaty framework of the Community because it is the one success story. That is why we were recently confronted with that absurd document—a draft European Act. It was indefensible and full of Community jargon. I hope that we have seen the last of it, although I suspect that we have not.
  The third danger is that of confusing political cooperation with the functions of NATO. We have seen that political co-operation in the EEC can sometimes produce a view, such as that on the Middle East, that is different from that of the United States. That is all well and good, but there is an increasing danger that political co-operation within the Community will try to cover defence and security matters. If there is to be co-ordination of defence and security policy, it must be within the NATO context, not in the Common Market, if only for the simple reason that NATO includes the United States—a pillar of the Western Alliance—and the EEC does not. We must avoid confusion and overlapping. We must keep the Common Market out of defence and security matters and retain NATO for the discussion of those important issues.
  There is a gap to which I must draw the Minister's attention. Where do the United States, Britain and other Western European powers jointly discuss foreign policy? At the moment, there is no machinery for such discussions. Political co-operation in the EEC does not cover our friends across the Atlantic. The NATO council excludes several nations that are in the Common Market. Nor does it cover wider political issues.
  There is an urgent need for new political consultation machinery at ministerial level to cover our friends across the Atlantic. We saw much confusion about Poland when Solidarity was banned and the military took over. It was discussed within both NATO and the Common Market. There was a great deal of confusion in the Western Alliance as a result of that division of discussion and responsibility. I hope that the Minister will say something about the Government's thinking on the matter for the future.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Most hon. Members attend all debates on European matters. Nevertheless, they tend to be rather similar. I hope that the Minister, his colleagues in the Foreign Office and the rest of the Government will realise that there has been one difference today—the majority of Conservative Back Benchers do not agree with the Government's approach to Europe. Indeed, they want major structural change. They disapprove of moves towards any type of political union or federalism. Perhaps the Government will note that there is a Conservative amendment and that the majority of Conservative Back Benchers do not agree with the way that the Government are going.
  I hope that the Minister of State will accept a few points. First, with regard to reform, the six months have been a complete non-event. We have always talked of the need to reform the CAP and the budget. The past six months were different because there were not just the usual words; there was a mandate. It was decided that such reform had to take place by a given date. Far from reforming the CAP, we agreed to higher price rises than even the Commission suggested. Moreover, surpluses will be much higher.

  471
  How on earth do the Government believe that we will achieve any reform in the CAP when we have not done so in the circumstances of the past few months? How on earth will we reform the budget? The Prime Minister has worked hard to get rebates, but once again, we must now pay £500 million net per year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) tells us in every debate on these matters about the wonderful so-called European money that is being spent in the North-West where there is almost the highest unemployment in Europe. Because of the silly funds, for every pound that the EEC spends on sewers in Lancashire and elsewhere the British taxpayer must pay £1·72. Without the silly funds and money going back and forth, we could spend an extra £3,000 million on the sewers of Lancaster and the problems in Perth and East Perthshire that exist in spite of the excellent way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) represents that area.
  There has been no progress with the food mountains. Does the Minister appreciate that it has just been revealed that the Common Market spends £8 million every day on exporting cheap food to third countries? That is a staggering amount. It means that since we started the debate, the Common Market has spent about £3 million of our money ensuring that foreigners have much cheaper food than we can supply to our own people. We know that that is wrong.
  It is scandalous that the Russians should be propped up with so much money. In every debate the Government say that that is wrong and that something must be done about the cheap food that is going to Russia. What has happened? Two years ago almost 1 million tonnes of cheap food went to Russia. We were told that that was an outrage. Everyone from the Foreign Office to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was going to get that sorted out. We were told that the exports would be restricted to traditional levels. In 1980 the figure was not 1 million, but 2 million tonnes. The figure in 1981 was not 2 million tonnes but 3 million tonnes, so the exports of cheap food to Russian have soared.
  There has been no reform or movement. The most worrying aspect is trade and jobs. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. We were told that jobs would be safer in the Common Market. We have seen what has happened. We used to sell as much to Europe in manufactures as it sold to us. That was a good and pleasant relationship. We had a profit in trade and manufactures in every one of the 10 years before we joined the Common Market. However, the situation has become worse until last year with Germany alone we had a deficit of about £2,000 million, double the deficit with Japan.
  The Minister kindly revealed to me only the other day that over the past six months our deficit in manufacturing trade was £ll million a day with the Common Market. Our profit with the rest of the world was £15 million a day. That represents many jobs. If Europe is selling us £l1 million more in manufacturing trade per day then we are selling to it, that means a lot of jobs. It sickens me when we are told about the tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost in Britain because of Japanese exports.
  Conservatives must rethink the issue of the Common Market. The Labour Party is doing so. There is a splendid article by Bob Rowthorn in Marxism Today. He said that Socialists now realised that the way to achieve Socialism was to stay in the Common Market. Let the Government
  472
  look at New Socialist, where Francis Cripps and 'Terry Ward, two of the closest supporters and advisers of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), say that the EMS should be supported and expanded. The CAP is a splendid thing, they say, if we could have a similar industrial policy.
  Let the Government look at the article in New Statesman, where Ann Clwyd says why she now supports the Common Market. It is time that the Conservative Party realised that many of the hard Left believe that they can achieve real Socialism in Britain by staying in the Common Market, on the present relationship. It is time that we started rethinking, just as Labour's Left is now doing.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Guy Barnett: The document that we have been debating and the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends has enabled the House to have a wide debate. I have listened with great interest to the majority of speeches.
  The debate has centred, inevitably, on the three objectives that Lord Carrington set out at the beginning of the British Presidency and which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) quoted. Those objectives were to deal with three main problems: first, the costs and surpluses that arise from the common agricultural policy; secondly, the proportion of the budget that is currently spent on agriculture; and, thirdly, the unacceptable aspect of the budget, which creates an inequitable situation between member States, especially for the United Kingdom. The issues are of major concern to us in Britain and have been mentioned repeatedly during the debate.
  Other matters have come up during the debate. I hope to refer to some later. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to trade and employment. Fisheries, which was debated in the House last week, was also mentioned. I listened, as everyone did, with interest to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) speaking about the degree to which political co-operation as an objective is a process that is designed to lead, and will lead inevitably, if unchecked, to political union.
  I shall spend a little time on the CAP and the budget, because the targets of the then Foreign Secretary were unrealistic and have subsequently proved to be so. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) mentioned the fact that time and again, before we went into the EEC and (luring the referendum, we were assured by those who were in favour of entry that we would be able to alter the Common Market from inside and that that was why we should go in.
  The argument was that we would be able to alter the Common Market to suit our own priorities and requirements. I find it surprising, therefore, to see the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and others and to hear him suggesting dial: it is still possible, after all our experience so far, to change the terms of membership of the EEC. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that he is talking in practical terms?
  We were told years ago, before we entered, that: we could change the EEC from inside, but the common agricultural policy remains intact. The Continental system

  473
  of industrial preference remains, and so does a budget contribution mechanism that is designed to exact from the United Kingdom a disproportionately heavy contribution.
  What makes matters worse—and this has properly been mentioned over and over again—was what happened on 18 May, when the Luxembourg compromise was overruled. Far from making progress during our Presidency, and subsequently, matters have become even worse.
  I read with interest an article in The Sunday Times of 23 May by Ronald Butt. He quoted an anonymous senior Conservative Back Bencher who said:
  "All Government statements when we went into the Community, and my own speeches, assumed that the ultimate safeguard of the veto in our national interest was there. I would never have been able to persuade my constituents, or myself, that it was right to join but for the veto."
  I hope that that senior Back Bench Conservative agrees with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Faversham, because the Minister of State gave no assurances today. Many other hon. Members including my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) agree with me on that.
  In answer to my question on 7 July the Minister of State said that since 18 May the Luxembourg convention had not been breached again—that was remarkable, for one or two weeks—and that what counted was how decisions were taken in future. We all agree on that. However, the fact is that the convention has been breached, and what worries me and many other hon. Members is that, after all the huffing and puffing from the Government immediately after 18 May, things have gone remarkably quiet. Therefore, I suggest that Conservative hon. Members who think that there is a real chance of changing the Common Market from the inside should think seriously again.
  It has been suggested that we should take some comfort from the fact that the share of budget resources now devoted to agriculture has declined. I believe that that is due to temporary factors in world markets, which has enabled the EEC to cut export subsidies paid to dump surpluses on world markets. The evidence is that the long-term picture is bleak.
  A study recently completed by British and American economists at Stamford University shows that the budgetary cost of the common agricultural policy is likely to rise by the end of this decade from about 11 billion or 12 billion ECU's to nearly 44 billion ECU's. That is a threefold increase. It typifies the mad logic of the whole common agricultural policy. It is illustrated by the farm settlements of last year and this year. There is no escape from that.
  Every European country has institutionalised farm lobbies, with ministries to take account of their interests. A mechanism is built into the whole system for the creation of surpluses. Our membership of the Common Market commits us to a system that guarantees the creation of agricultural surpluses as a means of raising the incomes of farmers in Europe, in some cases to extremely high levels. It also commits us to the disposal of those surpluses on to world markets, dumped at subsidised prices, thus depressing world prices and destroying the livelihood of farmers in the Third world.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the degree to which subsidies are used in the disposal of surpluses to countries behind the
  474
  Iron Curtain. That is serious enough, but I find much more serious the disposal of surpluses on to world markets that depress world prices and have such damaging effects on people in the developing world who are trying to earn a living.
  In no case is that more serious than with sugar. Several of the poorer countries export over 80 per cent. of their sugar production, and for many of them it is a major source of employment. It is subject anyway to the devastating consequences of fluctuations in the international sugar market. World sugar stocks, at the end of 1981–82, are forecast to have been at 36 per cent. of world consumption—the highest figure ever.
  Between 1971 and 1977 the Common Market contributed to a quarter of world sugar production increase through the planting of beet. It subsidises beet production, it protects beet sugar producers against cane producers in the Third world, and it still refuses to sign the international sugar agreement, although it benefits from it as a free rider. One illustration of the result is that in the second half of 1979 Jamaica needed to produce 2·7 times as much sugar to buy exactly the same amount of manufactured goods as it did in 1970.
  Another example of the serious effect of the common agricultural policy on the Third world is in terms of food aid. Katherina Focke, in a report which I believe she made to the European Assembly, made the following damning comment on the Community's food aid policy. She said that it
  "is dictated by agricultural interests rather than any intention to promote development; it is an inefficient way of distributing European surplus production to the poorer countries, associated with high costs, countless mishaps, delays, wrangling over responsibility and bureaucratic obstacles."
  A Select Committee in another place on the European Communities' report on "Development Aid Policy" points up the damaging effect which indiscriminate distribution of food surpluses can have in the Third world. The report says:
  "Although the dangers of food aid can be avoided, the way in which the EEC proceeds to give food aid makes it as difficult as it can be to ensure that the negative effects are avoided and positive effects are attained."
  What it does, in effect, is to depress prices in the countries where it is distributed, bankrupt local farmers, who are desperately trying to make a living and to help themselves, and at the same time fails to meet the needs of those who are really starving. So long as we remain a member of the EEC, we are a party to those policies and we are helping to pay for them.
  The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) says from time to time that withdrawal from the Common Market by Britain would involve a retreat from internationalism. I am interested to note her absence this evening, and that of the dog that did not bark in the night, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who ought to have been here to defend the EEC. I heard the right hon. Member for Crosby make that remark about retreating from internationalism when thousands of people came to the House to lobby us about the Brandt report. But this is not internationalism. At worst it is international brigandage. At best it is an attempt to move not towards internationalism but towards the creation of a larger country—a sort of economic autarchy—regardless of the cost that it imposes and the damage that it does to some of the poorest people in the world.

  475
  I shall be told that there is the Lomé convention, which guarantees access to the products of the ACP countries. A recent accession to the Lomé convention as a new ACP country is Zimbabwe, also a new member of the Commonwealth. The House should hear what the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe said about the Common Market's treatment of the Third world, particularly through the Lomé convention and the way it affects his country. This is a quotation from The Times dated 28 May:
  "Mr. Robert Mugabe, Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, told the European Commission that his country was 'gravely concerned by the protectionist measures adopted by the Community', in restricting some exports from Lomé Convention countries to the EEC.
  This, he said, was a clear violation of the commitment entered into under the terms of the convention. Maize, wheat, bran and offal were all affected by these measures, he said, while tariffs on Lomé exports of cocoa and butter, and safeguard measures on poultry exports, were also contrary to the conventions.
  The result of this, he said, was that the Lomé share of EEC markets had fallen from 7 per cent. to 5·5 per cent. in a year, while the EEC increased its exports to the Lomé market by 4 per cent. over the same period. This, in turn, had limited the investment capacities of the Lomé states, and made urgent corrective measures necessary".
  I repeat that so long as we remain in the Common Market we are parties to those policies and are paying for them. It forces us to discriminate against Commonwealth countries in a host of ways.
  One of the most damaging forms of discrimination—damaging in terms of good relations between this country and Commonwealth countries—is the treatment of overseas students. The Government have instituted a system of full costs for overseas students, involving tuition fees of between £2,000 and £3,000 a year, despite opposition from Labour Members. If a student is not supported by the ODA, the British Council, or under the Commonwealth Fellowship plan, he or she has to pay the full cost—unless, of course, the student comes from the Common Market or from a French dependent territory such as Martinique. Then the student pays only about £700. If the student comes from Hong Kong or the Falkland Islands, he or she has to pay the full cost.
  I have some interesting figures which show that between 1979–80 and 1980–81 there was an 11 per cent. increase in EEC-based students, a 43 per cent. drop in students from the Caribbean, and a 24 per cent. drop in students from the Third world Commonwealth as a whole. Is that internationalism? Does it show any regard for the education needs of the Third world?
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon mentioned the Falkland Islands. The Common Market received much publicity for the grudging support that it gave us during that period. The right hon. Member for Hillhead made this remark in an article in The Guardian of 7 June:
  "We should have been aware that the Community thought we owed them some gratitude over Argentine sanctions."
  I contrast that with the remark that was made by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Shridath Ramphal, speaking on behalf of many desperately poor countries in the world which backed us to the full, along with New Zealand, Australia and many others:
  "In making a firm and unambiguous response to Argentine aggression Britain is rendering a service to the international community as a whole".
  Mr. Normanton: May I put to the hon. Gentleman a situation that could arise? Let us suppose that Britain were to withdraw from the European Community. Is the hon.
  476
  Gentleman seriously and honestly saying that the developing countries that are members of the Lomé convention would come out of the convention and sever their relationship with the Community and align themselves with us? If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, he is living in a world that is divorced from reality.
  Mr. Barnett: I am not saying that those countries would tear up the Lomé agreement. In so far as it is of any benefit to them, hope that they will continue to operate in Lomé, but I hope that we, having come out of the EEC, would give better terms to the Third world than the Common Market does. However, I shall say more on that subject in a moment.
  The Opposition amendment refers, very properly, to British interests. Perhaps the most serious damage done to our interests has been in trade. I am glad that the Minister for Trade is on the Front Bench. Normally, Britain imports nearly half of its food and most of its raw materials and pays for them by earning a surplus in manufactures. Therefore, we must trade predominantly with those countries that find it cheaper to buy their manufactures from us rather to make them themselves, or we must trade with countries that can sell us food more cheaply than we can grow it.
  The EEC countries do not belong in either of these categories. Nearly all of our natural trading partners are Commonwealth countries. That is a fact that has nothing to do with political sentiment or trading preference. Politically motivated interference with natural trading patterns can only damage our economy and since we entered the EEC the evidence is that it has done so. It is remarkable that our trade with the rest of the world in 1980 was £5,000 million in surplus, although we no longer enjoy preferential treatment there and are denied the chance of giving non-EEC countries reciprocal advantages in the EEC markets.
  It is right that our amendment should deal with British interests, but the debate is about something more fundamental. A well-known gentleman, Mr. Mansholt, said:
  "The Common Market is not just about the price of butter."
  We joined the Common Market at a time when Britain was losing its position and influence in world affairs and when we felt our political and economic power slipping away. We made a fundamental mistake then, but today our membership of the Common Market is irrelevant, not merely to our interests, but to the contribution that we should be making in a dangerous and divided world. There are mounting problems of poverty, deprivation, unemployment and insolvency in the Third world, and what do we do? We belong to an association that ensures that our market gives preference to Common Market producers over Third world producers. We subscribe to a system that results in the disposal of surpluses in world markets, which makes it more and more difficult for Third world countries to make a living for themselves and to solve their problems of economic and social development.
  That is not internationalism, but the creation of a larger nationalism—a "fortress Europa". R.H. Tawney said:
  "A poor society cannot be too poor to find a right order of life, nor a rich society too rich to have need of it."
  That is the issue, and that is why I support the Labour Party's policy to seek disengagement from the Treaty of Rome.
  9.32 pm
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Peter Rees): After an interval of some years, it is a great privilege for me to take part in a debate on the European Community. It is an important subject. We have had a coruscating debate and a charming consistency in the views of most of those who have taken part. I have taken the precaution of reading the most recent debates, for example, on the Genscher-Colombo proposals, on fisheries policy and earlier reports on Community affairs. The same names appear and the views expressed do not alter perceptibly, which perhaps adds substance to them. We must refine those opinions during the debates.
  I turn, first, to the contribution by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), who rode tandem with his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). They identified certain weaknesses in the Community that this Administration recognise, as doubtless did previous Labour Administrations. As is evident from the document before us, we hoped to correct those weaknesses during our Presidency and, as we did not entirely succeed in so doing, we hope to do it in the years to come. We set out with high hopes, but a Presidency lasts for only six months, which is rather less than the parliamentary year. If we reflect on how much or how little we achieve during one Parliament, it may put our efforts in one Presidency into slightly better perspective.
  I readily concede that we need fundamental changes in the common agricultural policy, the budget and the direction of resources into industry and services. Those points were made by both Opposition spokesmen and by many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I am always a little surprised by the contributions from the Opposition Front Bench, because there is total amnesia about the renegotiation in 1975. I recognise that the hon. Member for Walton has a stainless record on that matter and that the hon. Member for Greenwich was not a member of that Administration. It must have been hard for the Shadow Cabinet to find two Members who could speak with such robustness about the problems but who did not carry the burden of what was apparently not achieved in those renegotiations.
  I remind the House—although it may not be necessary—of what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) said in his opening speech on 7 April 1975:
  "My judgment, on an assessment of all that has been achieved and all that has changed"—
  that is as a result of negotiations
  "is that to remain in the Community is best for Britain, for Europe, for the Commonwealth, for the Third World and the wider world".—[Official Report, 7 April 1975; Vol. 889, c. 837.]
  Mr. John Silkin: He was wrong.
  Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman says that the right hon. Member for Huyton was wrong. It is easy to disown one's former leaders.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I voted against it.
  Mr. Rees: All credit to the hon. Gentleman, but he was in a small minority in the Labour Party at that time.
  Mr. Jay: Does the Minister recall that not only did my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) and I vote against the proposals, but that the Conservative Party voted wholly in favour of them?
  Mr. Rees: We certainly did, and there is no shame in that. We recognised that, as the right hon. Member for Huyton said, to remain in the Community would benefit Britain, Europe and—I say this to the hon. Member for Greenwich—the wider world.
  How shall we approach the problem in future if, contrary to my hope and expectation, a Labour Government are returned to power at the next general election? The hon. Member for Walton owes it to the House and certainly to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to give a clearer statement of the Labour Party's position.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich made special play of the problems of overseas students. He will know that the Overseas Students Trust produced a paper that has been considered carefully. It is not for me to forecast the result of the consideration, but there could be an amelioration of the position.
  As to sugar, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Foreign Affairs Council agreed in January to an increase in the price offered for ACP sugar this year from 7·5 per cent. to 8·5 per cent. We shall remain closely in touch with the international sugar organisation about the development of the international sugar agreement, but, as no changes seem to be proposed to the structure, we are bound to have reservations about the result of the agreement.
  The intervention of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was coloured by his special brand of sardonic wit and his fastidious preoccupation with language. His argument appeared to be that it was idle to try to reconcile the foreign policies of Community members unless there was an institutional framework. Unless one has such a formal link, no weight could be given to the views and they would simply be a coincidental expression of opinions by the member States. I did not grasp the force of that argument. It would still be to our advantage and to that of the world to know that ten countries of comparable outlook, with strong economic ties through the Community, could approach a problem with the same view and with the same objective in mind.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman is always keen to see that form is matched to substance, but in this instance I should have thought that there was plenty of substance underlying the co-ordination of our foreign policy. Nor could I accept his proposition, either in logic or fact, that everything gained by the Community is necessarily something lost to the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was courteous enough to tell me that he would not be here for the wind-up speeches. He, like many other hon. Members, touched on the palpable breach of the Luxembourg compromise, about which there can be no argument. The position was clearly, lucidly and adequately covered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State when he opened the debate. However, we expect to see this convention continue.
  It is not for me to speculate on the precise position of those who have breached the compromise, but I imagine that they will reflect on the implications of what has occurred. It may be necessary to reconsider in the future what constitutes a vital national interest in this context.
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. He is very courteous to do so at this stage. Is he aware that the House and the country joined the Community on the basis of the Luxembourg

  479
  compromise operating? There is no doubt about that. We have discovered now that it does not operate. Is it not time that the Government did something about that?
  Mr. Rees: I recall, perhaps more clearly than my hon. Friend since I was in the House at the time, the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). I recall the important part that he took in those debates. However, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is jumping to conclusions rather hastily in assuming that the compromise is entirely defunct. I suspect that we shall find that it still has considerable validity and will govern the debates in the Community. If it turns out to be defunct, that is a different position, which we shall have to reconsider.
  Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman clarify one point, which is of great importance? The Government have, on a number of occasions, made a clear statement that they intend to stand by the Luxembourg compromise and accept that it is an agreement to disagree. We do not know quite what that means, but apparently it means that they want to accept the previous position. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman now saying that the Government are moving away from that clear statement to the House? Surely that is the Government once again giving way under pressure from the rest of the Common Market?
  Mr. Rees: Nothing like that can be construed either out of what I have said or out of what my right hon. Friend has said. My right hon. Friend may have put it a little more eloquently, at greater length and more clearly than I have. However, I rest on what he and I have said. If the hon. Member for Walton has any doubt, he can study Hansard tomorrow.
  I shall now answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
  Mr. Stoddart rose—
  Mr. Rees: Time is rather against us. I have given way a great deal already. I shall come to the contribution of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart).
  Mr. Jay rose—
  Mr. Rees: I know that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), with commendable patience, has sat through much of the debate without contributing. Perhaps he will allow me to proceed a little further.
  Mr. Jay: This is a matter of some importance. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had made the matter clear. He said that the Luxembourg compromise was not entirely defunct. Is it now the Government's policy that it is only partially defunct?
  Mr. Rees: I was merely stating my view of a set of circumstances and facts that had nothing to do with Government policy. I was merely asked to respond—
  Mr. Ioan Evans rose—
  Mr. Rees: I shall not give way on this point any more. Otherwise, I shall not be able to do justice to the contributions of hon. Members. In addition, if time permits, I have one or two small things to say on my own account. Surely that is permitted to the Minister who replies.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South asked whether the Community could impose any fresh taxes that would
  480
  be binding on Britain without the authority of the House. The answer is clearly "No". That would have to be by the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers, ratified by the House. I hope that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Rees: No, I shall not give way. I have made the position clear. I could not have made it clearer.
  Mr. Spearing: I did not ask that question.
  Mr. Rees: It is the hon. Gentleman's good fortune that he has attributed to him an important constitutional point. He will now be better informed and will not have to raise it on another occasion.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Rees: We have heard from the hon. Member for Newham, South in Common Market debates on many occasions. I hope that he will now allow me to continue.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Rees: I am not giving way to the hon. Member for Newham, South. I could not make my position clearer.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. and learned Gentleman dare not give way.
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown)—speaking I assume on behalf of the Social Democratic Party—raised several specific points. His first point concerned the anti-poverty programme that is discussed in paragraph 9.11. That was considered by the Council of Ministers in the spring. It is a small but valuable programme to which the Government certainly subscribe.
  The hon. Gentleman then raised the Community energy strategy that is referred to in paragraph 10.4 That was considered at the Council of Energy Ministers this month, and useful conclusions were reached on coal. More work has to be done on a coal programme that would certainly benefit the United Kingdom as Western Europe's largest coal producer. The hon. Gentleman also touched on the Vredeling report. I cannot promise progress on that highly controversial report. I do not think that the Government would subscribe to many of the propositions enshrined in it.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), as one would expect, raised many points. He attempted to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was selling out the British fishing industry. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Minister has kept closely in touch with the fishing industry and, in negotiating, he has its full support.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to Japan, which leads to some general points on trade to which I hope the House will let me turn. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)—to whose contribution I hope that I shall have time to come if interventions allow—said that the imbalance in our trade with Germany is about the same as the imbalance in our trade with Japan. However, there are two fundamental differences to which I would draw the attention of the House.
  First, the Japanese penetration of our market is in one or two narrow sectors and is therefore rather more destructive to British industry than is that of Germany.

  481
  Secondly, the German market is open to our exporters, while we have considerable reservations about the difficulties encountered by British exporters in the Japanese market. There is a great range of barriers and difficulties to be encountered there.
  It has been the Government's consistent policy as part of the European Community to bring pressure to bear on our friends in Japan to ensure that we have the same free access to their markets as they have to ours. As a result of that pressure during the United Kingdom Presidency, an emergency import package was announced by the Japanese Government to reduce the surplus on its current account, and there was a clear statement of its intention to introduce the tariff reductions agreed in the Tokyo round two years earlier than planned.
  Beyond that, an ombudsman was appointed to handle complaints by foreign companies. I hope that British companies will take advantage of that. Subsequently, just before the Versailles summit this summer, Prime Minister Suzuki announced a further package of measures. He has publicly encouraged the import of goods and has set up an inquiry into Japanese distribution networks. In the case of Japan and, indeed, in relation to other trade questions, the United Kingdom carries more clout as a member of the European Community than it would do on its own.
  I was happy to hear the commendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) of the United Kingdom's Presidency. My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on these matters. He suggested that the United Kingdom has not yet learnt adequately how to influence events in the European Community. One of the biggest disadvantages from which we suffer is that a major party in our parliamentary system still seems not to have learnt the true lessons of our adherence to the Common Market and still seems dedicated to taking us out. The precise terms on which we would be taken out must be explored in any way open to us.
  The hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) drew particular attention to the trade figures. The hon. Gentleman asked why Department of Trade Ministers boasted of an increase in our trade. I am not conscious of having boasted of any increase in our trade with the European Community. I merely stated it as fact to underline the importance of the European Community as a market for our industry and the people who work in it.
  Hon. Members will have studied with admiration the powerful article in The Times today of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. My hon. Friend has also produced a great pamphlet for the Monday Club. He and the hon. Member for Walton should perhaps get together. The hon. Member for Walton and his right hon. and hon. Friends have their reservations about the European Community. They feel that it will impede the introduction of full blooded Socialist policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East seems to feel that our membership of the European Community will facilitate the introduction of these policies. It is difficult for me to intervene in this specialised debate.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Why does not the Minister extend his reading? If he reads New Socialist and Marxism Today, he will see that a great fundamental change is
  482
  taking place on the extreme Left of the Labour Party where it is realised that the real road to Socialism lies through institutions like the CAP, which is a Socialist nonsense.
  Mr. Rees: Why bother to read the backroom boys when we can hear it all from the Front Benches? This is a specialised debate that I feel I should leave to the hon. Member for Walton and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East to resolve between themselves.
  I wish to refer briefly to steel. I regret that there is not more time available. The United States Administration has imposed countervailing duties on the products of a number of Western European steel companies and is in the middle of an anti-dumping investigation. In the case of the United Kingdom, these duties affect principally the British Steel Corporation but also some private producers. The countervailing tariff in respect of the British Steel Corporation amounts to 40 per cent. It would, I believe, if not modified or rescinded, effectively shut out about 200,000 tonnes of British Steel's exports to the United States.
  While we recognise that the United States' steel industry is, in a period of world recession, going through a difficult time, we cannot accept that debts written off by Her Majesty's Government or moneys introduced into British Steel by the British taxpayer to restructure it and to reduce its capacity from 24 million tonnes a year to about 13½ million tonnes and to halve its work force can be regarded in any sense as a subsidy to exports to the United States. Such a view would, we feel, involve a travesty of the facts. I stated as much to Commerce Secretary Baldrige who, it will interest the House to know, commended, in a speech that he made recently to Congress, what the British Steel Corporation has done.
  Intense representations have been made by European steel companies, by individual Governments and by the Commission to the United States Administration but so far, I regret, without success. A further attempt by the five European countries most directly affected, including the United Kingdom, and orchestrated by the Commission, will be undertaken during the next few days to beat the American legislative deadline on 24 July. I cannot predict the outcome of that attempt.
  The Community is extremely disturbed by that and other transatlantic trade developments. The Community has raised at GATT those countervailing duties as contravening GATT rules. At my insistence the European Community will also raise a new United States copyright law which has just passed through Congress over a presidential veto. It will have the effect of restricting the printing of many English language books sold in the United States of America. We regard that as a damaging and protectionist measure. Finally, there is the trans-Siberian pipeline. I emphasise that while we share their detestation of what happened in Poland, and the principles, practices and policies of the USSR, we feel that the burden of any economic measures taken against the Soviet Union should be shared fairly.
  The Government were not slow earlier in the year to put together a tough package of economic measures aimed at both Poland and the Soviet Union, but we object strongly to the introduction by the United States Administration of measures which are extra—territorial and retrospective in their effect without full and detailed consultation. For that

  483
  reason we have activated the first part of the Protection of Trading Interest Act. If the position requires it, we shall not hesitate to bring that Act fully into effect.
  It is evident that the European Community—I know that the Opposition may have reservations—is the central focus for Great Britain's trade. During the past decade our exports to the Community grew at twice the pace of those to the outside world. I state that as a fact, not a boast, because it reflects no particular credit on me or the Government. Exports reached a level of over £20½ billion in 1980. British industry has carried out a more far-reaching reorganisation over the past 30 years than any country in Europe. It has involved massive changes, as the more technologically demanding markets of Western Europe have taken the place of the relatively less sophisticated markets of the Commonwealth in their importance to our trade and economy.
  However one regards the aspirations expressed by the hon. Member for Greenwich, that is commercial fact, and we should fly in the face of reality if we imagined that that trend could be reversed without considerable damage to British industry, as has been pointed out by the CBI. The Opposition Front Bench owe it to the House and the country to explain clearly what their policy is. Is it, as stated by their discussion paper, to which the hon. Member for Walton put his name in July 1981, to withdraw without further ado if they are returned to power, and to negotiate an agreement with the European Community afterwards? I shall willingly give way to the hon. Member for Walton if he will clarify that. Is it now the Opposition's declared policy that in the event of the Labour Party forming the next Government it will, without negotiation, withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Community?
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman obviously did not listen to my speech. I made it absolutely clear that we reject outright withdrawal, and that we would negotiate our withdrawal from the Common Market on the basis of proper agreements. That is what I said.
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have possibly been influenced by the admirable pamphlet produced by the Labour Group for Europe which I believe talks more sense than the Opposition Front Bench. On another occasion the hon. Gentleman must tell the House with more candour than he has tonight exactly what terms he and his hon. Friends would stand out for, which they feel that they would be able to negotiate with the European Community.
  The amendment in the name of the official Opposition is characteristic of a party which is divided on fundamental issues, which is incapable of reconciling its differences and which has demonstrated clearly that it is not fit to be entrusted with the responsibilities of government. I invite the House to reject the amendment with contempt.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 322.

  Division No. 287]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Donald

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Ashton, Joe

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

  484

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Buchan, Norman

  John, Brynmor

  Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Campbell, Ian

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Kerr, Russell

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Clarke, Thomas C'b'dge,

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  A'drie

  Lambie, David

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

  Lamond, James

  Coleman, Donald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Leighton, Ronald

  Conlan, Bernard

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Cook, Robin F.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Cowans, Harry

  Litherland, Robert

  Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Crowther, Stan

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cryer, Bob

  McElhone, Frank

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

  McKelvey, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Davidson, Arthur

  McNamara, Kevin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  McWilliam, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

  Deakins, Eric

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dewar, Donald

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Dixon, Donald

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Dobson, Frank

  Maxton, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Dubs, Alfred

  Meacher, Michael

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dunnett, Jack

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Eadie, Alex

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Eastham, Ken

  Molyneaux, James

  Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  English, Michael

  Morton, George

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Ewing, Harry

  Newens, Stanley

  Faulds, Andrew

  O'Neill, Martin

  Field, Frank

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Flannery, Martin

  Park, George

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Parker, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Parry, Robert

  Forrester, John

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Foulkes, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

  Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Prescott, John

  George, Bruce

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr. John

  Race, Reg

  Golding, John

  Radice, Giles

  Gourlay, Harry

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Graham, Ted

  Richardson, Jo

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hardy, Peter

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Robertson, George

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rooker, J. W.

  Haynes, Frank

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rowlands, Ted

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ryman, John

  Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

  Sever, John

  Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Home Robertson, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Homewood, William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hooley, Frank

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Silverman, Julius

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Soley, Clive

  485

  Spearing, Nigel

  Weetch, Ken

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Welsh, Michael

  Stallard, A. W.

  White, Frank R.

  Stoddart, David

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Strang, Gavin

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Straw, Jack

  Whitlock, William

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Winnick, David

  Tilley, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Tinn, James

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Torney, Tom

  Wright, Sheila

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Mr. Derek Foster and

  Watkins, David

  Mr. Hugh McCartney.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  Alexander, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, John

  Alton, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Corrie, John

  Ancram, Michael

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Arnold, Tom

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  Crouch, David

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Banks, Robert

  Dover, Denshore

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Beith, A. J.

  Dunn, James A.

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Durant, Tony

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Best, Keith

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Eggar, Tim

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Elliott, Sir William

  Blackburn, John

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Blaker, Peter

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Bowden, Andrew

  Farr, John

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Fell, Sir Anthony

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Bright, Graham

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Brinton, Tim

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

  Fry, Peter

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Buck, Antony

  Ginsburg, David

  Budgen, Nick

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Goodhew, Sir Victor

  Butcher, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Gow, Ian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Cartwright, John

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Gray, Hamish

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Greenway, Harry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

  Grist, Ian

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Grylls, Michael

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  486

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Hannam, John

  Moore, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morgan, Geraint

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Hawkins, Sir Paul

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mudd, David

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Murphy, Christopher

  Heddle, John

  Myles, David

  Henderson, Barry

  Neale, Gerrard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hill, James

  Neubert, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Newton, Tony

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Normanton, Tom

  Hooson, Tom

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Horam, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Hordern, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

  Osborn, John

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Parris, Matthew

  Irvine, Bryant Godman

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Pawsey, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Penhaligon, David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Pitt, William Henry

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pollock, Alexander

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Porter, Barry

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Kimball, Sir Marcus

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knox, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Lang, Ian

  Renton, Tim

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Latham, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lee, John

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roper, John

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rossi, Hugh

  Luce, Richard

  Rost, Peter

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  McCrindle, Robert

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Sandelson, Neville

  MacGregor, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Maclennan, Robert

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Shersby, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Silvester, Fred

  Madel, David

  Sims, Roger

  Magee, Bryan

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Major, John

  Smith, Dudley

  Marland, Paul

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Speed, Keith

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Speller, Tony

  Mates, Michael

  Spence, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Mawby, Ray

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Squire, Robin

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stainton, Keith

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stanley, John

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stevens, Martin

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  487

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Stokes, John

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Viggers, Peter

  Tapsell, Peter

  Waddington, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wakeham, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Thompson, Donald

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Waller, Gary

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Walters, Dennis

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ward, John

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Trippier, David

  Watson, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Wellbeloved, James

  488

  Wells, Bowen

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Wheeler, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Wickenden, Keith

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Report on Developments in the European Community, July to December 1981, Cmnd. 8525.

  SUPPLY

    European Community
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    That this House takes note of the Report on Developments in the European Community, July to December 1981, Cmnd. 8525.—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Films (Distribution of Levy)
  10.14 pm
  The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I beg to move,
  That the draft Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
  I should like, first, to consider the reasons for the regulations, then to give the background to them and, finally, to comment on some of the points in them. They consolidate as well as amend. That will mean that people in the film industry who use them will find reference to a single document a good deal easier than to several as they do at present. The regulations are necessary to ensure that rules applied in distributing film levy conform with the provisions of the Treaty of Rome on freedom to provide services and freedom of movement of labour throughout the Community.
  We are strongly committed to the preservation of the United Kingdom film industry. The measures are designed to ensure that every film receiving funds from the levy will contribute fully to our production and processing infrastructure. The levy was set up on a voluntary basis in 1950, following negotiations that were sponsored by Sir Wilfred Eady, to provide a levy on cinema admissions for the benefit of makers of British films in proportion to their success at the United Kingdom box offices. The scheme, usually called the Eady levy, was made statutory in 1957.
  The proceeds from the levy are paid to the British Film Fund Agency. The National Film Finance Corporation automatically receives £.1·5 million from the fund, or 20 per cent. of the total, whichever is the greater. Other payments can be made to, for example, the Children's Film Foundation, the British Film Institute Production Board, and the National Film School. The balance is then distributed to makers of films which are eligible in accordance with the distribution of levy regulations, which the draft now before the House consolidates and amends.
  Registration as a British film requires that 75 per cent. of the labour costs, with some exceptions, should be paid to British subjects or citizens of the Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland. That was widened by the Films Act 1980 to allow the inclusion of citizens of any member State of the European Community. The modification will be brought into force by a commencement order to take effect on the same day as these levy regulations.
  An EEC maker of a British film can already, by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972, share in the levy distribution if he meets the residence qualification contained in the definition of eligible film, although in practice none has yet qualified. The regulations will extend this residence qualification in the definition of eligible film to include—this is important—residence in, or, in the case of a company, registration and control, in any member State of the Community.
  I am glad to say that the regulations will also introduce some new safeguards. In framing these in the most effective way we have had considerable help from the industry. The Government believe that the measures will work. That belief is, I think, shared by producers and unions in the film industry. There will, for example, be a deduction of the amount of levy payable if more than 20 per cent. of an eligible film is shot outside the United Kingdom, although the abatement will not apply if the
  490
  shooting is based here. It is also graduated so that a film that is shot wholly abroad and not based in the United Kingdom will not be entitled to any levy. That is an important safeguard.
  The other major amendment in these draft regulations is the removal of the ban on levy entitlement for films which at the time of registration for cinema exhibition were the subject of an agreement for showing on television. That rather complicated arrangement follows the recommendation of the Cinematograph Films Council, and of the interim action committee on the film industry. It is not the intention to divert funds from in-house television work to films, but to make it easier for television companies to invest in United Kingdom films rather than buy foreign ones, at the same time as helping film producers raise finance by pre-sales to television.
  Films will continue to be ineligible for levy if they are shown on television within 12 months of registration. The industry's current arrangements, which, with exceptions, prevent a television showing within three years remain in force and are in no way affected by these regulations. As hon. Members will know, the Government intend to provide for a transitional tax regime whereby films that would be eligible for the Eady levy can continue.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. K. J. Woolmer: There are many important matters in the regulations. The background to them is confusion and ineptitude in Government policy towards the film industry at a crucial stage in its history. The Government have failed to produce a coherent and constructive policy for the film industry.
  After a marked recovery between 1976 and 1978, cinema attendances have fallen drastically by about 15 per cent. in 1981 and up to 30 per cent. in the past 12 months. In the past two or three months there has been an almost catastrophic collapse in cinema attendances. The British film industry, which produced many marvellous, popular and successful film in recent years, has been having a difficult time.
  Video and other important technological changes are thrusting themselves on the already blurred but complex interaction between films, the cinema and television. The interim action committee on the film industry continues to produce its valuable and often constructive reports, yet the Government appear to be spellbound and incapable of thinking through and promoting a policy in response to the changing situation.
  Playing around with the present levy and quota system is no substitute for the reappraisal of policy that is required. The other proposed regulation to suspend the films quota system is both badly timed and inept as a contribution to the search for a positive way forward for the industry. We shall insist on a debate on that in the autumn.
  The raising of the film levy and its distribution is concerned with the wider issue of how to raise the money to help finance a lively and successful film industry. Before the levy is distributed, it must be raised. Is enough money being raised in the right way? Is it being distributed in the right way? Anyone looking at the film industry must surely feel that a major review of those issues is urgently needed. I shall briefly refer to those matters in a moment.
  I refer to the regulations as narrowly presented to us tonight. As the Minister rightly said, there are three main

  491
  issues. First, we have the part of the regulations that widens the basis on which EEC film makers may share in the distribution of the film levy. What is the Minister's assessment of how this part of the regulations will affect our own film makers? Is this another case of Britain playing by the rules of the game while others ignore those rules? How do other EEC countries, especially Italy, France and Germany, treat our film makers with their industry assistance schemes? What film industry aid schemes do they have? Can British film makers benefit from them?
  The second matter refers to regulation 10 which appears to offer an alternative way of ensuring that the levy fund is paid out mainly to finance film making in the United Kingdom. The objective behind this, as the Minister presented it, seems reasonable to me, although one could argue about the arithmetic of the formula. I should prefer to see film industry finance aimed directly at British film makers. Does this regulation conform to EEC obligations? Is there any prospect that that regulation will, in turn, subsequently be weakened?
  The third matter concerns the removal of the disentitlement to a share of the film levy fund in the case of films where there was, on registration, an arrangement for showing them on television. Here we are in the middle of a complex system of relationships and, as the Minister said, in the middle of a potential conflict of interests. On the one hand, we all recognise that television is a heavy user of films and a source of film viewing appreciated by millions of families. Television ought to put much more money back into film production. The question is whether this is the best way to do it, because the regulations drop the effective ban on prior agreement to showing films on television in the reasonable expectation that television and other companies will be more willing to finance new film production, backed by prior agreements on the sale of TV rights.
  On the other hand, if cinema films are shown quickly on television two problems arise that must be recognised. It may help to produce better television films, but it may damage the cinema. Why pay to go to the cinema when the film can be seen on "the box" in one or two years' time? I shall refer to that point in a moment. Secondly, this development could lead—the Minister recognised the possibility—to the bypassing of established ways of producing TV films and programmes. This is bound to concern the trade unions involved. Did the Minister consult the trade unions on this aspect of the regulations? If he did, what were the observations of the trade unions?
  The Minister argued that the three-year trade bar on the showing of new cinema films on television will still reduce the problem. However, it seems highly likely that the removal of disentitlement and, hence, disincentive, will bring substantial pressure on that trade bar. It will be such that the one-year bar will become the effective restraint. Does the Minister agree with that, or does he stick by his view that the three-year bar will remain effectively in force? That seems contrary to the expectation of raising the disentitlement.
  I said earlier that money can be distributed only if it is first raised. How best to distribute the money surely depends in part on how it is raised and on how much is raised. The interim action committee on the film industry, in its fifth report in March this year, considered that
  492
  problem and its relationship to the changing media and technology. It said in paragraph 41 of its report on page 10:
  "The distribution and exhibition sectors of the British film industry have, for some years now, been undergoing continuous changes and considerable contraction … Where does the future health of the British film industry lie?"
  That is a matter on which the Minister should give his views and those of the Government. The report continues:
  "Over the next decade, the exhibition of films on television, the transmission of programmes by cable television and satellite and the use of video discs and video tapes will have a considerable impact on the distribution and exhibition, as well as on the production, of feature films".
  The report went on to say
  "All the new exhibition systems should be developed only on the understanding that the exhibition or sale of feature films by these means should carry with it a contribution to either the Eady fund or a similar scheme, the proceeds of which would be returned to the industry in such a way as to encourage film production in this country … The application of the Eady levy or a similar scheme … would in part redress the existing anomalous situation in which cinema theatres are required, through the levy, to help financially in the production of films, while films exhibited on television make no such financial contribution".
  It is a serious problem and I am distressed to see the Minister come to the House yet again and not face up to the urgent issue before the film and media industry. These are important issues, fundamental to the financing, viability and vitality of our film industry. The Minister should be using opportunities such as this debate to give his views on it and to instil a sense of urgency and direction into his actions.
  There are also many important matters concerning the distributing of the finance raised to assist, support and develop our British film industry. In the short term, faced by declining cinema attendances—but not, we note, by declining television or video audiences—the film levy is falling sharply in real terms. The committed sums to bodies such as the National Film Finance Corporation, the National Film School and the other bodies the Minister mentioned mean that the finances they have are grossly inadequate in themselves but also that the balance for distribution among film makers is becoming so marginal as to be ineffective.
  What assurance can the Minister give on the diminishing funds available from the levy so that the key film industry organisations and British film makers are assured of a significant and meaningful financial input? Will he review the whole position in the light of the very deep recession and the changing structure of film viewing technology and media, to which he made no reference whatever this evening? Is he really content to continue with greatly divided and numerous film agencies and Government departmental responsibilities? How can 'we develop coherent policies for our film industry when the Departments of Trade, Education and Science, and Industry, as well as the Home Office, all exercise separate conflicting and jealously guarded responsibilities?
  Will the Minister look again at the proposal for a British Film Authority? It was first made by the interim action committee and endorsed by the Labour Party. While recognising the need for care in getting the right framework to encourage flexibility and to prevent over-centralisation and the stifling of innovation, the Opposition believe that such a step is an essential part of promoting and strengthening the British film industry.

  493
  The film industry has to adapt to and evolve with the times. Changes are occurring rapidly and will continue. The industry will need to build on the changes in media and technology so evident to us all in this House. Assistance should go, not only to film makers, but to exhibitors, including cinemas. Films and cinemas are, in part, a social phenomenon, to be absorbed and enjoyed in a social atmosphere. Far too much of our changing technology is reducing our social experience and enjoyment. We need a film industry, not just for the sake of the jobs, the craft and the artistic expression, but as part of the contribution to a wider social enjoyment and appreciation.
  In part, these regulations are acceptable. In part, they raise serious concern. Above all, they represent another lost opportunity to put forward positive and progressive policies to build up our film industry for the benefit of us all.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Tony Durant: I start by declaring an interest. I am a consultant to the British Film Producers Association, which is certainly not against these regulations.
  I want to follow up one or two of the comments of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer). Indeed, I want to endorse some of the things that he said. First, cinema attendance has been dropping steadily over the years. The result, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, is that the amount of money that is left in the Eady levy, after paying the statutory requirements, is diminishing. The levy is gradually becoming a non-existent activity. The sums of money are getting smaller and smaller. The Government will have to decide whether it is worth while going on with it in the long run, unless we involve television, and in my opinion television should take its responsibilities seriously in film production.
  The demands of television are enormous. The consumption in material is fast, ever-demanding and ever-increasing. Here is a wonderful opportunity for a creative industry in this country, which makes good films and has a good reputation, to make films for marketing abroad, not only in the United States but in other countries. I urge the Government to look again at the role of television in this connection.
  The video cassette, the disc, the cable and the satellite are all methods of projection. There are certain technical differences in the production of a film for television as against the cinema, but basically they are all methods of projection to the audience in one form or other. We are talking about a creative medium. We have to make a product which then has to be sold to the system so that people have an opportunity to see it.
  It is time that the Government discussed with the television industry ways of helping film production. That is what we are talking about—not the composite world of the film industry, but film production. We have only one small studio left in this country, and that is Pinewood. It is the only fully operational studio. There are others where one can hire a lot, but Pinewood is the only studio where there is everything—plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and so on. At the moment, Pinewood is being backed by
  494
  American money and is making a big American production. It lives from day to day and sees no definite prospect for the future.
  Mr. Tim Brinton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when companies, such as the American company, hire Pinewood, and the producer qualifies in residential terms, he qualifies for Eady money? Is that correct?
  Mr. Durant: I believe that that is so. The Government have tightened the provisions relating to capital allowances in the Finance Bill, but I think that the producer will still qualify for the Eady levy. I am not sure whether that is a good or a bad thing. I take a neutral stance. At least it provides work for a studio which employs many people. The Government and the House should consider ways of helping the industry.
  There is tremendous talent in the British film industry. The American film industry has spent a lot of money in Britain—although it has now returned home because of the recession there—and respects the talent of our movie business. The Government should recognise that.
  I do not agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley about a British Film Authority. It would be another bureaucratic machine. I accept his point that there are already too many different establishments involved in a small industry, but the proposal in the Wilson report for a film authority is not the right way to proceed. There may be an argument for the amalgamation of many of the existing establishments.
  I support the general measure. My only reservation is that if the industry continues as it is film making will become non-existent and the Eady levy will decline so much that it will no longer be important. The Government must come to grips with television production and bring it more into the area of new outlets. If we do not do that we shall have mainly American-type entertainment, which the public do not want. They want British material. I commend the proposal, but we are not doing enough about television.
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Bryan Magee: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcome these changes in the regulations, which are improvements to the operation of the Eady levy. As the Minister said, the changes are welcomed both by film-makers and by the industry's trade unions. The Association of Independent Producers has been clamouring for such changes for a long time. However, as has been said by everyone except the Minister, the changes do not go far enough, and his failure to put forward broader vistas or proposals for the industry represents a failure by the Government to play their part in the present and future prosperity of one of our potentially most important industries.
  The Eady levy system is in serious danger of breaking down. The reasons for that can be stated concisely. The fundamental idea of the levy was to channel some of the money paid by the mass audience watching films into film production. Since it was set up when the bulk of film viewing was in cinemas, it took the form of levying a proportion of the price of each ticket and sending that money to the film producers, as well as to other organisations that creamed a little off the top.
  Since that system was set up more than 25 years ago, film watching in Britain and in other countries has changed

  495
  fudamentally. The mass audience watches films not in cinemas but on television. We also have video cassettes, and cable television is about to start. So, because of technological and historic change, we now have a system for financing films that does not recognise the nature of the mass audience. The Eady levy, as it works today, is a levy on a tiny proportion of those who watch films and therefore attracts only a tiny portion of the money that it should obtain to channel to film producers.
  The fundamental reform that is required is a restructuring of the system of who pays the Eady levy. We do not need the British film association proposed by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer). That is yet another centralised, State, bureaucratic, monolithic piece of old-fashioned nonsense.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Nonsense. The hon. Gentleman cannot even get the name right.
  Mr. Magee: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who is sitting with his feet on the Bench, is talking his own characteristic nonsense. A single authority is not the answer to the problem we are facing. We need to tap the mass television audience, the video audience and, in future, the cable audience. At least two of these sources do not provide serious difficulty. It is within the Government's competence and power to introduce legislation that would require the television companies, both the commercial companies and the BBC to pay to the Eady fund a levy on all films shown on television.
  Cable has not yet begun, so it is within the Government's power to make a contribution to the Eady fund a condition of any franchises that are given to cable. Video cassettes present more of a problem because the great bulk of them are illegally made and distributed. I noticed only this week in Screen Digest that the trade assessment of the proportion of video cassettes that are illegal is 78 per cent. If anything like that figure is correct, it means that this country is the international headquarters of a giant illegal industry.
  I was pleased to see that, only the day before yesterday, the Minister for Trade showed in the House that he was aware of this scandal and specifically said that he sees the need for legislation to clear it up. If the Government are as good as their word, the way lies open to tapping the sources of money that would be available from all the media in which films are predominantly shown, and will continue to be so—television, video and cable. That money can then be put back into film producing.
  That is the approach that the Government should be adopting. The differences in the sums involved are tremendous. I am advised that this year the Eady levy is likely to raise about £3·5 million. Over a year ago, the Boulting brothers, giving evidence to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, said that if the contributions to the fund were widened in the way that I have suggested, they would produce a revenue of between £50 million and £80 million. That was an expert valuation, and in the values of more than a year ago.
  So the difference between what is being raised by the present system and what could be raised by the perfectly feasible system that I have outlined is a difference of many millions of pounds. It would transform our film industry. What is more, we are now at a time when, after years of serious depression, our film industry is beginning to show signs of what could be a major renaissance.
  496
  It is not just that we have succeeded in producing some of the best films for many years, such as "Chariots of Fire", which are both unprecedently commercially successful and also very good films in their own right. It is also, and chiefly, because we are about to open a fourth TV channel which is to be run by people who recognise the opportunities that will be available to them in the promoting and financing of film making.
  In some countries, such as Germany and Italy, television, which is the chief user of films, is also one of the chief financiers of films. We have a channel about to open where the need for this, and the opportunity presented by it, is recognised by the people who are to run the channel. The Government have the power to put the two ends together. They should take the opportunity to do so in this Session of Parliament.
  10.49 pm
  Mr. Tim Brinton: May I first declare my interest? I am a paid-up member of the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians as a producer, although, unhappily, I have had no benefit from the Eady levy for a long time. I am also a member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, which is in the process of making a report on the arts, including film, as has been mentioned. I shall seek not to pre-empt any conclusions that it may make. I shall speak personally tonight.
  I want to say a little more strongly than have other hon. Members tonight how absurd it is that we are looking at the problem in this way in order to make new regulations for the Eady levy. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) said that this year's estimate of proceeds from the Eady levy was £3·5 million. What has not been said is that the figure for 1978–79 was £7.7 million, for 1979–80 it was £6.1 million and for 1980–81 it was £6·7 million. Therefore, there is a steady downward drift.
  If one considers that a major international feature film will cost double £3·5 million—perhaps more—one begins to see how pathetic are the proceeds of the Eady levy, as we know it today. People's habits have changed. I do not believe that any amount of incitement under present circumstances is likely to cause a huge growth in the number of people going to cinemas. After all, they can films at home. Without dwelling on it, I would go along entirely with those hon. Members who have suggested that television, in all its forms, must be persuaded urgently to contribute to the feature films that it often gets so cheaply from the feature film industry.
  The feature film industry is different, with a different production technique, from television. The whole economy of television is contrary to the loving care and length of time that is spent on the feature film. Therefore, it is vital that the ordinary feature film audience that has now transferred its attentions to the living room should pay the Eady levy contribution that it used to pay when the levy was created in 1950. That is all that we are asking.
  Last year, with a group from the Select Committee. I visited the United States of America. I had the pleasure of meeting a senior American film and television executive. The first thing that he said was that if I wanted to know what was wrong with the British film industry, one thing that could be done straight away was to stop people, such as American executives who make big finance pictures, from benefiting from the Eady levy.

  497
  The amount of help that is given to the American who comes over here and qualifies for the Eady levy is, in terms of the big international film, infinitesimal. It does not matter to him. However, if the regulations were tightened to prevent that money from going out of Britain—that assuredly is what it does; it does not go into producing more British pictures, which is what we want—then that would at least top up the fund a little.
  There are other matters that I am sad have not been tackled in this interim attempt at solving the problem. It is well known in the industry that often the Eady levy does not get back to the man who makes the film. It may be free trade for a hard-pressed producer to do a deal with a distributor in such a way that the distributor ultimately gains that Eady money, in which the Government should not interfere. However, the Government have a duty to see that that levy should go directly into the production of new films. This can be done, as I believe happens on the Continent, by imposing a condition whereby the money has to be used within 12 months for a new production. This would be an incentive to producers to make new films.
  I have implied, with regret, that we have not begun to tackle the problem. The Government should carry out a major overhaul of their responsibilities for films, television and all the appurtenances spread over at least three Departments. They should also examine ways to preserve the esentially private freedom of the feature film maker who is not, as some people believe, a rich, fat cat living off the contributions of cinemagoers. The feature film maker is eternally struggling to raise the monumental sums needed to keep a flourishing British feature film industry in existence.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: An eligible film is defined in the regulations as "a co-production film" and as
  "a film which is registered as a British film and as a quota film".
  Under an order shortly to come before the House, quotas will be suspended. It would be interesting to know the effect of that order on the regulations now being discussed. Although the Eady levy was designed to benefit British film production, its effect almost certainly goes wider, because the definition of a film registered as British is not sufficiently tight to ensure that the levy goes back into British film production.
  Some changes have been made to the Eady levy. A number of smaller screens have been exempted, largely as a result of the development of multi-screen cinemas. This has resulted in a decline in the product of the levy. I should like to know how the Minister sees the levy developing. It is important in maintaining an indigenous British film industry and as a means of reflecting the cultural aspirations and views of the community and the nation. The cinema and the production of films is still the most important popular art form today. There is need for a cinema that is not involved in a mid-Atlantic multinational concept but reflects the important values and attitudes of the nation.
  The film "Gregory's Girl" was produced relatively cheaply and financed by the National Film Finance Corporation. If the Eady levy money diminishes markedly—I shall be interested to hear the Minister's views—the possibility of future films like "Gregory's Girl" being made will be diminished. Sources of money
  498
  for film production in this country are slim. The National Film Finance Corporation represents the only indigenous source of money specifically directed towards British film production.
  The total revenue of the Eady levy would have been soaked up by "Chariots of Fire", another highly successful British film. The producer of "Chariots of Fire", David Putnam, and the director of "Gregory's Girl", Bill Forsyth, have combined after making two highly successful films. They won Oscars in the United States of America and awards in this country. The films have been highly successful in America, not because they imitated, but because they showed our country in a bold and imaginative way. The producers and directors of those two films had the greatest difficulty in raising money outside the United States of America for the production on which they are about to embark.
  We need to recognise the importance of the Eady levy in maintaining a British film industry. Although it is important to have American investment, we do not want to be swamped by it, and we should recognise the precarious nature of such investment. Pinewood is the only full-time studio which employs permanent staff, which has a regular apprentice intake, and which is recognised throughout the world as maintaining high standards of craftsmanship. There are other studios on a four-wall basis. Pinewood is producing two films which occupy all 16 stages. If there were a change in the exchange rate, American investors might feel that they could invest more profitably elsewhere. The British film industry would again be in serious difficulty, not only at Pinewood, but at Shepperton and Elstree.
  I echo the point that has been made by several hon. Members about the need to extend the levy to television. In the past, television companies and the BBC have waxed fat by obtaining highly popular films too cheaply. Recently, more realistic fees have been negotiated. I believe that they should make a contribution to the British film industry. The Minister should bear that in mind.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) that this measure is a piecemeal approach to the problem. The whole matter should be fully examined. The National Film School, which is financed by the Eady levy, provides technicians for the television industry, yet television provides only a fraction of the money that is required. The cinema finances the training of film technicians, but, because there are so few opportunities for them in the British film industry, television receives the most benefit. We need an overall policy for the British film industry, because it could be hit by another crisis within a few months.
  Video pirating is important. The Minister will no doubt say that a Private Member's Bill has just been passed under which it is an offence to handle pirated video copies of films by way of trade. That still does not overcome the problem of proving that the person knew that the copies were pirated. The Government must examine that problem carefully and bring forward legislation quickly, because it is a sore that affects film production. The seed corn of the industry—the investment for new films—is being eroded by the people committing the criminal offence of pirating the films into which so much care, effort and risk-finance has gone.
  A multiplicity of Government Departments deal with the film industry. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee), who spoke on behalf of his new party, the SDP,

  499
  suggested that it was nonsense, the drab hand of the State, and so on, to have a British Film Authority. He called it an association. He could not even get the title right, so it is difficult to see how he could make a judgement on the nature and character of the organisation.
  Mr. Magee: I was attempting not to name the Labour Party's proposed authority, but to describe it. In an essentially creative activity, what is desirable above all is pluralism and diversity, and not State monopoly or burearcracy.
  Mr. Cryer: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises the question of monopoly. In any case, the idea of having a British Film Authority is to help film producers. It would not control them; it would concentrate the various Government agencies into one authority which would make things easier.
  I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is worried about control. He did not mention the oligopoly that controls film production, distribution and exhibition. The major circuits, which produce 70 per cent. of cinema, are owned by two companies, Rank and EMI, as are the major film studios and distribution arms. The very diversity that we all want is limited by the industry's structure.
  We want the diversity and richness that comes from a number of people making films that represent human virtues, and no doubt vices, and interpreting the human spirit of our nation. They will not be made unless there is the financial ability to make them. If we are not careful, the Eady levy will be diminished and the potiential will disappear. People like Bill Gregory, who started in a modest way, will not have the opportunity to diversify. We shall be swamped in a sea of mid-Atlantic productions. That is the anxiety over the regulations. Although the regulations have merit, they contain matters about which we have reservations. I have raised one such issue with the Minister.
  Other regulations are to come. There has also been a Private Member's Bill. It is a piecemeal approach, and we need to take a comprehensive look at the industry. For one thing, that would give the industry a good deal more confidence. In a high-risk industry, when several million pounds can be spent on producing a major feature film, there must be confidence that there is a sympathetic framework within which the producer can make the investment.
  I hope that the Minister will respond helpfully.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I have found this one of the most interesting debates that I have heard in recent weeks. Although I do not now have a specific interest to declare, had the debate taken place four weeks ago I would have had to declare that I was employed with the Scottish Council for Educational Technology, embracing the Scottish Film Council. The electorate of Coatbridge and Airdrie put an end to the association, but they did not end my interest in films.
  Although we are dealing with the practical matters that the Minister has put before the House—the obligations arising from the EEC regulations and so on—my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) was right to extend the argument and to give notice that we want a longer debate in which the House can consider the future of the British film industry.
  500
  Even in these difficult times, a number of plusses ought to be associated with those involved in British film. I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) who talked about a lack of excitement, although he was right to regard the debate as an interim attempt to deal with the problem.
  Last summer, at the beginning of the Edinburgh film festival, I was present when the 1920s monochrome version of "Napoleon" was presented. A live orchestra was present, and the atmosphere was absolutely outstanding. There is no way in which that kind of presentation could come over on television or on video. It would be a great loss to film art and culture if the opportunity for presentations of that kind were decreased.
  Mr. Brinton: I entirely appreciate the excitement felt by the hon. Gentleman on that occasion. My point was that in ordinary cinemas throughout the country there is an insufficient audience and a lack of excitement. I agree that special events such as the Edinburgh festival are totally different.
  Mr. Clarke: I accept that, especially as I agreed with many of the hon. Gentleman's other points. We all have a responsibility to respond to the excitement and endeavours of the British film industry. We need only think of the films "Gregory's Girl" and "Chariots of Fire". Not so long ago, there was a great struggle to have the film "Kes" marketed and shown. People associated with such films are entitled to have their productions shown so that they can appeal to wider audiences than exist today.
  Mr. Durant: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the film "Kes". At that time the distributors and exhibitors felt that the people in the south would not understand the film. That shows that they are not aware of what the public really understands.
  Mr. Clarke: I accept that. Anything that brings the regions together, even if it happens to be films such as "Kes", is to be welcomed.
  The amateur film movement, with which I have been associated, is also relevant to the debate. I have been secretary of the Scottish Association of Amateur Cinematographers. Were the cinema to wither—I do not envisage that prospect—those involved in amateur film groups and committed to the future of the amateur film movement would have great difficulty finding someone who was willing to respond to their activities.
  I was happy to be associated with the international amateur film festival in Scotland. Some years ago it was presented in the Cosmo cinema in Glasgow, but more recently at the Glasgow film theatre and in London. That festival invited entries from throughout the world. If the cinema ceased to be important, the amateur film movement would suffer gravely. Consequently, people such as Ken Russell, who began his career as a contributor to amateur film making, would never be heard of. That would be a great tragedy, not just to the British film industry but to the international film scene.
  I believe, too, that much encouragement should be given to schools and colleges to develop amateur film education, although it should be clear that film making and film production do not end there. To achieve that aim, we should be seen as a nation to support amateur film making which leads in later years to professional film making.
  A rather surprising example to me of the way in which other countries have been more successful than we have

  501
  is the amateur film festival at San Feliu in Spain, which I have attended for many years. That festival is entirely sponsored by the Spanish tourist authorities. They see it not just as a contribution to film making and presentation but as a useful spin-off for the tourist industry, and are right to consider it in that way.
  There are tremendous opportunities for development of film in this country. That potential will be developed not just through debates such as today's discussion of the levy, however inevitable and right such debates may be, but through a commitment seriously to examine the resources available and their distributuion. There are so many people like the Bill Forsyths of this world who believe that we can remove the frustrations and give film a future that it is clearly worth while to make that commitment.
  I believe that a British Film Authority should be set up. At present, a large number of organisations, groups and individuals are trying in an unco-ordinated way to put their case across. We should co-ordinate the activities of those involved in the industry at every stage because that level of sophistication can do nothing but good for the future of the British film industry.
  11.17 pm
  Dr. Vaughan: With the leave of the House, I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised. We have had a short but extremely interesting and important debate. I assure the House that the Government fully appreciate the gravity of the situation. I sensed from the debate that, although there are serious problems, hon. Members believe that if they are handled properly there are great opportunities for the future. That message has come from all parts of the House. Hon. Members were also generally agreed in welcoming the regulations, although we all recognise that there are limitations, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) was right to refer to them as interim regulations.
  It is important that I endeavour to answer as many of the points as I can. In doing so, I shall be brief. If I miss any specific points, I shall be happy to write to hon. Members about them.
  We all appreciated the way in which the hon. Members for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) and Leyton (Mr. Magee) spoke, and I was especially glad to have the support of my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), in the constructive series of comments that he made in his short speech. Hon. Members in all parts of the House spoke with understanding and feeling for the industry.
  This debate provided us with the first opportunity to hear the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke). I recognise his depth of feeling on the matter.
  We all agree about the importance of film production. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North will note that I carefully said "film production", not "film industry". We all want viable film production. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North and others pointed out that it provides great social benefits.
  As the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said, there is much excitement in making films. He did not consider fully, perhaps, the quantity of amateur film makers who become professionals. There is quite a steady flow of them. When we discuss the professional sphere,
  502
  therefore, we must ensure that the doors are kept open so that enlightened amateurs can move on and establish themselves.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) especially reminded us that the Eady levy is an important part of our film production. He also pointed out how important films are to our social structure and to the nation. We all agree that there should be an overall view of what is going on. I shall return to that matter.
  Although I recognise that there are differences in aesthetic approach, the artificial distinction between cinema and television films must be eliminated. The distinction is artificial. They are complementary aspects of the same type of activity. If anything is calculated to hinder our chances of making the best use of cable and satellite transmissions, it is the insistence that there must be a real, rigid and continued distinction between cinema and television films.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend and the hon. Member for Keighley that television should accept more responsibility for the financial aspect of film production. Hon. Members are right to say that both ends of that aspect must be examined—how money is raised, who contributes, and who receives.
  There is a decline in the Eady levy. The total was £7 million in 1980, whereas in 1981 it was only just over £6 million. We had hoped for £6 million in 1982 but, in the light of the current monthly returns, the revised estimate is probably £4·53 million. Moreover, it is estimated that it will be even less next year. One must be cautious when comparing short periods of time, but it is worth comparing the following three-month periods: April 1981, £410,000; April 1982, £300,000; May 1981, £720,000; May 1982, £200,000; June 1981, £150,000; June 1982, £150,000. The totals of £1,280,000 and £650,000 reveal that there is a major and apparently steady decline in the amount that is raised. Because the money is based on attendances, it reflects a decline in the number of people who attend cinemas. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley may know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade intends to institute a major review of the Government's policy on the film industry. We recognise the urgency. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North that it will cover the film production, the video, cable and satellite transmission. There are opportunities, as hon. Members have said. We are determined to take an overall view and to take advantage of the opportunities.
  Mr. Jack Dormand: Is the Minister saying that the Government have decided to undertake a major review of the film industry?
  Dr. Vaughan: That is correct. It is the intention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to institute a major review.
  Mr. Dormand: When?
  Dr. Vaughan: We regard it as urgent. I cannot go further than that.
  Mr. Woolmer: I welcome that statement, which is at odds with statements that I have heard and read in recent weeks and months. When will that important review be established? What will be the time scale? When will a report be made to Parliament? One of the Minister's predecessors, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr.

  503
  Tebbit), as long ago as 1980 said that he intended to have a long-term review. There should be a review during this Parliament. I should be grateful if the Minister could give us that assurance.
  Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I cannot commit my right hon. and hon. Friends further than to say that that is their intention. Hon. Members will appreciate that there is also consultation about the cable and satellite television aspects. There are many aspects.
  Some hon. Members talked about diversion of funds from television work to the film production side. Our intention at the moment is not to divert funds from in-house television work, but to make it easier for television companies to invest in United Kingdom films rather than buy foreign films and at the same time to help film producers to raise finance by pre-sales to television.
  It is relevant to note that the BBC's seed money is largely unused for lack of projects coming forward. The Federation of Film Unions was consulted. It felt that there was a danger of diversion of funds from television but other parts of the industry supported the removal of the ban. We shall look further at those matters.
  With regard to the suspension of quotas, I refer hon. Members to the text of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson). There will be an opportunity for a debate when the order for suspension of screen quotas is brought before the House. As hon. Members know, it has already been laid.
  Mr. Woolmer: With regard to the contribution of the television industry to film production, or, as I prefer to say, the wider aspects of the film industry, the Minister does not appear to have met the feeling of hon. Members. Something much more substantial is involved. The Government have not addressed themselves to the matter in the appropriate way. Will the Minister give an assurance that he has not closed his mind to other ways of channelling money directly from the contribution of the television industry into films? He has misread the feelings of hon. Members. That issue is exceptionally important. It is probably the nub of the matter. If the Minister cannot give that assurance, I shall be extremely unhappy at that unsatisfactory outcome to an excellent all-party debate.
  Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Gentleman does the Government less than justice. We are mindful of the problems. We regard them as urgent. We recognise the need to have adequate financial resources. The hon. Gentleman need not chide us and take a gloomy view. There are difficulties, as the hon. Gentleman realises. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be glad to come back to him on those points.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen about other member States of the Community. He will know that the Commission has initiated proceedings against four member States—France, Italy, West Germany and Denmark. France is believed to have agreed to amend its legislation but, in common with Germany, it has not yet taken action. Denmark's position is not known.
  The hon. Member for Keighley talked about market domination. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply of films for exhibition in cinemas has unfortunately been delayed and is not expected until
  504
  December. I am aware of what some see as the effect of market domination. I have read the fifth report of the interim action committee and studied its recommendations. I cannot usefully comment further until I have had a chance to study the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report.
  Mr. Cryer: The Minister said that there is to be an urgent review of the industry. It is clear that account will have to be taken of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's examination of the major producers, exhibitors and distributors in the industry. Is the review not to be completed until after December?
  Dr. Vaughan: I do not think that hon. Members would want to try to commit the Government to an unrealistic expectation. The review will be embarked upon with urgency, but there are complications. It is important that we take an overall view. The commission's report will be extremely relevant.
  I agree that films that reflect British life and manners have considerable value. The Eady levy contributes substantially to such films through the NFFCO. The future of many film organisations is thrown into relief by the decline of the levy. I accept that the National Film School and television have training responsibilities.
  Mr. Durant: It is recognised that the National Film School contributes considerably to the training of producers for television. My hon. Friend talks about allowing the television industry to become more involved in production, but if it does it will do so only for itself. If it makes more movies, it will use them primarily for itself. Very few television films will appear on the cinema circuits. In that respect, the result will be rather like that of the National Film School.
  Dr. Vaughan: I take my hon. Friend's point and I shall keep it in mind.
  Mention has been made of a British Film Authority. We have doubts about whether it is a viable proposition. That being so, I do not think that there can be any question of additional Government funds being made available to establish such an authority.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of the National Film Finance Corporation and acknowledged that the industry is facing difficulties. Pending the completion of the review, which will not be before 1983, are the Government prepared to consider the possibility of additional funds to the NFFC, bearing in mind the decline in revenue from the Eady levy?
  Dr. Vaughan: It is important to take note of that factor. I should like to consider the implications.
  This is a time for less rather than more interference. There will be an urgent review of the Government's relations with the industry. The quicker that we get on with that, the better.
  On the question of piracy, I am pleased that the Bill introduced in another place by Lord Fletcher, and skilfully piloted through this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), has received Royal Assent. There is great concern about the level of penalties, and further consideration of that matter was promised by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade on the Third Reading of the Bill in the context of the new penalties imposed in the United States.

  505
  The figure of 78 per cent. mentioned by the hon. Member for Keighley is correct. Piracy is a £100 million a year business. We must do all that we can to eliminate that criminal activity. There is agreement on both sides of the House on that.
  I have endeavoured to cover as many points as I can. As I said earlier, if I have inadvertently missed any points, I shall be glad to take them up directly with the hon. Members concerned.
  Mr. Dormand: The Minister has been generous in giving way, but I see a contradiction in two statements that he has made in the past few minutes. He said that the Government could not afford to make more money available for the indigenous industry, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) suggested that more money should be made available to the NFFC, the Minister said that the Government ought seriously to consider that suggestion. That is a contradiction. We know that "Gregory's Girl" was made with NFFC money. Do not the Government and the Minister realise that the NFFC could be a profit-making concern?
  Dr. Vaughan: Either I did not make myself clear or the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I said that we doubted the viability of what what proposed and that it would not be appropriate at this moment for the Government to consider making funds available. We should not deal with matters in a piecemeal fashion, and we should certainly not make funds available for something that might not be a satisfactory organisation. We shall want to look at that matter.
  It is encouraging that both sides of the House welcome the regulations, although some hon. Members would like to see them extended. I take it that there is universal agreement that we must review and debate the subject in the House as soon as possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

  Transport Policy (Greater London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  11.38 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: An efficient transport system is an essential ingredient in any industrialised economy. If, therefore, the authorities charged with the responsibility of maintaining the system fail in their duty, it is a serious matter, particularly to the businesses in the area that depend on the transport system for both the movement of their staff between home and work and the transport of goods between supplier and customer, both of which are vital to the provision of profitable employment.
  In London, much of the responsibility for that duty has been vested by Parliament in the Greater London Council and, for many years, under the control of both main parties, the system has worked well. Of course, there have been differences of political emphasis over the respective priorities for expenditure of available funds, but that always appeared to be done for the intended benefit of both ratepayers and taxpayers.
  However, all that seems to have changed recently. Now that responsibility for housing management has rightly gone to the London boroughs, the ambulance service has been transferred to the DHSS, and the London boroughs are taking an increasing interest in absorbing other function, such as planning and traffic regulations, the GLC appears to be turning its attention towards finding itself a number of new interests of a politically contentious nature. At the same time, the authority seems to have lost the will and the ability adequately to perform those responsibilities which it retains under the London Government Act 1963. Faced with that background, I ask the Minister urgently to consider the Government's policy on transport in the Greater London area.
  The most basic of the responsibilities for transport in London is the road network. The recent rail strikes have demonstrated the vulnerability of London's primary road network to overloading through traffic congestion which increases travelling costs.
  The prime reason for London's congested traffic is the absence of adequate modern roads to cope with the traffic volumes. The 1,000 miles of main roads which are the responsibility of the GLC are mostly all-purpose carriageways, often no more than 12m wide and with frequent intersections, while only 15 per cent. of the main roads in London have dual carriageways.
  Despite having the biggest traffic control system in Europe, London's traffic speeds fell by 5 per cent. in the 1970s, in contrast with other metropolitan areas where speeds on average rose by 10 per cent. That is due to the low spending on roads in London compared with the rest of the country.
  In 1978–79, spending on London's roads was only 4·4 per cent. of the national road expenditure, whereas the capital contained 12·7 per cent. of the population. To put it another way, the road construction spending per head in 1978–79 was £5 for London compared with £15 for England, £28 for Scotland and £41 for Wales.
  The only long-term solution to the problem of London's increased congestion is the construction of new and improved roads. With responsibility split between the Department of Transport and the GLC for London's

  507
  primary roads, there is at present a lack of strategic planning, and in the case of the GLC a lack of political will to address the problem.
  The total GLC expenditure on new and improved roads in the period 1982–85 is forecast at £181 million. The London boroughs will be spending £129 million in the same period, making a total local government expenditure of £310 million. Those figures include a number of small but locally important schemes, such as the A118 Ilford town centre diversion in my constituency.
  To put the figures into some perspective, it should be noted that it is estimated that in 1980 alone the 2·38 million registered motor vehicles in London paid road tax and petrol tax totalling £1,380 million.
  The standing conference on London and South-East regional planning made proposals, which were adopted by the County Surveyors' Society in its report, "Transport in the 1980s", and supported by the British Road Federation. They advocated an investment in London's roads of £3,300 million in the 12 years from 1980 to 1992.
  Much still needs to be done which does not yet appear in any programme, and I hope that my hon. Friend will look most carefully at those issues of vital importance to the future well-being of the capital.
  The railway system is also a divided responsibility between London Transport, under the control of the GLC, and British Rail, under the Department of Transport. The latter, we are only too well aware from recent debates, is in receipt of subsidies exceeding £2 million a day. With the new awareness of what the taxpayer expects for his money, I hope that we shall start to see some real improvement in productivity to give the national network a future leading into the twenty-first century.
  London Transport has been under the control of the GLC since 1969, when the Government of the day handed over the entire network and rolling stock free of charge to the GLC, so that, unlike the other major transport undertakings in the world, it has no interest to pay or debt charges to reimburse on those major cost items. In addition, it also receives transport subsidies to help pay for new rolling stock and new lines and to help towards running costs. In spite of all that, the GLC has got itself into the most frightful mess.
  The Minister will remember that I sent him a copy of a letter that I received from a member of the majority party on the GLC, complaining that the Secretary of State was not prepared to pass legislation to help it out of its difficulties. The councillor went on to complain that the Secretary of State had suggested that it should implement productivity measures to help reduce costs. It transpires that, on reflection, the GLC has now discovered that it does not have to break even, to remain within the law. In the circumstances, one can only draw the conclusion that its entire attitude has been one to cause the maximum political antagonism, and only when it found that this behaviour did not pay off in the London borough elections earlier this year did it have second thoughts and make any attempt to face its responsibilities.
  I know that many of my hon. Friends have come to the same conclusion and that they have been most active in drawing the Government's attention to the waste and incompetence caused by the present GLC leadership. If my hon. Friend is still not convinced that something is sadly wrong, I would draw his attention to a particular example. A constituent of mine, a Mr. G. E. Diaper of 69, Meadway, Ilford, travels daily from Barking station to
  508
  Westminster on the District Line. He purchased a season ticket on 21 April 1981 for £407 to run until 20 April 1982. On 4 October 1981, as a result of the ill-fated "Fares Fair" policy, fares were reduced at the expense of the ratepayers. To avoid a mass of surrenders of current tickets and taking out new tickets at the reduced price. London Transport brought in a scheme whereby claims could be made for refunds. However, the scheme did not apply to tickets purchased at British Rail stations for use on London Transport trains. Here the arrangement was that the claim had to be made on expiry.
  By 20 April 1982, the House of Lords ruling was known, but my constituent, having been promised a refund for the appropriate period, attempted to lodge his application form for a refund, but it was refused. He wrote to the London Transport Passengers Committee on 23 April:
  "My ticket has now expired and I am told by British Rail that refunds are being totally suspended.
  I have been in touch with London Transport … who have confirmed this policy. They say that the House of Lords ruling was that the lower fares should never have been available and therefore there will be no more refunds".
  There was no mention of all those who had already had refunds or those who had had tickets at the lower price throughout the period. He went on:
  "This is manifestly unjust; firstly because many, perhaps most, people had a refund and secondly because the low fares did operate for several months. It seems quite unfair that those of us who, because of BR policy, had to wait are now debarred altogether from reclaiming, in my case, some £60 or £70. I seek your comment, advice and help".
  Mr. Diaper was surprised to receive a letter from the London Transport Passengers Committee which said, among other things:
  "The Committee have discussed the implications of this decision with representatives of the government, the GLC and LT. According to the GLC's interpretation of the Law Lords' ruling LT must do 'everthing practicable' to break even".
  The letter then gave the committee's view on what the Government should do about subsidies to London Transport. It finished by saying:
  "The Committee sympathised with passengers who had not obtained a refund and realised that they could claim to be unfairly treated in view of the number of people who had been issued with refunds prior to the Lords' judgment. However, in view of LT's financial difficulties together with their legal opinion and the problems for passengers generally the Committee have decided that they were unable to take further action in this case.
  I am sorry not to be more helpful".
  That is surely a most unhelpful attitude for a body that holds itself to be a passengers' watchdog.
  It appears to me that in cases of this kind perhaps the only solution is for the passenger to go to law to solve the matter. I for one have completely lost faith in the ability of the GLC to co-operate with the Department of Transport and its own passengers and staff in running London Transport, and I believe that it is essential to make alternative arrangements as a matter of urgency. The Government should consider creating a separate transport authority and appoint someone with a reputation for getting things done—perhaps someone like Sir Michael Edwardes—to take change and give taxpayers and ratepayers a sound and efficient service that is a credit to all concerned.
  11.49 pm
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on raising a subject of great importance to every Londoner.
  I wish my hon. Friend the Minister to consider sympathetically one point. In the considerations that must be taking place about a new transport authority for our great city and metropolitan area, will my hon. Friend take up the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South and consider a greater integration of the British Rail suburban commuter services and the London Transport Underground services? There is no doubt that the position is anomalous. A ticket for an equivalent journey on British Rail costs about half that on London Transport. This is a very serious matter for many Londoners. It makes a mockery of a public transport system, the purpose of which should be gainfully to assess how each part of transport can help a great city.
  11.51 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for raising the topic. I shall do my best to answer his points. The Government's objective is to provide the framework for the development of a coherent transport policy for London. That requires a sensible balance, within the resources that the nation can afford, between expenditure on roads—I note my hon. Friend's points—and on public transport. For their part, the Government are making substantial resources available: for investment in the trunk roads programme within and bordering the GLC area, involving about £1 billion during the next 10 years; to support British Rail's London and South-East commuter services; to the GLC for expenditure on the building and maintenance of local roads; and—a point that has recently been severely misrepresented—for substantial support to London Transport.
  The major responsibility for developing and implementing sensible, balanced and cost-effective transport policies rests with the GLC as the strategic authority for London. As we all know, the present GLC has a declared bias towards a public transport solution for London's problems and has decided against proceeding with the preparation of all but a few major road schemes.
  The GLC's road programme is selective and on a much more limited scale than had been planned. I have noted carefully my hon. Friend's points about road building, and the most helpful thing that I can do is to arrange for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who has responsibility for roads, to consider those points and write to my hon. Friend. The GLC decided that it could solve London's traffic problems at a stroke by introducing a massive reduction in London Transport fares at the expense of its ratepayers. We all know the seriously unsatisfactory outcome of that lack of balance towards its responsibilities for transport in London.
  By any standards, the events of the past year have been extraordinary. They have also been disruptive to the travelling public, placed unnecessary burdens on London's ratepayers and thrown into disarray the workings of London Transport. As the present GLC has been in office for a little more than a year, now is a good opportunity to review the events of the recent past and to try to place them in perspective.
  510
  The first point to be clear about is how the current situation arose. Prior to May 1981, when the present GLC came to power, successive Governments and GLC administrations of different political complexions had managed to work together reasonably amicably in ensuring that London received a fair share of the available resources for transport and that services were maintained at a reaonable level.
  The question that we must ask ourselves, therefore, is: what has happened to change all this? The GLC has been trying to persuade everyone that all the problems stem from the House of Lords judgment and the Government's refusal to introduce legislation to enable it to return to its former policies.
  Let us examine the facts. The GLC decided to introduce its so-called "Fares Fair" policy without any proper consideration of how it could be paid for and the devastating effects it would have on London's ratepayers. It was mainly for these reasons that House of Lords judged this policy to be illegal. Having had its half-baked political experiment shown up for what it was, instead of coming to the Government to discuss the issues sensibly and to try to overcome the problems that it had created in a reasonable manner, the GLC then mounted a massive publicity campaign, full of half truths, which was designed to delude people that they could have something for nothing.
  Simultaneously, to alarm people into supporting a return to its ill-considered policies, the GLC insisted on an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the House of Lords judgment in trying to make London Transport break even as soon as possible and inflicting a 100 per cent. fare increase on the travelling public as well as threats of ridiculous service cuts.
  Throughout this period the GLC continued to mess London Transport about—I agree with my hon. Friend about that—making management's life impossible by refusing to give it firm guidance on its capital budget, encouraging the work force to take disruptive action and undermining the possibility of improvements in efficiency.
  In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that a number of inconsistencies have arisen, particularly of the sort described by my hon. Friend. As he no doubt knows, my Department has no locus in the matter of fare levels on London Transport. Nor can the Government be expected to underwrite all the consequencies flowing from the GLC's illegal action and the operators' subsequent dealings with their customers.
  I was sorry to hear of the unfortunate experience of my hon. Friend's constituent, and I sympathise with him in his frustration. However, I am afraid that the only answer that I can give is that the question of refunds on season tickets must be pursued with those directly responsible.
  The decision of the GLC to introduce and then abandon its low fares policy created a number of anomalies. I understand that London Transport was advised that the payment of refunds to season ticket holders would be unlawful following the House of Lords judgment. The executive felt that it had no alternative but to cease payment immediately as a first step towards returning to legality.
  Although the suspension of the lower fares was also a legal imperative, it was not capable of immediate implementation because of the complex administration

  511
  necessary to implement a fares revision. The London Transport Executive recognises that this has led to unequal treatment as between one passenger and another.
  Moreover, and I say this with regret, this is only one example of the sort of inequities brought about by GLC mismanagement. Another is the fact that London's ratepayers, whose burden was relieved by the House of Lords judgment, are nevertheless still having to pay off the considerable deficit incurred during the period that the policy operated.
  All of this irresponsible activity on the part of the GLC has been conducted in the face of clear advice from the Government that the Law Lords judgment did not rule out a reasonable level of subsidy for public transport and that the task of the GLC should be to prepare a balanced and sensible plan based upon the considerable level of resources which had been made available to London Transport in the past, and which the Government made clear would continue to be made available.
  Against that background, we should examine the Government's record in all this. We made available to the GLC the Attorney-General's opinion that the revised GLC budget for 1982 was perfectly legal. Therefore, there was no reason for the GLC to have delayed approving London Transport's capital budget.
  We rushed through legislation to safeguard the position of the pensioners and disabled who were threatened by the consequences of the GLC's own policies. We offered legislation, which the GLC declined, to enable the deficit which London Transport had been forced to run up as a result of its low fares policy to be spread over five years, so cushioning the impact on fares.
  Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if London Transport had taken the Government's offer this year's rates would not have needed to be increased to the extent that they were? In my constituency the GLC precept was increased by no less than 90 per cent.
  Mr. Eyre: I am sorry to hear that. There is no doubt that the GLC's decision in this respect operated to the detriment of its financial arrangements in the way that my hon. Friend mentioned.
  We have made it clear that we are committed to a continuing substantial level of financial support for public transport, in London as well as elsewhere. It must by now be perfectly clear to everyone that in recent years London has had the lion's share of transport supplementary grant paid from the Exchequer to local authorities—£180 million in 1982–83, as much as 40 per cent. of the total for the whole of England.
  London Transport gets about £250 million a year in subsidy, £100 million of it from the national taxpayer. In addition, London's BR commuter rail services get a subsidy, wholly from the taxpayer, of about £150 million a year. Those are considerable sums, rightly so, to provide a substantial subsidy towards the cost of London's transport services.
  On the question of legislation, we have also made it clear that, although we have no intention of legislating to allow the GLC to return to extreme high cost-low fares policies, we are quite prepared to consider whether there is a need to define more clearly the extent of the GLC's discretion to pay subsidies.
  Therefore, we have made our policies towards public transport in London perfectly plain. We have leant over
  512
  backwards to try to help the GLC extricate itself from the mess which has been entirely of its own making. We have invited it to put forward a proper plan which has due regard to the level of resources which can reasonably be made available for London. We have made it clear that we want to see fares held and if possible reduced, with a substantial contribution being made from lower costs within London Transport.
  We recognise that London presents particular difficulties in this, but the fact of the matter is that London Transport's costs have grown at a much faster rate than those of operators in other conurbations. It has begun to look at this, but much more needs to be done.
  The Government's position is perfectly clear. We are waiting for action from the GLC. After all the havoc that it has created by its extreme policies over the past year, there are some signs that the GLC is now busily trying to reverse engines. It has recently acknowledged that the Lords judgment does not, as it was claiming, require London Transport to break even without subsidy, and it has at last approved this year's capital programme for London Transport. It is a pity that uncertainty was left hanging over London Transport for so long on much needed capital investment and with detrimental effect upon manufacturing industries in other parts of the country.
  The GLC says that it has now produced a draft transport plan on which it intends consulting widely. However, what that amounts to is four or five so-called options which are in fact only illustrative cases of the effects of different subsidy levels. There are many other possibilities. Public consultation on this basis is no substitute for responsible decision by the GLC.
  We have made it clear that what is needed now is a proper plan, not a series of options. If the GLC', claims for transport supplementary grant support are to receive proper consideration along with those of other counties, we must have firm proposals by the end of July. I hope that it will now come forward, as we have asked it to, with sensible proposals for London transport and not use this consultation exercise merely as another attempt to drum up support on a misleading basis for its former discredited policies.
  It is disquieting to see that the GLC still seems to be plugging its "Fares Fair" policy, although there are some signs that it has at last recognised that a policy that would put an extra £1¾ billion on the rates over the next five years, and cost £3 billion in total, is not a viable proposition in today's circumstances. The alternatives which it seems to be advocating, however, which it refers to as "Restrained Needs", would still require an extra £l billion over the next five years. There is nothing very restrained about that.
  No proper argument has been adduced in support of that in terms of the needs that would be met. Instead, the GLC merely puts forward generalised statements about the need to return fares to about the same relationship to average household income as they were in 1970. This represents a very disappointing response to our request to prepare a balanced plan using as a bench-mark the current level of resources going to London Transport. Instead of starting from this level and putting forward a well argued case for any increase, the GLC has started from the top and moved only slightly downwards.
  The council has reluctantly recognised the burden that its high-cost policies would place on the ratepayer. But its

  513
  response is simply to misrepresent the effect of block grant penalties, which, in fact, operate even-handedly for all authorities, and to ask the Government to change the whole structure of local government finance in order to accommodate it. Rather than trying to work within the existing arrangements and to come forward with sensible policies, it still seems to be in danger of persisting in policies which have no regard to the present financial circumstances and the level of resources which can reasonable be made available to London.
  In the light of events over the past year, we have been looking seriously at the organisation of transport in London. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) that the valuable point that he made about integration will be carefully considered.
  The deliberately disruptive activity of the GLC has cast serious doubts over whether the present institutional arrangements are any longer workable. In consequence there have been widespread representations, by Parliament, by the chairman of London Transport and others, concerning possible reorganisation. What is quite clear is that there is a need to clarify the lines of responsibility between those who pay for the services and those who provide them.
  A more arm's length relationship is required. London Transport needs clear strategy guidance but should then be allowed to get on with the major job of management and
  514
  providing services without back door interference. Secondly, a better definition is required of the purpose of subsidy and more accountability on the uses to which it is put. We need to redefine the powers and duties of those involved.
  Then there is the whole question of the efficiency and scale of London Transport—whether it would operate more efficiently with smaller accountable units and whether there is room for more private enterprise operators, what further scope exists for reducing costs, for adjusting services more closely to demand and for using capital investment in order to increase efficiency, for instance, through automatic ticket dispensing and collection and more one-man operation.
  More widely, there arises the whole question of the relationship between public transport and highways and between London Transport and British Rail fares and services. These are matters which we have been considering very carefully. We welcomed the Select Committee inquiry into transport in London and we shall be looking at its recommendations, which are expected soon, with great care.
  London needs a stable, balanced and properly coordinated transport policy. Regrettably, that has been totally lacking over the past year. We are determined that Londoners will have a better deal in the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o' clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Car Park
  Car Park
  Serjeant at Arms Department
  Serjeant at Arms Department
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  Stipends
  Stipends
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester Airport
  Church of England
  Church of England
TRADE
  Carpets (Imports)
  Carpets (Imports)
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Car Imports (Korea)
  Car Imports (Korea)
  Terms of Trade
  Terms of Trade
  Machinery
  Machinery
  Air Transport Arrangements (Middle East)
  Air Transport Arrangements (Middle East)
  European Community Trade Marks Office
  European Community Trade Marks Office
  Microlight Aircraft
  Microlight Aircraft
  Knitwear and Clothing (Reclassification)
  Knitwear and Clothing (Reclassification)
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Dyce Airport
  Dyce Airport
  Chile
  Chile
  Latin America
  Latin America
  Gas Appliances
  Gas Appliances
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Motoring Offences
  Motoring Offences
  Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Ofosu
  Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Ofosu
  Pharmacists (Safes)
  Pharmacists (Safes)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
PRIME MINISTER
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Cabinet Office (Staff)
  Cabinet Office (Staff)
  Central Policy Review Staff (Manpower)
  Central Policy Review Staff (Manpower)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Elm Trees
  Elm Trees
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
EMPLOYMENT
  Earnings (Statistics)
  Earnings (Statistics)
  Burton and Uttoxeter
  Burton and Uttoxeter
  Hazardous Materials (Storage)
  Hazardous Materials (Storage)
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Baking Industry
  Baking Industry
  Rural Jobcentres
  Rural Jobcentres
  National Health Service (Dispute)
  National Health Service (Dispute)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Criminal Trials
  Criminal Trials
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Unification Church
  Unification Church
  Royal Family
  Royal Family
INDUSTRY
  Iron and Steel (Output)
  Iron and Steel (Output)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Telecommunications Equipment (Liberalisation)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Liberalisation)
  Gas Appliances
  Gas Appliances
WALES
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Housing Conversion and Improvements
  Housing Conversion and Improvements
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Psychiatric Patients
  Psychiatric Patients
ENERGY
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  Public Sector Pay
  Public Sector Pay
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  School Population
  School Population
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions
  Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
SCOTLAND
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Mental Patients (Visits by Relatives)
  Mental Patients (Visits by Relatives)
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Housing
  Housing
  Second Homes
  Second Homes
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Housing (Dampness)
  Housing (Dampness)
  Lurchers Gully Development
  Lurchers Gully Development
  Rural Jobcentres
  Rural Jobcentres
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Inland Revenue (Record Keeping)
  Inland Revenue (Record Keeping)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Pregnancy
  Pregnancy
  Regional Health Authorities (Cash Limits)
  Regional Health Authorities (Cash Limits)
  Pharmacists (Pay)
  Pharmacists (Pay)
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Heating Allowances (Scotland)
  Heating Allowances (Scotland)
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Child Support
  Child Support
  Hospital Services (Private Contracts)
  Hospital Services (Private Contracts)
  Availability for Work
  Availability for Work
  Benefit Claimants
  Benefit Claimants
  Social Security Offices (Staff)
  Social Security Offices (Staff)
  Social Security Statistics
  Social Security Statistics
  Surgical Shoes
  Surgical Shoes
TRANSPORT
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Blind Persons (Delegation)
  Blind Persons (Delegation)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Neonatal Intensive Care
  Neonatal Intensive Care
  Rubella
  Rubella
  Social Security Acts (Report)
  Social Security Acts (Report)
  S Manual
  S Manual
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Foyle Fisheries Commission
  Foyle Fisheries Commission
  Drift Net Fishing
  Drift Net Fishing
  River Watchers
  River Watchers
  Salmon Redds
  Salmon Redds
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Clive Abbott
  Mr. Clive Abbott
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
DEFENCE
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding (Centenary Ceremony)
  Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding (Centenary Ceremony)
ENVIRONMENT
  Sports Grounds (Sales)
  Sports Grounds (Sales)
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Liverpool (Census Returns)
  Liverpool (Census Returns)
  System-built Housing
  System-built Housing
  Block Grant
  Block Grant
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Inner City Partnerships
  Inner City Partnerships
  South-East Dorset Structure Plan
  South-East Dorset Structure Plan
  Housing Investment Allocations
  Housing Investment Allocations
  British Waterways Board
  British Waterways Board
  Departmental Management, Information and Accounting Systems
  Departmental Management, Information and Accounting Systems
  Shorthold Tenancies
  Shorthold Tenancies
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Weather Damage (Expenditure)
  Weather Damage (Expenditure)
  Lake District National Park
  Lake District National Park
  Public Sector Housing
  Public Sector Housing
  London Docklands
  London Docklands
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Local Government (Reform)
  Local Government (Reform)
  Yorkshire (Waterways)
  Yorkshire (Waterways)
  Gatwick Airport
  Gatwick Airport
  House Building Statistics
  House Building Statistics
  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Vacant Land (Registers)
  Vacant Land (Registers)
  Aldermaston (Plutonium Liquid Waste)
  Aldermaston (Plutonium Liquid Waste)
  Liverpool Garden Centre
  Liverpool Garden Centre
  Mersey Barrage
  Mersey Barrage
  Liverpool Ice Rink
  Liverpool Ice Rink
  Disabled Persons Act 1981
  Disabled Persons Act 1981
  Safety Glazing
  Safety Glazing
  Agrément Board
  Agrément Board
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  House Building
  House Building
  Vauxhall Cross
  Vauxhall Cross
  "Beacons Exercise"
  "Beacons Exercise"
  Naphill
  Naphill
TRANSPORT
  British Rail (Exchequer Funding)
  British Rail (Exchequer Funding)
  Grants
  Grants
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Road Construction (Land Loss)
  Road Construction (Land Loss)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Rail Electrification
  Rail Electrification
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
SCOTLAND
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

The Lord MacLehose of Beoch
Sir Crawford Murray MacLehose, GBE, KCMG, KCVO, having been created Baron MacLehose of Beoch, of Maybole in the District of Kyle and Carrick and of Victoria in Hong Kong, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Rhodes and the Lord Caccia.
Lord Cornwallis—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Air Traffic Systems: Fuel Economies
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the response made to the request from IATA that Governments be requested as a matter of urgency to take all possible steps to rationalise Air Traffic Control systems and air route networks which could produce substantial fuel economies and financial savings.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, following the IATA Annual Meeting, one United Kingdom airline wrote to the Department of Trade about air route networks and fuel savings. The department and the National Air Traffic Services are fully seized of the need to reduce fuel consumption and considerable effort is devoted to this in the United Kingdom. NATS also play a full part in Eurocontrol and the European Air Navigation Planning Group of ICAO. Eurocontrol are currently considering changes in the route network which could lead in the short-term to savings of about 2½ per cent. Further savings could emerge in the longer-term. In addition, significant savings could arise from more effective air traffic flow management. Eurocontrol's central data bank should help in this connection.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Minister will not take it amiss, I was expecting the Secretary of State to answer my Question, and so perhaps the noble Lord opposite will pass on to him what I was going to ask.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Burton of Coventry: I am not being offensive, my Lords, and the Minister will see where
846
I am going. I wanted to ask the Secretary of State whether he was aware that it was the question of military airspace in Europe which was holding up the shortening of air routes as much as we would have hoped. I wanted to ask whether the Secretary of State for Trade would feel able to take this up with the Council of Ministers, as only Ministers would be able to persuade Governments to give up some of this airspace.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I will certainly pass on to my noble friend the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. I understand that, so far as military airspace is concerned, within each member state of Eurocontrol, it is the member states of Eurocontrol who tend to take decisions, certainly about military airspace, within their own countries. But, as the noble Baroness and the House will be aware, Eurocontrol comprises both military and civil representatives.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this morning I have received from IATA details of 10 routes within the European Economic Community which could produce considerable savings to the airlines? As the annual amount estimated to be saved on fuel alone is 27 million dollars, I wanted to know whether the Minister would feel able to refer this matter to the Council of Ministers if I gave him full information, so that the whole question could be expedited?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am, as always, very grateful for the noble Baroness' figures and indeed the accuracy of her representations. Certainly I shall pass on her figures to my noble friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both this proposal, and indeed other proposals submitted by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, would do a number of things? It could make air travel more safe. It would make it more comfortable and easy for people. It would make fares much cheaper. In short, it could greatly improve not merely our European air services but world air services. May I therefore ask the noble Lord to take very seriously the submissions which the noble Baroness has made and ensure that they are communicated to the Secretary of State?
Lord Lyell: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the area covered by Eurocontrol is a comparatively small one? Is he aware that there is a growing volume of opinion that would welcome the extension of Eurocontrol over a far wider area? Will his noble friend consider publishing a short White Paper which shows quite unequivocally exactly what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is towards Eurocontrol?—because so far it seems to be a little ambivalent where it is not obscure.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord will be one of the few people in your Lordships' House who might feel that Eurocontrol is ambivalent and obscure or in any way ineffective. I can assure the noble Lord and

847
your Lordships—the noble Lord shakes his head; he is an accountant as am I, but neither of us are pilots—that Eurocontrol is very highly-thought-of in world air traffic circles. The noble Lord believes that Eurocontrol covers a comparatively small area. I do not think that is necessarily the case in Europe. Indeed, co-operation and association agreements with Eurocontrol already exist for Spain, Denmark, Italy, Greece and Portugal. Indeed, Portugal will become a full member once the new convention comes into force.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I would not wish him to think me rude? It was only yesterday afternoon when I had discussions with his noble friend, who I expected to see here today, and in view of what I wanted to say, the noble Lord's appearance rather threw me.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness that I cannot resemble my noble friend day by day. I am afraid I am not seized of the entire conversation of my noble friend and the noble Baroness. Nevertheless, I hope I have endeavoured to reply to most of her questions. I shall indeed undertake to pass on the specific points which she has asked me to pass on.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the problems to which he has referred are very well known to the Science Committee of the Council of Europe Assembly, which has now been trying for some years to get Eurocontrol to make annual reports to the Assembly committee with a view to co-ordinating all these complaints about it much more effectively and getting a more efficient and economic system? Up to now, quite contrary to what other bodies do, Eurocontrol has refused to report in this way to the Council of Europe Assembly. Would it not be a good idea and in everybody's interest, in view of what the Minister himself has said, to reopen the idea of an international assembly of this kind doing a little supervision?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, Eurocontrol, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, is comprised of member states, and it is to their own member states that the representatives of Eurocontrol report.
Lord Carver: My Lords, in considering this question, would the noble Lord please bear in mind the extreme importance of NATO's air forces being kept properly trained?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful for that question. We shall bear that very closely in mind.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does not the noble Lord feel that it was quite unnecessary for him to apologise for appearing in a substitute capacity, because is this not another example of what we have heard described as flexible rostering?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, given the warm good wishes of the House, it appears that this form of flexible rostering, at least in our department, seems to work.

South Atlantic and Falklands Appeals
2.57 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the South Atlantic Appeal and the Falklands Appeal are registered as charities.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I am advised by the Charity Commission that the trustees of the South Atlantic Fund have applied for its registration as a charity and that the application is being considered. I understand that it is not proposed to apply for charitable status for the Falklands Appeal but that its trustees have announced that any funds remaining after the immediate needs of the islanders and the cost of projects for the general benefit of the community have been met, will be paid to the United Kingdom Falkland Islands Trust which is a registered charity.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord for that informative reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that I heard the organisers of the Falklands Appeal speaking on the radio as though it were a charity; and is he further aware that the Government stated on 25th May that the South Atlantic Appeal would not be a charity? If the Government themselves find it difficult to get it right and the public are left in some confusion, does not this lend some force to the argument which some of us have been propounding that the time has come to take a fresh look at the law on charities?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think the Government have misled the public in any way at all. The question as to whether the South Atlantic Appeal is a charity depends, first of all, upon the application to the Charity Commissioners and then on the answer that they give to the application, which is under consideration. So far as the Falklands Appeal is concerned, that is a different organisation altogether. I have here a press release which I think was not issued by the Government but which gives the objects of the Falklands Appeal, which in themselves, I should have thought, were not charitable. But I have stated the true position with regard to it. I am not sure what the noble Lord means by further consideration. I do not think there is any doubt about the situation at all.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if the Charity Commissioners deem the South Atlantic Appeal to be charitable, may we assume that any monies already forwarded to that appeal will be treated as part of the charity?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is the assumption I should be inclined to make myself.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he could explain—I realise

849
I ought to have deduced it—exactly what the difference between the two is, why one is a charitable appeal and not the other?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the objects of the Falklands Appeal are to benefit the islanders and the islands. The objects of the South Atlantic Fund are to benefit those who were injured in the recent conflict and their dependants, and the dependants of those who died. The aims of the Falklands Appeal were set out in a press release. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is a patron.

Civil Defence: Co-ordination
3 p.m.
Lord Renton: 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 name the counties in England and Wales in which Air Marshal Sir Leslie Mavor has co-ordinated voluntary effort in support of Civil Defence and what has been the result of such co-ordination; and whether they will give similar information with regard to the activities of Mr. F. G. Armstrong in Scotland.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, Sir Leslie Mavor has been in close touch with all county councils in England and Wales to encourage their effective use of volunteers. He has provided guidance, information on the work of voluntary organisations and agencies, and personal briefing. Sir Leslie Mavor receives regular progress reports from each county authority. The achievement by individual county councils has varied, but in general there has been significant progress in this important field.
The position in Scotland is similar. Mr. F. G. Armstrong has visited all regional councils and discussed the use of volunteers in civil defence with their emergency planning staffs.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that reply and to acknowledge the efforts made by the Air Marshal and by Mr. Armstrong, and the response which a good many local authorities have given to their approaches. But is it not about time that all local authorities prepared to deal with any emergencies that may arise in peace and war and to make full use of the many volunteers who are willing to help them in their humanitarian task?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should confirm that no county council has declined to carry out its minimum statutory duties—those are the duties as prescribed by planning regulations made under the Civil Defence Act 1948. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said recently that he is considering urgently whether there is a need to amend those regulations. But I accept the point of my noble friend that we would wish that all county councils would do as much as the best are doing.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that authoritative and expert opinion has been moving rapidly in recent years, and even in recent months, towards the conclusion that there can be no effective civil defence against nuclear war, and is not the cancellation of the Government's Hard Rock exercise a recognition of this fact?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords. No one can predict what might happen, but we believe that in a war there would be many millions of survivors. There would certainly be more survivors if both Government and individuals took sensible precautions.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether it is right that civil defence is not merely for the purpose of nuclear war, but for other purposes such as the massive flooding of an area and so on, where civil defence workers can do a great deal of valuable and helpful work?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. It would, of course, be used in a conventional war should there be such an occurrence as well as in civil emergencies.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, has the noble Baroness noted that the British Medical Association has set up an inquiry into the effectiveness of civil defence in view of the danger of nuclear war, and that its introductory paper by experts says that even in the deepest shelter people would be asphyxiated to death? In view of those facts, would it not be better if concentration was placed upon urging the super powers to end not only nuclear war but chemical warfare and all weapons of mass destruction?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords. The first part of the noble Lord's question in no way invalidates what I have already said about the need to take sensible precautions. Of course, the Government are committed, along with all other Western nations, to try to get multilateral disarmament.

Civil Defence: Definition
3.4 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: 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 how they define "Civil Defence".
Baroness Young: My Lords, civil defence is a matter of emergency planning. Such planning involves being prepared to deal with the effects of major emergencies, accidents and natural disasters in peace and war.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that admirable definition. Is she aware—if she was not aware five minutes ago I think that she must be aware now—that there are persons who aver that civil defence is a waste of

851
money because it cannot provide protection against full-scale nuclear attack? Would she agree that this attitude is almost perfectly analogous to a belief or a statement that it is a waste of money to buy an umbrella because umbrellas cannot keep out thunderbolts?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes, I would agree with what my noble friend has said.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—bringing in the definition of civil defence which she has now given—that it may be a worthy thing, whatever we think of war, to pay a tribute to organisations like the St. John Ambulance Brigade, and to ask schools to train people more than ever in first aid? Because, in view of the incidents that take place in this violent world on football fields and with bands being blown up, it may be that a life can be saved by the elementary knowledge of how to stop a damaged artery bleeding a man to death?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. In peacetime certainly voluntary organisations participate in training exercises and to some extent in planning in civil defence. This applies particularly to volunteer scientific advisers and members of the Royal Observer Corps. Established organisations such as the British Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the Women's Royal Voluntary Service have all made valuable contributions to civil defence planning and training in their areas, and I would like to pay tribute to all the work they do.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would my noble friend the Leader of the House not agree, as regards those county councils who are backward because they have been misled into concentrating civil defence in the nuclear area, that it would be in the interests of the country if the Government were to emphasise to them the very definition which my noble friend gave in answer to this Question; to point out to them that they really are barking up the wrong tree, and that it is time they got away from this type of mythical position that they have adopted and became practical in the interests of all the people in the country, including their own ratepayers?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that not only this Question and Answer session, but the debate initiated by my noble friend a short time ago on civil defence, will help to draw to the attention of the country the importance of civil defence. I think that it is a matter of responsibility for all of us in public life to try to explain to people the value of civil defence and the good effects of taking sensible precautions, both by the Government and by individuals.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: But, my Lords, is not the noble Baroness aware that it is the Government who are concentrating civil defence upon nuclear war and creating the reaction that has been mentioned? Can the noble Baroness say, however, whether it is scientifi-
852
cally the case that if one raises an umbrella in a storm, one is likely to get struck by lightning?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the metaphor of my noble friend may not have been exact. However, I really do think that if we are talking about a serious subject there is a lot to be said for encouraging individual responsibility in matters of civil defence precautions as in other matters.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the people who would rejoice most if we completely abandoned civil defence, as has been suggested, would be the men in the Kremlin?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Peart: My Lords, may I say that the Opposition endorse exactly what the noble Baroness has said. We believe that we must have adequate defence and we will play our part.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that the whole House will be most encouraged to hear what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said on this matter, and I hope that he will bring his great influence to bear on some of the Labour-controlled local authorities.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Elton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on royalty protection.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening.
The Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment the Third Reading of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill will be taken.

Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Business of the House
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 37 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the Summer Recess so far as is necessary to give the Government power to arrange the order of business; and that Standing Order 43 (No two stages of a Bill be to taken on one day) be suspended for the same period.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 45:
Insert the following new clause—
("Bail.
.—(1) Where a person has been convicted on indictment and has given notice of appeal, or as the case may be, notice of application for leave to appeal, the court of trial may, if they think fit, on his application admit him to bail pending the determination of his appeal.
(2) In section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, after the words "of his appeal there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2) Where the appellant has applied to the Crown Court for bail and that court has withheld bail or imposed conditions the Court of Appeal may, if they think fit, grant bail or vary the conditions".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 45 which seeks to speed up the criminal process in order to save time and—something I am sure is near the heart of the noble Lord the Minister—to save unnecessary expense. The proposal is a simple one, although it may take a few minutes to explain. It is simply to give Crown Court judges the power in appropriate cases to grant bail to persons who have given notice of appeal against their conviction or their sentence, a power which has been exercised by magistrates in cases appealed to Crown Courts every day of the week all over the country.
It may appear surprising to your Lordships that if a person chooses summary trial and is convicted and sentenced, say, to six months' or possibly 12 months' imprisonment by the magistrate, he can immediately enter a notice of appeal and apply for bail, which will be considered by the magistrates. If that same person chooses jury trial and goes to the Crown Court and is equivalently convicted and sentenced to up to 12 months' or more imprisonment, he may fill in all the necessary forms "or launching an appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, but the judge before whom he has appeared and been convicted would not be able to grant him bail pending the hearing of the appeal. That would seem strange—would it not?—because it is the judge at the trial who has heard all the facts, who knows the whole of the background of the accused person, who has heard the evidence and, indeed, who has probably ruled on a matter of law which is to be taken up to the Court of Appeal; yet he is not the person who makes the decision whether or not that person should be granted bail pending the hearing of his appeal.
There are times when Crown Court judges feel that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place. In the judge's opinion the jury may have been swayed by local prejudice or may have returned what he considers to be a perverse verdict; or he may have ruled in law on a difficult question of law which he, above all, would like to hear reviewed in the Court of Appeal.
854
He may agonise about a sentence, feeling that although the mitigation is overwhelmingly strong, he is apparently governed by some observation made by the Court of Appeal which impels him to pass a custodial sentence really against his wishes, and he would wish that matter to be reviewed.
What can he do at the moment? He can say to the accused or the accused's lawyers, "I hope you will appeal against this decision". He can grant a certificate saying that the case is fit for appeal, but he cannot go on to say that it would be outrageous if this person should go through the whole trauma of surrendering himself at the local prison only to be released a week or a month later having served that period of time, when in all probability his appeal will be allowed.
In my submission two serious mischiefs arise by this situation. First, because, of course, there are substantial delays in the hearing of appeals, appellants may well have served a substantial part of their sentence by the time their appeal is called on in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division; for instance, with regard to this Bill the situation of a 21-day order of a detention centre for a young person. Secondly, at the moment—and I do not say this in any offensive way—many appeals are fudged in the Court of Appeal by allowing appeals against sentence in these terms: "We allow this appeal to the extent that the appellant is released today "; whereas what they ought to do, of course, is to say that no custodial sentence should, in fact, ever have been imposed at all. It gives rise to this fudging system because of the results of saying that no custodial sentence should have been imposed when the man or woman has already served a substantial amount of time in prison.
At the moment, if you wish to get bail pending your appeal you have to fill in a number of forms. They have to be sent to the registrar of the Court of Appeal in London and must be accompanied by the appropriate documents, or they may be sent to the governor of the prison. Of course, notice must be given to the police and the prosecution. When the hearing of the application for bail is made, the lawyers and the police have to come all the way to London, at a great deal of cost and, in my submission, causing a great waste of time, in order that this application shall be made.
The noble Lord the Minister made four observations when I moved this amendment at the Committee stage. First, he recognised the desirability of the proposal and wanted time to consider it, which gives one hope that he is now further convinced by its good sense. Secondly, he said, surprisingly, that as an appeal has to be submitted in writing to a judge of the Court of Appeal, he would be the only person who would have the material on which bail might be granted. I hope that I have dealt with that objection because that is manifestly not so. But what I suspect he may have had in mind is that whereas on a matter of law and a matter where a certificate is granted the appellant has an absolute right of appeal, where it is a question of fact in law or fact only, or a question of sentence, he must seek the leave of the Court of Appeal to be enabled to appeal. In my submission that is no basic objection to this proposal; it is merely a matter of mechanics, because if leave was refused on an application, he would simply have to surrender himself, either to the court of trial, which would be the

855
simple thing to do, and be put back exactly into the position he was in when he was found guilty, or to the prison, in exactly the same way as a person who appeals from the magistrates has to surrender himself in due course to whichever court it is which will deal with his particular case.
The third matter which the noble Lord the Minister raised was that the amendment, as set down then, meant that any Crown Court judge should have this power. That has been corrected in the present wording of the amendment to read, as, of course, it should have read, the judge of "court of trial" —that is, the judge who tried the matter.
The fourth thing that the noble Lord the Minister said was to throw me a sop in the sense that he understood that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was minded to issue guidance to judges of Crown Courts to contact the registrar in London in cases of urgency to expedite the hearing of the appeal. I hope your Lordships would feel that, although of course that is excellent as an idea, so vital a matter as the deprivation of liberty of a defendant and the hearing of a possible miscarriage of justice should surely be governed by statute, should be dealt with openly, and should not simply be left to the goodwill of, if I may say so, a most humane registrar, the one who now fills that office, and the efficiency of solicitor, counsel, and the telephone system.
I assure the House that this reform is one which is much needed by practitioners and judges alike, but of course overwhelmingly by defendants who have to suffer the torture of an unjust and temporary incarceration. The amendment is backed by the All-Party Penal Affairs Group, and in its name I beg to move.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment. Of course the power to grant bail to an appellant pending appeal is sparingly used at the moment and there is no reason to suppose that it would be any the less sparingly used if this amendment were accepted. But it would be a useful, modest improvement on the present position in two respects. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has indicated, there are each year a distressing number of cases—not a large number, but a sizeable number—where defendants have served the whole of their sentence before their appeal is heard, and their appeal is eventually allowed and they are acquitted without, as they say, a stain on their character. That is very little consolation to them, and of course they are not entitled to any sort of compensation for the period that they have spent in prison in those circumstances.
If this amendment were in existence, it would in that small number of cases give the opportunity to the Crown Court judge, if it was clear to him that there was an arguable case on appeal, to grant bail straight away instead of having to wait for the inevitable delay of three, six, nine months that it sometimes takes before the application for leave can be heard by the Court of Appeal. The other type of case in which it might be of assistance is the criminal case which turns as a matter of law on a particular point, and it is recognised by the prosecution and the defence from
856
the beginning that on the Crown Court's adjudication of that point of law the verdict will depend. Indeed, if the judge rules one way the prosecution offer no evidence; if the judge rules the other way on the matter of law the defendant frequently then pleads guilty, having at that time of course to accept the judge's ruling on that matter of law.
In that situation, a judge sometimes feels that the point of law upon which he has to rule is a difficult one, and that it may well be that in due course it will take its way through the Court of Appeal and eventually to the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. He may therefore have very real doubts, although he has done his honest best to determine in his lights what the correct answer to the legal problem is. Again in those circumstances it would be only just that the Crown Court judge should be able to say that he has ruled to the best of his ability and that, having ruled, he is obliged to pass a prison sentence, but that he accepts that on the particular point he may well be wrong and therefore the matter will have to take its course through the courts, and it would be appropriate in some of those cases that he should therefore grant bail to the defendant on whom he has had to impose a prison sentence. I would regard this as a modest improvement but a real one that may help a certain number of defendants who would otherwise suffer a substantial injustice.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my name is on this amendment mostly because of the frustration I have experienced on behalf of people who wait so long for their appeals to come before Crown Court judges when they are in custody. I must admit that if I had had any influence with the right reverend Prelate I would have asked him to include a prayer today during Prayers that the All-Party Penal Affairs Group would not divide the Government on any of their amendments. However, as I have no influence with the right reverend Prelate, I hope, despite the fact that my name is on this amendment, that we shall not divide, because it was my understanding at Committee stage that the Lord Chief Justice was going to give formal advice on this matter, and I shall wait with interest to hear what the Minister says.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, my name is also on the amendment, and I should like to say a word in support of it and to echo the view of my noble friend Lord Wigoder, that the fact that it concerns only a small number of cases does not detract in any way from the merits of the amendment. I believe that, even if it was only one individual who had suffered unjust imprisonment as a result of the lack of a power in the lower courts to give bail, your Lordships would be justified in making this amendment so as to save that person from wrongful imprisonment.
I cannot imagine anything worse happening to a person than to spend upwards of six months in prison and then to be acquitted in the appeal court, and to be left with a burning sense of injustice and resentment against the system which had caused this to happen. If any of your Lordships can imagine it happening to himself, spending such a period of imprisonment, which would certainly not leave a stain on one's

857
character, as my noble friend said, would leave a grave sense of resentment against the system.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will come forward and say that he accepts the amendment. I believe there are cases that take more than the six to nine months that my noble friend mentioned. I had a case myself—I am not saying that the man was found innocent—where it took almost two years for his case to come on in the Appeal Court. It would be utterly deplorable that anybody should spend time in prison for as long as that and then subsequently be found innocent on appeal.
I cannot think of any amendment which I would sooner were passed in the remainder of this Bill than this one, which has the support of the All-Party Penal Affairs Group. Since I can think of no argument against it, really the onus is on the Government to come forward and say why it should not be passed rather than for us to show why a few people wrongfully imprisoned should be released.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I be allowed to support this amendment? I did so at Committee stage. I do so again. Everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, with meticulous clarity, as one would expect with a background of vast practical knowledge, is wholly justified, wholly accurate and wholly true. Indeed, it has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who also has considerable practical knowledge in this matter.
It is an unsatisfactory situation as it exists today. True this power will be used sparingly, there is no doubt about that. But there are these cases where, without this power, manifest injustice will be done. I support this amendment. It is not a matter on which, if driven to a Division, I would—and I say so now; I have not made up my mind—necessarily vote against my Front Bench, but I feel strongly about it and I hope it will be considered seriously.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I support the opinion expressed unanimously that the amendment would effect a modest and useful reform. It would also save money and time. My noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan gives me an example of what can go on. Apparently he was appearing at the Cardiff Crown Court on a certain matter where, surprisingly, he did not succeed in his submission for the accused and was unable to apply to appeal to the learned High Court judge, who was then sitting in the Crown Court, under the present rules. However, he was able to enjoy a journey to London on behalf of his client a few days later to appear before the same judge, sitting in the High Court as a High Court judge, and on that occasion he succeeded in obtaining leave to appeal. It really is a nonsense, and an expensive one at that.
It seems extraordinary that magistrates can grant bail after a conviction and sentence where the defendant indicates that he wishes to appeal, but a Crown Court judge cannot grant bail pending the determination of the appeal. And, in the case of the imposition of short sentences, there is a real risk that the sentence will have been served before the appeal can ever reach the appellate stage. I therefore hope the Minister will be able to give way on this matter. I do not want to delay the House because we have a good deal of ground
858
yet to cover, but perhaps I have said enough to indicate what I trust has been the receipt of a hopeful missive on this issue.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if people are imprisoned when they are innocent, are they not able to claim compensation? Might this amendment, if agreed to, save the Government paying unnecessary compensation?
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I fear that I must ask a few questions. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have had many contributions from members of the All-Party Penal Affairs Group, who appear to bring some sort of weight to our deliberations as a result of having discussed these matters prior to the rest of us. We have also had contributions from noble Lords who often earn their livelihood in the practice of the law. When they state the case to a mere magistrate like myself I do not always understand exactly what they are talking about. Indeed, I have often suffered from that while sitting on the Bench, so I must ask a few simple questions on matters which confuse me, and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, may agree with me on that.
As has been said, when, in a magistrates' court, hail is denied, the facts are put to the Bench and it is denied because of the nature of the offence. We are here discussing people who appear in a Crown Court, a higher court, so we assume that the nature of the offence must be of a more serious character. However, nobody has said in the course of this debate what sort of offenders we are talking about. We assume that they have appeared before a higher court because of the very serious charges involved. If someone has appeared on a serious charge and bail is denied, and they must remain in custody while awaiting appeal, one wonders why that should be the case. Equally, one wonders why these individuals are then finally acquitted. Nor do we know how many such cases there are.
I have always been given to understand that we should never introduce legislation based on one or two cases. Unless we can have rather more explanation than the supporters of the amendment have given so far to show that there are a number of such cases, it is difficult to see what line to take. May we also be told the nature of the offence and why bail was denied? Do I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is about to rise and give me the answer? We are entitled to answers to these questions.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows only too well that there are certain cases of triviality who ask for trial by jury.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I offer the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, a possible explanation? It is not so much the gravity or nature of the offence but the fact that the sort of problem which could arise is this: you are sitting trying a case with a jury and you have a difficult question as to corroboration, whether you should allow it and which way you should rule. Sitting there, you know that if you have made the wrong ruling and let the evidence in, it is inevitable that he will be convicted; whereas if you

859
rule it out, then there is no evidence and therefore he must go free. That is the very sort of ruling on which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that the judge or recorder agonises. In a case such as that, it is not so much dependent—it may be, but not always—on the type of offence. There are cases where you feel that the fair thing to do—they will be rare but there are such cases—is to see whether that ruling is right before the man actually goes to prison.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, of all people, but I would remind him that this is Report stage.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I begin by saying that I think I understand the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, aright in that his intention is to give a judge who presides at a Crown Court trial the power to grant bail pending an appeal. The new clause as drafted does not, I think, achieve that end. As I read it, it still gives the power to all Crown Court judges, not just the one who presided at the trial. The expression "court of trial" means the Crown Court, which is one court, although it sits in many divisions and in many places. That is an important technicality which must be got right. The new clause also seems to preclude the possibility of the Court of Appeal's revoking bail if it thought that was appropriate. As there might be changes in circumstances which rendered such a course appropriate, I would have thought that would be a most understandable fetter on the Court of Appeal.
However, the noble Lord's main point, which he argued with exemplary clarity and brevity, is that a trial judge should have this power once the notice of appeal has been given. I ask your Lordships to consider what in practice this would mean. A notice of appeal is a form which is usually filled in by a solicitor. It has to be accompanied by reasoned grounds of appeal, which are usually drafted by counsel. They are sent to the Registrar of Criminal Appeals. The grounds must be real and carefully considered, otherwise it would be too easy for all appellants simply to file vague or frivolous grounds, but if they have substance, then the notice of appeal is complete. All this can be done quickly, but it cannot be done instantly. The fact that the grounds must be formulated and sent to the registrar, would, even on the noble Lord's proposal, as I understand it, inevitably mean that the Crown Court could not be asked for bail immediately; it would have to be re-convened at a later date. That is not mere mechanics but a serious consideration.
Although, as I have said, the forms and procedure for initiating an appeal are relatively straightforward, your Lordships may wonder why they need to be as complicated as they are. The reason is that some 50,000 people are convicted in the Crown Court each year. Of these, at least 23,000 receive immediate custodial sentences, and 6,000 or so apply for leave to appeal, of whom only about 1,000 are in any way successful. I hope those are the figures for which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was asking. Thus, most applications have no hope of success. Much of the work of the court and of the Criminal Appeal Office is to weed out these hopeless cases as early as
860
possible so that the court can concentrate on appellants who do have an arguable case. Experience has shown that the number of appeals rises sharply if convicted defendants feel that they have nothing to lose in appealing, or that there is some collateral advantage, such as bail, in doing so.
The effects of a flood of unmeritorious appeals from defendants whose real intention was not eventual acquittal but immediate bail would be administratively catastrophic. Again, this is not mere mechanics because the real losers would be the defendants whose appeals did have merit, because the Court of Appeal and Criminal Appeal Office would take far longer to deal with them than they now do.
Therefore the noble Lord's proposal seems fraught with difficulty and delay, but even if it were not, I should have to ask your Lordships to consider—and many of you can do it better than I can—whether the trial judge is necessarily the best person to decide whether bail should be granted. I am always very diffident in questioning the abilities of judges to do anything, because I stand in great awe of them, and I mean nothing in detriment to their learned and wise capacities. But on many occasions the trial judge will have had no experience of sitting in the Court of Appeal. He will not know how the judges of that court deal with these difficult matters. He will have no power to grant legal aid, or to order an expedited hearing, which a single judge of the Court of Appeal has. The trial judge will not have before him all the necessary material to make a decision. He will have no transcript of the proceedings. His recollection of the precise words that he used in his summing-up, if that is the basis of the appeal, may be imperfect, or may not agree with counsel's recollection. The grounds of appeal may relate to a point which arose days or weeks previously during the trial.
I would remind your Lordships, first, that the Crown Court judge is free to write to the Registrar of Criminal Appeals for an expeditious hearing and to recommend the grant of bail. Further, I can confirm what my noble friend suggested—that in the near future the Lord Chief Justice will issue formal guidance to judges and to the legal profession, so that all know how quickly bail can be considered, and how to set that machinery in motion more quickly. I fear that, even had the right reverend Prelate interceded in this matter, what I have said would not be regarded as an answer to his prayer, but it is the best that I can do.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, as a layman with very little understanding of the courts, to me the position seems to be that the magistrate can deal with the matter, while the Crown Court judge cannot. That seemed to me absolutely inexplicable, and nothing that the noble Lord has said has explained it to me.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, there are three points which the noble Lord the Minister has not touched upon, and in my submission each and every one of them goes to the very root of the issue. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism of the noble Lord. These are highly technical matters, and they involve the kind of consideration that comes only to someone who tends to come up against such questions very often in daily practice. First, there is what might be called

861
the provinces point. If an application for bail is to be made on behalf of a person convicted in the provinces, it can be granted only by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. With very few exceptions, the Court of Appeal Criminal Division sits only in London. As my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones said, with great flattery so far as my own situation was concerned, quite often an application for bail means that the advocate has to travel up to London. The application is heard by a High Court judge, sitting as a single judge, as a member of the Court of Appeal. Sometimes, as has, by coincidence, happened in my own case, the judge will be a High Court judge from the very concourse of courts in the provinces from which the advocate himself has come. They both travel up to London. Counsel appears before the judge to make the application. The judge hears the application, and then they both travel back to the city in the provinces from whence they came. In my submission, that is a nonsense, but it happens from time to time.
Secondly, a further consideration is that the judge—for example, a circuit judge—who has tried the case is entitled after the conviction to hear an application by counsel that the matter should be allowed to go to the Court of Appeal without going through the sifting process of the single judge, if it is an appeal on a point of law. If the trial judge has that power, as he has under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, to circumvent the single judge, is there any earthly reason why the circuit judge should not be allowed to decide, on a much lower level, the question of whether or not bail should be granted? Surely the issue of bail must be regarded as being utterly ancillary to the primary consideration of whether or not there should be an appeal.
The third point mentioned by the Minister was that if there was the prospect of bail, it might encourage persons to make frivolous applications. The answer to that is that when a frivolous application is made, the Court of Appeal, when it hears the application, is entitled to say that time already served by the defendant shall not be counted towards his sentence.
In my sincere submission those are three very fundamental matters which I feel the Minister has not had the opportunity of considering. Therefore we would ask him not to come to a final conclusion on the question until he has had that opportunity.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, there seems to be considerable support in the House for the amendment. I should like to say two things. I wish to address one of the points to the noble Baroness who was so mystified by the type of people with whom we are dealing; and I seemed to notice in her observations a rather basic hostility to lawyers in general. I should like to assure her that the amendment contains no advantage to lawyers, because if it were passed, instead of the nice, long journeys to London which have been referred to, lawyers would be deprived of the privilege of a night in London, as well as a fee for applying in London for bail, all of which they could do on the fee that is marked on the one brief at the trial.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord is most kind to give way. With the leave of the House, I would mention that I have a number of points, but I feel that
862
I should make only one of them, since the noble Lord is now raising it. A High Court judge on circuit can grant bail. All that is needed is liaison by telephone with the Criminal Appeal Office in London. I am sorry to deprive people of many comfortable journeys.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to complete what I was saying to the noble Baroness. We are dealing with ordinary people who are being tried by a Crown Court judge. The Crown Court judge has been entitled to grant such people bail during the trial. He has made up his own mind about the seriousness of the offence, the type of offence, and the background of the defendant. From day to day, during the trial, at adjournments before the trial, or during the months which may elapse before the defendant is committed and heard, the Crown Court judge can grant bail. The judge knows all about the particular defendant. The amendment proposes that, whether or not the case is a serious one, when the trial is over, armed with all the information, the judge can continue the bail that has previously been granted. Having used his discretion in the one case, the judge would be enabled to use his discretion when the trial is over. There is no mystery about it; that is simply the situation.
The noble Lord the Minister referred to a question of technicality, and I accept that. It is simply a matter of drafting, and it can be set right quite easily. The Minister said that the whole of the amendment is fraught with dangers of delay. That is exactly what one is up against throughout the consideration of the very sensible amendments which have been put forward on a non-party basis. Over and over again the brief that the Minister reads out uses such phrases as, "fraught with dangers of delay". There is no fraughtness at all about the amendment; absolutely none. What was said by the Minister in that regard reflects the imagination of someone sitting in an office, hermetically sealed from what goes on in the real world, conjuring up objections to something that is positive, sensible, clear, and, I would submit, in every way admirable. The noble Lord the Minister is perfectly happy to accept ridiculous, cosmetic, negative amendments such as those to stop people making speeches from the dock if they feel like it because they are bored with their barrister, and so on, but is not prepared to accept sensible, positive contributions to the criminal process.
When I hear the noble Lord say that the poor judge who has sat for a week, a fortnight or a month on a case is not as suited as a High Court judge sitting in London, who knows nothing about the facts at all except for what he can glean from pieces of paper, and is not a man or woman who will understand the basis on which to grant bail because, for instance, he has not got a transcript of the proceedings which he himself has been listening to for the last few days or weeks, then, again, one despairs of this sort of reply. A man who has been conducting a trial does not have to have a transcript of the trial. He has been listening to the trial with his own ears, and making up his mind as the hours pass as to what is the basis of the matter.
As for the question of the grounds of appeal and time having to be spent by some lawyer to get them right, and the days that would have to be spent by the lawyer sitting in his chambers trying to think up

863
some brilliant ground of appeal, the reality of the matter is that the barrister or the solicitor present during the summing-up of the case is perfectly able during the next half-hour or hour that elapses, or even while the jury is out, to formulate sensible, clear, common sense grounds of appeal which summarise the point; and once those have gone in, of course, there is time to perfect them afterwards and to add to them if necessary. In all those circumstances, I feel bound to test the feeling of the House on this important matter.
3.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 45) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Howie of Troon, L.

Airedale, L.

Hughes, L.

Amherst, E.

Hunt, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.—[Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ingleby, V.

Auckland, L.

Inglewood, L.

Avebury, L.

Jacques, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Bacon, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Balogh, L.

Kagan, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kaldor, L.

Beswick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Bishopston, L.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blyton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Brockway, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

McNair, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Caradon, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carver, L.

Melchett, L.

Chitnis, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milford, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mishcon, L.

Collison, L.

Molloy, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Mottistone, L.

David, B.—[Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Davidson, V.

Newall, L.

Derwent, L.

Oram, L.

Diamond, L.

Peart, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Porritt, L.

Effingham, E.

Reilly, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rhodes, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Richardson, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Foot, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gainford, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Sandford, L.

Glanusk, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gregson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Segal, L.

Gridley, L.

Smith, L.

Hampton, L.

Spens, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Harvington, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hives, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

864

Stone, L.

Walston, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Strauss, L.

Westbury, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Whaddon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

White, B.

Trumpington, B.

Wigoder, L.

Vernon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bellwin, L.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blake, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Mansfield, E.

Caccia, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mariey, L.

Cayzer, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cockfield, L.

Morris, L.

Craigton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Daventry, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

De Freyne, L.

Pender, L.

Denham, L —[Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Donegall, M.

Portland, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rochdale, V.

Dudley, B.

Romney, E.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Eccles, V.

St. Davids, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sharples, B.

Elphinstone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stradbroke, E.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Suffield, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Holderness, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trenchard, V.

Kemsley, V.

Vaizey, L.

Kilmany, L.

Vickers, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Lincoln, Bp.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Royalty: Protection
4.2 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement.
"When I reported to the House on 12th July, I said I would make—as soon as I could—a further Statement about the major breach of security at Buckingham Palace on 9th July. I have now received and considered a further report from Assistant Commissioner Dellow. I thought it right to place in the Library, and make available to

865
honourable Members in advance of this Statement, a detailed account of the incident, the background to it, the failures that occurred and the subsequent action.
"On 19th July I informed the House of the resignation of Commander Trestrail, the Queen's Police Officer, following his confession to having had over a number of years a homosexual relationship with a male prostitute. The confession raises further grave questions concerning the arrangements for the Queen's security. Accordingly I have invited Lord Bridge to investigate the appointment as Queen's Police Officer and the activities of Commander Trestrail with a view to determining whether security was breached or put at risk; to advise whether in the light of that investigation any change in security arrangements is necessary or desirable; and to report. Lord Bridge is chairman of the Security Commission, but would conduct this inquiry sitting alone. I am glad to say that he has agreed to undertake this task. I shall of course inform the House of his findings. Although I have no evidence of a connection between this matter and the incident on 9th July, I am arranging for Lord Bridge to see all the papers relating to the events on 9th July so that he can make any further inquiries he considers necessary and advise on the adequacy of the police inquiries.
"I turn now to the events of 9th July. Mr. Dellow's inquiry has revealed that although there were technical failures, the basic cause of the breakdown of security was a failure by the police to respond efficiently and urgently. Furthermore, the incident revealed slackness and weaknesses in supervision. The Commander 'A' District has resigned from the force and the Chief Inspector at the Palace has been transferred to other duties. Those were the two officers charged with the supervision of the uniformed officers at the Palace.
"Mr. Dellow has also outlined the serious errors and omissions which exposed the Queen to danger. As a result, four other police officers are subject to disciplinary inquiries. One of these officers has been suspended and two have been removed from their former duties. I am sure that the House will accept that the officers concerned have a right to a fair hearing. I must remind the House that I have an appellate responsibility in police discipline cases; and it is not proper for me to comment further on these individual cases.
"I have considered with the Commissioner what further arrangements are needed to ensure efficiency, greater professionalism and effective supervision. I have accepted his proposal that the protection of Her Majesty the Queen, other members of the Royal Family, and their residences will be the single responsibility of a deputy assistant commissioner reporting directly to the Commissioner. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Colin Smith has been appointed to this new post. He will head a new department responsible for all aspects of Royalty protection. The senior officers in the new Royalty Protection Department, including DAC Smith, will work from Buckingham Palace. This will ensure the closest supervision at senior level and also effect the most direct links with the Household and staff of
866
the Queen and the senior officers of the Household Division, who have promised their full co-operation.
"Operational responsibility for all protection will thus be brought together. DAC Smith's first task will include a remit to make recommendations for revised arrangements for posting and training and to keep them under review. He will pay particular attention to establishing and maintaining a regime of duty which is adequately varied and testing.
"Since the incident, the number of uniformed police officers on protection duties has been increased. Some new technical security devices have been installed; some existing devices relocated; and all thoroughly tested. Mr. Speaker, Assistant Commissioner Dellow's inquiry will continue in respect of assessments of further physical security measures. In this task, I have asked Mr. Dellow to draw on all sources of available expertise, in the public and private sectors. The results of this work will enable the completion of Mr. Dellow's inquiry. The work of keeping these matters under review will then be carried forward by DAC Smith. But all physical measures depend ultimately on the people who operate them being of high quality and properly supervised. The new leadership and arrangements I have outlined are designed to ensure this.
"I have asked the chief officers of other forces in England and Wales, who have responsibilities for Royal residences, to review the arrangements they have made, and make any further recommendations beyond those measures which have already been implemented. The chief officers concerned will work closely with DAC Smith. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has done the same within his area of responsibility.
"I have decided to institute a new permanent group, comprising representatives of the Royal households, the police, the Household Division and the Property Services Agency, chaired by one of my senior officials. This group will meet regularly to examine the effectiveness of the arrangements made. It will not in any way lessen the operational responsibility of DAC Smith and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The group will report personally to me.
"I believe that the bringing together under a DAC of the responsibility for all protection for the Queen and members of her family, the changes in staffing, the improvements in equipment, and the monitoring of the new arrangements I have announced, constitute the best approach to improving Palace security. I have also announced the terms of Lord Bridge's inquiry. And although I have no evidence that the incident of 9th July and the resignation of Commander Trestrail were connected I have arranged for Lord Bridge to see the papers relating to the former event.
"Mr. Speaker, the shocking events of 9th July were handled by Her Majesty the Queen with great composure and resolution. But it is intolerable that Her Majesty should have been exposed to this intrusion and put at risk in this way. It is not the wish of Her Majesty, her Ministers or, I am sure, of this House, that she and other members of the Royal Family should be confined by measures of high security that deny private life and public

867
accessibility. But the safety of the Sovereign must be paramount. There has been an appalling lapse of security and I know that the whole House—and the country—will demand that the lessons of this incident must be learned so that the protection that we give to the Queen and members of her family is the best that can be provided".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating that Statement. We would also extend our thanks for the speed with which Assistant Commissioner John Dellow has reported. The extreme gravity of this Statement is all too plain. It reveals a deplorable and astonishing sequence of failures which amounts to a devastating indictment of security at Buckingham Palace and the Minister and the Home Secretary have been commendably forthcoming about this. Setting aside the defence of the Realm itself and all that that implies, when it comes to personal security there can be no higher priority than the protection of the Sovereign, the Head of State. We must, I think, all accept—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton—that it is not possible ever to safeguard against every conceivable contingency. That course would not be acceptable to the Queen and would thwart the basic aims of our free democracy.
Against that background there is one question in particular that I am bound to ask, obvious though it may be, and on which the nation will wish to be completely satisfied. While we welcome the changes announced and the separate matter of the appointment of Lord Bridge to conduct the inquiry, I would ask this. Are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that everything possible is now being done, so far as is practicable and appropriate, to ensure the safety of the Queen and the Royal Family? In asking this, I also ask the Minister to confirm that he is satisfied—and it is encouraging to see the indications in the Statement—about the proven competence of the personnel now to be involved and that all appropriate security aids which modern technology can provide are to be used. I say all this bearing in mind the lengths to which the terrorist will go, as is all too clear from yesterday's grotesque, indeed obscene, criminal acts, and that there is an even greater need for tighter security and a constant high level of vigilance. If we cannot be satisfied about the Queen's security, how can we be satisfied about other people's security?
I would ask this specific point on these matters. Can the noble Lord say whether the Home Secretary or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis visited the Palace on any occasion to review security between the series of earlier incidents which took place since 1979? I would ask this additional question. Very serious concern has been expressed because no criminal charge is possible arising from the intrusion into the Queen's bedroom. We understand this and of course appreciate that intent has to be established by the prosecution. Can the Minister say whether either the Law Commission or the Criminal Law Revision Committee is doing any work at all in this sphere at the moment?
868
If not, can he say whether an urgent reference could be made to whichever of them seems most appropriate to see whether there is a gap in the law which could and should be filled?
I end by expressing again—and joining with the noble Lord the Minister—the admiration of us all for the signal courage once more shown by the Queen and our sense of relief that no injury was caused to Her Majesty when that horrifying intrusion took place.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, it is indeed fortunate that it was a comparatively harmless intrusion into the Palace that has given rise to the discovery of the ludicrous laxity of the security arrangements there. I say, "comparatively harmless", because I do not think that one should ever underestimate the shock and distress that can be caused to any occupant of any premises by behaviour of the sort about which we have heard. I join in what has been said in total admiration of the self-composure that was so obviously displayed by Her Majesty at that difficult time.
The inquiry clearly has disclosed defects in the security system, not only as against the improbable risk which can sometimes be understood, but as against the probable risk, too. I do not believe that this is a moment for calling for heads to roll or for demanding political scapegoats of one sort or another. It is a moment for seeking to ensure that the arrangements are going to be wholly efficient in future. Having listened to the account which has been given by the noble Lord the Minister of the detailed arrangements which are now about to be set in force at the Palace, I do not think that any comment need be made except that clearly much will now turn upon the skill and efficiency of those who have to put these arrangements into effect. I do not think, either, that it helps to add to what might become a somewhat hysterical consideration of this topic if one proceeds to make any more wide-ranging remarks than that.
As to the rather sad postscript about the Queen's Police Officer and his private life, that is a matter that of course must be left now to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge. Unless and until the noble and learned Lord discovers that there was any actual or potential security risk, I suggest that that unfortunate individual should be left to live his own life in his own way.
The only other comment that I wish to make is this: I should like to ask the Minister whether he is not deeply concerned at the quite outrageous breaches of the law of contempt which have been committed by most of the newspapers and most of the broadcasting and television authorities too, to such an extent that the UK press Gazette—which is not by any means opposed to the interests of the press—referred to the prima facie contempt as being numerous and too plain to require explanation.
Is there not a real danger that in the sensational case, such as the Yorkshire Ripper or this one, the media decide that provided they all break the law they are all absolutely safe? Is it sufficient for the noble Lord's right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General to issue a mild warning a day or two too late, and is it not desirable that some action should be taken in order to establish the supremacy of the law in this

869
matter and the right of anyone, whatever he is alleged to have done, to a fair trial?
4.18 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the way they have taken this very important Statement and which has emphasised the fact that it lies at the heart of the concern of this nation. If I may reply to Lord Boston's first question, I think the answer must be that we shall never be satisfied that everything possible is being done; we shall always exert ourselves to find out new ways to make security more secure. But at the moment—and I think that the noble Lord will see this borne out when he reads in Hansard what I have said—we have taken a very wide range of organisational, management and technical steps to remedy the faults which were discovered on these two occasions.
The noble Lord was anxious about whether or not a criminal act had been perpetrated and whether there was a charge available on the second occasion. The Law Commission reported on offences of forcible entry and their findings were implemented in the Criminal Law Act 1977. My right honourable friend would wish to reflect on this suggestion in the light of recent events. Likewise, Parliament considered the law on contempt most recently and passed the Contempt of Court Act 1981. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General will no doubt take note of the comments made today and the forceful way in which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has expressed them.
As to the question of visits to the Royal Palace, my right honourable friend has had the privilege of visiting the Palace on a number of occasions; but of course it would not be appropriate for him to involve himself directly in operational matters. That is a matter for senior police officers who have made a number of inspections. I agree with your Lordships that it is important that this should not be treated with hysteria and that the press should not develop a sort of "pack" psychology. The measured way in which the two noble Lords from their Front Benches opposite have received this Statement has done a good deal to bring this back into the serious perspective which it is owed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us will agree with the sentiments he has just expressed, and that one of the least attractive features of this whole situation has been the relentless search for scapegoats? If I may say so, speaking as someone who is not a member of the same political party as the Home Secretary, I deplore the very venomous and, in my opinion, unjustified personal attacks which have been made on the right honourable gentleman. Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that many of us welcome the proposal to have a new permanent group headed by a senior official of the Home Office, who is going to bring together, as I understand it, all the various interests involved in guaranteeing the security of the Queen and other members of the Royal Family, including the police and officers of the Household Division and of the Property Services Agency? This seems to me an extremely sensible proposal.
Also, if I may, I should like to associate myself
870
very warmly with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, about the quite deliberate breaches of the law of contempt by virtually every newspaper in this country. I would put it to the noble Lord that it is a serious matter when this takes place and it denies to people the right of a fair trial. I hope that the noble Lord's right honourable and learned friend will take the matter with the appropriate degree of seriousness.
Finally, is he aware that there have indeed been some serious errors committed by officers of the Metropolitan Police, quite obviously? However, as the noble Lord recognised in the Statement, there are to be disciplinary procedures and it would clearly be most unjust to make any observations which would in any way prejudice their right to a fair hearing.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I welcome the endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, of a number of the steps that my right honourable friend has taken and I welcome also his personal endorsement of the stature of my right honourable friend, which I believe to be considerable. I will, of course, bring to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend the concern expressed by the noble Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, regarding the matter of contempt of court.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as the Criminal Justice Bill seems unlikely to come before your Lordships for Third Reading until nearly a fortnight has passed, would it not be possible for this gap to be filled by a simple amendment to be tabled by the Government, rather than having to wait for legislation in the next Session of Parliament? Would my noble friend agree that, if that gap could be filled as soon as that, many people would sleep more quietly in their homes meanwhile?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if such an amendment could be drafted and tabled in the time; although it would be unusual in the conventions of this House to achieve legislation in that way, it might be a useful thing. However, my right honourable friend has been considering this matter and he feels it is not really the way to legislate on such a fundamental matter at such very short notice, quite apart from the need for parliamentary consideration, and that really the patient solution is likely to be the better one, whatever our anxieties may be at the moment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that when the first Statement on this matter was made a few days ago I put forward the view that it would be perhaps not futile but certainly foolish if the security measures to be undertaken were confined simply to Buckingham Palace, because the Queen and her family on numerous occasions during the year do repair to other residences? Can the Minister therefore say that we shall not wait until something happens in one or other of the royal residences before there is a security examination there? Ought not all the other royal residences to be included in this examination as well as Buckingham Palace?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the noble Lord will find from perusing Hansard, this work is already in hand.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend give an undertaking that the Government realise that it is quite intolerable for it to be legal to go in this way and sit on the end of the bed of anybody at all in this Kingdom and not to commit an offence? This appears to be what has happened; somebody has gone and sat on the end of the Sovereign's bed and has not been prosecuted. I find that a quite extraordinary state of affairs. It is an extraordinary state of the law that anybody can go and sit on someone else's bed at seven o'clock in the morning—without being invited to go there, I hasten to add; and I find this an intolerable state of affairs. Would my noble friend please make sure that we look at this matter very urgently and very rapidly, in order to make sure that it comes within the criminal law as quickly as possible?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can undertake that it is a matter of great urgent concern. I cannot undertake that the problem will be elucidated as quickly as the noble Earl, and indeed we ourselves, would wish it to be. However, it is not at all a simple matter to construct an offence, even if it is differently expressed from the aspirations expressed by the noble Lord in his first question.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I suppose we have got to accept that this intruder has not committed an offence and therefore cannot be punished, but is there any way of preventing him and members of his family from making substantial sums of money from the newspapers over this?—otherwise we have a situation in which it is positively profitable for people to behave in this manner.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that crime must not pay, and non-crime should not pay either. I take to heart what the noble Lord says and I will put it to my right honourable friend.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Press Council issued a judgment long ago that newspapers should not glorify the life of criminals by publishing their memoirs or those of members of their families? Should not the newspapers bear this closely in mind in the present instance?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think it is useful for your Lordships to deplore the conduct of the press when it is not as it should be, and of course the Press Council exists also for that purpose.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, if there was no crime, I find it difficult to see how there has been contempt.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think we should not get too deeply into this matter but, if the noble Lord will recall, two occasions were involved and for one of them there is a remand in custody.

Criminal Justice Bill
4.28 p.m.
Consideration on Report resumed.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Activation of suspended sentence
. In section 23(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, the words "which have arisen since the suspended sentence was passed" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, and I do so in the knowledge that it is not a self-explanatory amendment. It is the first time that it has been moved and it is necessary very briefly to elucidate the thinking behind it. It deals with suspended sentences; and suspended sentences, it has become clear in recent years, have become a popular addition to the armoury of the sentencer and will become increasingly popular when the partly-effective suspended sentence comes into force. With their increasing use as a form of sentence, three particuar drawbacks have emerged and this amendment is concerned with an attempt to deal with them.
The first problem is that many magistrate's courts and the Crown Courts are tempted on occasion to regard the suspended sentence as something which is just a little bit more effective than a probation order or a conditional discharge. It means there is something hanging over the head of the defendant if he commits another offence: yet he is allowed to leave the court and go free. There is a temptation to pass suspended sentences when, if that form of sentence did not exist as a penalty at all, it would never occur to the court to pass a prison sentence. That is the first problem that arises.
The second problem arises because there are courts which take the view—and, in many ways, it is a very sensible view—that a person on whom a suspended sentence has been passed will leave the court telling himself and his family and friends that he has got away with it. In those circumstances, there is a temptation upon courts to pass a suspended sentence of a very much longer period than they would have passed for an immediate prison sentence, in order to try to compensate for that factor.
The third problem that arises is that there are a number of cases in which a suspended sentence is passed, when the court is not fully aware of circumstances which subsequently come to light. They may be circumstances about a defendant's background, about his home life, about his previous convictions and, very often, about his mental condition, when the courts pass a suspended sentence but would never have thought of doing so if they had been fully informed at that time.
These problems arise, and it is very difficult to see how they can be avoided at the moment when the court is imposing the suspended sentence. It is true that, if the courts follow the procedures correctly, and only impose a suspended sentence having first decided that a prison sentence is necessary and then suspend the equivalent sentence, the first two sets of problems would not arise. But that is being a little unrealistic, having regard to the commonsense of sentencing as it is seen by many magistrates, by many Crown Court judges and, particularly, by many temporary or acting recorders or circuit judges who may not have very much experience of criminal sentencing.
The other aspect, where the facts are simply not available at the time and the court passes a suspended

873
sentence which it would not otherwise have done, clearly cannot be dealt with in any way except, I suppose, by asking for an even more comprehensive inquiry at the point of time when the suspended sentence is passed. One then gets the situation in which for all these various categories suspended sentences are passed, which either ought not to be passed or are passed for terms which are longer than they should be. It is no good saying that the defendant has a right of appeal in those circumstances. It is true that he has, but no defendant that I have ever heard of has gone to the Court of Appeal and complained that a suspended sentence has been wrongly passed upon him and is too harsh, the reason being that, inevitably, the person with the suspended sentence is not troubled about an appeal, because, as I said, he thinks that he has got away with it.
What then happens is this. In some of those cases the defendant commits a further offence. He is then sent to prison for the further offence—quite rightly—but he is also sent to prison for the original sentence for which the suspended sentence was imposed. He is ordered to serve the full term of the suspended sentence and it is made, as it more or less has to be made by law, consecutive to his new sentence. The position therefore arises that, because of the fact that suspended sentences are activated in this way, there are people who are in prison for a longer period than they should be, because of the way in which the system works.
All that this amendment seeks to do is to give the court that is trying to decide whether the suspended sentence should be activated rather more discretion than at present it has. I apologise if this sounds for a moment like a lecture on the law; it is not meant to be. The powers of the activating court, as many of your Lordships will know, are covered by Section 23 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Acts 1973. If the court has to deal with someone who has committed an offence while a suspended sentence is in force, the court has four choices. First, it can order him to serve the suspended sentence in full, consecutive to the other sentence that has now been passed; secondly, it can substitute a lesser sentence, a suspended sentence; thirdly, it can further suspend the suspended sentence and, fourthly, it can take no action at all in the suspended sentence.
But the rub lies in the concluding words of subsection (1) of that section of the Act, which state that the court shall make an order that the suspended sentence shall take effect with the original term unaltered in full, consecutively,
"unless the court is of opinion that it would be unjust to do so in view of all the circumstances which have arisen since the suspended sentence was passed, including the facts of the subsequent offence."
All that this amendment seeks to do is to remove the words relating to the circumstances
"which have arisen since the suspended sentence was passed".
So the court, in deciding whether to activate a suspended sentence, can look at all the surrounding circumstances, can look at the whole of the defendant's previous history, can look, for example, at information that has come to light subsequently about his previous medical history and matters of that nature. If, having considered all that information, it does not find
874
any special circumstances, then the law will be as it is at the moment, the court will make an order activating the suspended sentence and it is quite right that it should. But, on the other hand, there are cases where the court would want to take into account matters that arose before the suspended sentence was passed, is not allowed to do so under the present law and, as a result of activating suspended sentences, people are going to prison for rather longer than they should be. This is a matter which, I think, is of concern to us all. This small, modest amendment would increase the discretion of the courts in that limited way and enable them to see that justice is done, having regard to the whole of a defendant's previous history. My Lords, I beg to move.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, we on these Benches have very considerable support for this amendment and very great sympathy for the reasons underlying it, as those have been articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Inevitably, the passing and making of a suspended sentence involves some element of casuistry on the part of the sentencing court. The task which Parliament has placed upon the court is, indeed, a difficult one. The court, in the first instance, has to consider whether or not the offence that it is dealing with merits imprisonment. Then having decided that it does, and having decided upon the term of imprisonment, the very next second, in theory, that court has to constitute itself into a parole hoard and to ask itself "Is it necessary that that man, whom we have just sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment, should remain in custody a moment longer?" It is a difficult consideration and it is one that cannot be avoided in the context of suspended sentences, which form a very important part of the armoury of the courts.
When it comes to the question of the activation or not of a suspended sentence, in respect of which there has been a breach, again the situation is not free from casuistry, for the court is, of course, enjoined, according to the decision of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in the case of Ithell in 1969, to consider, first, the offence that has given rise to the breach and what penalty is appropriate in respect of that, and only then, if the words of the Court of Appeal are to be taken strictly, to consider what it should do in relation to the suspended sentence. I apprehend that the noble Lord the Minister will say in reply that the amendment must be rejected, because it would be wholly wrong for the court that is dealing with the breach to constitute itself, in any way, into some type of Court of Appeal that would comment upon or adjudicate upon the earlier sentence. As a basic proposition of law, that must indeed be sound. But that is where theory and practice part company and go in different directions.
As one who spends most of his time in the criminal courts, my feeling is that in practice the courts inevitably look at the circumstances in which the earlier suspended sentence was passed. It seems to me that the Court of Appeal practically admitted that in 1971—in the case of Munday. May I quote the headnote to that report:

875
"Though it is not part of the function of a court considering the activation of a suspended sentence in any way to review its propriety, there are cases where justice cannot be done without fitting into the pattern of events leading to the further conviction the facts which led to the suspended sentence. To that extent, therefore, it may be necessary on the second occasion for the court to inform itself of the circumstances in which the suspended sentence was passed in order that proper assessment may be made of the overall position so as to determine the sentence which is to be passed and the grounds on which it is acting".
In practice, therefore, it is difficult for even the most clear-minded judge or magistrate to avoid completely some proper consideration of the circumstances in which the first sentence was passed.
Sometimes it is necessary to go a little further, for quite often there will be the question, in relation to the second offence, of a whole spray of offences to be taken into consideration which cover the period in time when the first sentence was passed. Because the second court will not have all the documents before it, there may be great doubt as to whether or not some, if not all, of those were taken into consideration at the earlier instance. It seems to me that the strict wording of Section 23 as it now stands technically precludes the court from that consideration.
In short, therefore, it would seem that, in practice, as the Court of Appeal admitted as long ago as 1971, sentencers do pay limited but proper regard to the circumstances in which the earlier sentence was passed. That being the situation, is it not right and proper that we should now make an honest woman, as it were, of what has existed for so long? It is on that basis that we invite support for this amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said—and this is to my certain knowledge, too—that if you impose a suspended sentence on one defendant and a fine on another, the man who is given a fine thinks that he is very hard done by, while the man who receives a suspended sentence thinks that he has got off. It is very important that if a person receives a suspended sentence he should realise that it will be activated—and that there will be no two ways about it—if he breaches his suspended sentence. Therefore, I should have thought that the judge who tries the second offence ought to have the opportunity to use his mitigating powers, if he so wishes, and to take into consideration the fact that there is a suspended sentence. It would be very unwise for any court to give the impression to a defendant that a suspended sentence is not going to be implemented. It would be seen to be undermining the opportunity to impose suspended sentences. Therefore I come down against this amendment, because it is very important that suspended sentences should be not only taken into consideration but always activated.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has raised a matter of considerable significance. I am grateful to him for the opportunity he has provided by his amendment for the issue to be debated. The Act empowers a court which passes a sentence of imprisonment of not more than two years to order that the sentence shall not take effect unless during a period of not less than one year or more than two years the offender commits a further imprisonable offence.
876
This form of sentence was introduced originally in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 in recognition of the fact that there are many cases where the nature of the offence itself demands a sentence of imprisonment, but where the circumstances surrounding it and the situation of the offender permit it to be suspended, that suspension being contingent upon the offender's future good conduct. Its acceptance as a means of dealing with offenders, many of whom will have committed quite serious crimes, depends upon its being clearly perceived by all concerned that if the offender re-offends and if his new offence is imprisonable, then the sentence for the first offence will be enforced. If that is seen to be in any way unlikely—if the Sword of Damocles is not seen to fall—then the device, as my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve has said, will get no credence and offenders will not be deterred by it. That is why Section 23 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 obliges the court to activate the suspended sentence on commission of a further imprisonable offence, unless it finds justifiable reasons for imposing a lesser period, or extending the operational period, or making no order.
In practice, the suspended sentence is used pretty frequently. About 36,000 suspended sentences are passed annually. In 1980, rather fewer than one-third of them—about 10,300 in all—were dealt with for committing further imprisonable offences. Of these, 7,450 were required to serve the full term of the suspended sentence. In 350 cases, a lesser term was ordered to be served. In 560 cases, the operational period was extended, and there were 1,930 cases where no order was made.
It was the intention of Parliament that the activation of the sentence should be the normal result of a breach. Those figures also show that in many cases the use of the sentence results in there being fewer people in custody than there might otherwise be. The sentence therefore is worth preserving.
Would it be strengthened by the amendment or weakened by it? If the effect of the amendment is to multiply the number of occasions when the original sentence is not put into effect upon an offender—if it means that the Sword of Damocles falls rather less often—I fear that it may be weakened. But I have another doubt about what the noble Lord proposes, and it is this. At present, only things arising after the imposition of a sentence can be prayed in aid of a decision not to implement it by the court sitting, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, put it, more or less as a parole board. This is as it should be.
The noble Lord would have us consider also things arising before its imposition—things that were before the court when it considered the first offence. Those things should have been considered before, when the first sentence was passed. If they are things like medical reports, the medical condition of the offender will still be a matter for the court to inquire into on the second occasion.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister to consider the case which came the other day before my court of a man who was an alcoholic. I do not think it was realised that he was an alcoholic at the time he was given the suspended

877
sentence. When he came before us he had taken, while drunk, a few cans of beer and run out of the pub. Everybody there knew him and he was caught immediately. This further offence would have meant activating a sentence of six months. The only way to get round it was to order another psychiatric report and a social inquiry. It seems to me to be quite wrong that one should have to get round it in that way. I wonder whether the noble Lord could take that into account in his reply.
Lord Elton: I shall try to do so, my Lords. I take it that what the noble Baroness is saying is that the second offence was so much less grave than the first offence. If it was sufficiently less grave to be a non-imprisonable offence, then the matter would not arise, because it is imprisonable offences with which we are concerned. I take it that whatever he did when he ran out of the pub was something for which he could be imprisoned.
Baroness Birk: Yes, it had to be, my Lords.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is very difficult to argue particular cases off the cuff, when one has not actually seen them, but I will certainly try to digest what the noble Baroness has said. Perhaps I may return to what I was trying to say, which was that, in reverting to the original circumstances, it seems that what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is doing, is producing a proposal for an element of resentencing between courts of equal status. That is a dubious principle. Doubts about the first sentence should be dealt with not at the same level, but on appeal. If, on the other hand, the doubts are only about the second instance, then it is the circumstances of the second instance which ought to be taken into consideration. I would like to know whether the noble Lord really wants to press this rather doubtful principle of resentencing into the Bill.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, may I say to begin with that I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, and with the noble Lord the Minister that if a suspended sentence is passed, its effect depends very largely on the degree to which the defendant believes that it is going to be enforced in the event of him getting into further trouble. It is never possible to say to a defendant when one is imposing a suspended sentence, "If you commit a further imprionable offence, you will serve the suspended sentence". The most that anyone can say—and I believe this is the formula that most courts use—is, "You will amost inevitably have to serve the suspended sentence". The reason for that is, first, that the Act itself provides that there are other courses open in certain circumstances; secondly, that the courts have spent a little time trying to get around the situation anyway.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to the Munday case. Otherwise, I was going to trundle up at this stage the case of Boczkei in 1970, where the Court of Appeal decided that when the sentence is ordered to run consecutively, as it must do in the ordinary way, the court must ensure that the totality is not excessive. To this end, it may adjust either the suspended sentence or the sentence in the instant case. So in both the Munday and the Boczkei case, the Court
878
of Appeal have spent some time in trying to get around the rigours of the existing law, and in effect in accepting the Act as it would read if this amendment were introduced into it.
I am not seeking to weaken the existing Act in any way but perhaps I may simply say this: if the amendment were written into the Act, the section would still read:
"and a court shall make the order "—
that the suspended sentence shall take effect—
"unless the court is of the opinion that it would be unjust to do so in view of all the circumstances, including the facts of the subsequent offence".
It would still be almost inevitable that the suspended sentence would be activated but not quite so inevitable as it is as at the moment.
I take the noble Lord's point that some facts which would be sought to be raised on the second occasion had in fact been raised and considered on the first occasion, but there were facts that were not considered on the first occasion. When I introduced this amendment, I mentioned in particular the case where evidence has come forward about the defendant's mental history before he committed the first offence which was not available when he was dealt with the first time and of which a subsequent court, very properly, would want to take account. To that extent, there must be an element of re-sentencing. There must be in the Munday decision an element of resentencing, as there must in the Boczkei decision. It is a very moderate, limited element, but it is worth recognising, and it is worth legitimising in the present Act. Does the noble Lord, Lord Elton, wish to intervene at this point?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is the judge of the stage at which I might most profitably do so. Sometimes the pigeons do not fly quite fast enough. What I wanted to say was simply this: two practical considerations have been put to me with which I am not entirely familiar. I have grave doubts about the general principle. Some of the things the noble Lord has said have been extremely reasonable and anyone from the shires will know what I mean when I say that when one gets into the Monday country one has to go very carefully! That being so, and without wishing to raise any hopes in the mind of the noble Lord other than those which might already repose there, it might be a good thing if I considered this a little further before Third Reading. I am giving no undertakings other than that I will do that in the light of the material which has been brought forward. This is a lengthy introduction, and, if the noble Lord has anything else he wishes me to consider, perhaps he could bring it into his peroration.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, my peroration was going to be that I had no intention of dividing the House on this amendment. I believe completely in the power of persuasion. I was going to invite the noble Lord to reflect between now and Third Reading on whether anything had been put forward which might cause him to reconsider the matter. If he and I can reach some agreement, we will, no doubt, take the appropriate action. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Offences excluded from section 29]:
4.56 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 46A:
Page 67, line 11, at end insert—
("7. Trafficking in Class A drugs.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, deals with Clause 29 of the Bill and it relates to the first schedule to the Bill. Broadly speaking, what we are discussing here are the emergency release arrangements which would be brought into operation if there were grave situations developing within the prisons. Many of us believe that, unless fairly early steps are taken to deal with the problem of the numbers in prisons, this particular section of the Act will be activated. In any event, it is obviously highly desirable for us to examine these provisions.
One provision which I am bound to say at the beginning I do not like, as I indicated at Committee stage, is the list of offences excluded from Section 29. They are listed on page 67 and include the offences of manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, assault of any description (the lack of qualification is an important one), riot and affray. What is provided for in this clause of the Bill is that, in the event of the Secretary of State deciding to bring this particular section of the Act into operation, and to release people six months before they would otherwise be released, in order to deal with a grave situation within the prisons, people who have committed the offences I have listed would in fact not be released.
It may be asked by some, not unreasonably in any way, that, if one objects to the principle of this approach, why is one seeking to add another category of offence? The reason is a very straightforward one. It seems to me that, if in our criminal law we are going to provide exceptions of this character, for the first time, so far as I am aware, in the law of this country, and say that, notwithstanding the decisions of the courts, certain people will be released and other people will not be released because of the gravity of their offences, then it is necessary to look at what the offences are.
It is self-evident what the Government have done, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said this to me in a letter dated 14th July. What happened was that the Home Secretary and the Home Office Ministers came under pressure when they were in Committee in another place to provide these exclusions. If I may quote from the letter, the noble Lord, referring to the letter I had written to him, wrote:
"I quite take your point about the seriousness of drug trafficking. The schedule of excluded offences was not, however, intended to be a definition of seriousness. It was, as I am sure you know, added to the the early release provisions of the Bill, specifically in order to meet the concern expressed during the Committee stage that prisoners convicted of violence offences should never be among those released early under the emergency provisions".
What I am seeking to add is a new category of people who have been convicted of trafficking in Class A drugs. Primarily, what I am referring to is heroin. I must say to the Minister at once—I am probably
880
pushing at an open door—looking at the precise argument which he advanced, in my view trafficking in Class A drugs is one of the most violent offences in the criminal calendar. What we are talking about here is something far more serious than a single act of manslaughter, far more serious than a single act of violence. We are talking about people who are trafficking in the most dangerous drugs available in this country, mainly heroin, and where we are already in something approaching an epidemic situation.
The House may recall that during Questions a few weeks ago the Minister disclosed to the House for the first time the amount of heroin which had been seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1980, in 1981 and in the first six months of this year. I think it is desirable to remind the House of what those figures were. First, in 1981 the amount of heroin seized by the customs increased by well over 100 per cent. In the first six months of this year the amount of heroin seized by customs is already just about equal to all the heroin seized in 1981. We are talking about a business with a turnover of almost certainly well over £100 million a year. We are talking about drugs which kill large numbers of people. The heroin situation in this country is now viewed with extreme gravity within the police service and increasingly within the judiciary. What I am saying is that, if we are going to have excluded categories of offences, it is in my view absolutely essential to have this particular category, dealing as it does with some of the most serious offences being handled in the courts. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has put the case most admirably. I really cannot add anything to his words and I am just pleased to be associated in this particular amendment with the noble Lord. It is probably not fair of me to verbally add a further category, which of course I would not expect my noble friend the Minister to give a direct answer on now. But if one is to have this list—and lists are always invidious and can be added to—I would ask him to seriously consider adding arson as a further category. The pattern of behaviour of the arsonist has never been properly discovered; so far as I am aware through conversations with several psychiatrists there is no pattern of behaviour that follows the character of the arsonist. It is an extremely difficult offence to deal with, either legally or from the mental point of view. But, in either case it seems to me that it is worth including arson, if in the future perhaps the Minister will think about this, with the ignoble and really dastardly crime of making profit from the lives of other people.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I only intervene because the noble Baroness has indeed raised an interesting point, as to where one goes on with this list and what one ought to delete. If one tries to restrict oneself according to the rules, this is hardly the place to do it, but I would ask, if I may with the permission of the House, that the Minister should look again at the description of "assault of any kind", bearing in mind that this does include an ordinary common assault. Would he not, on reflection between now and Third Reading, care to alter that to grievous bodily harm?
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I agree entirely with this amendment, speaking from the few years' experience I had as a member of the Parole Board. It is very obvious, not only from the figures the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has quoted, but also from one's own knowledge, that trafficking in these very serious Class A drugs is increasing far more quickly than perhaps some of us within this House realise. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, it kills people; a very small amount can kill a great number of people. I wholeheartedly agree that it should be added to the list the noble Lord is proposing.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister to be extremely careful of adding offences to a list. The trouble about lists of offences is that everybody always thinks of the most serious case. In the criminal law you can have the most trivial examples of serious cases. For instance, there is here rape. People do not appreciate that all rape is having sexual intercourse with someone against that person's consent, and in many cases of rape it is a very marginal question as to whether the girl agreed or did not agree. Sometimes it is only just on a matter of balance, and the judge does not send the person to prison as a result, because he takes the view that it was a very fifty-fifty situation.
Equivalently, in an offence such as mentioned by the noble Baroness, arson. Arson can be burning down a garden shed; it can be a trivial little matter, which arises often with young people who are psychologically disturbed, and may not involve imprisonment at all. It would be a thousand pities if decisions are made by descriptions of offences which keep people in prison longer than they should be.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, may I make one short comment on Lord Mishcon's point about assault, which of course is very often an extremely trivial matter. In order to come within the provisions here at all, it would have to be an assault which had merited a sentence of imprisonment of at least six months.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am beginning to be astonished at some of the utterances of noble Lords who have spoken. It is said it may be just a trivial assault. I recall a case in court where a boy attempted to snatch a handbag, and this is just what we were told by the counsel. Those who have ever had the experience of having another individual lurch at them, even if not actually attack them, certainly do not regard it as trivial.
I was rather astonished to hear the noble Lord say manslaughter was only one death. That is one death too many. Surely we must be very careful before we trivialise these offences. It is all too often said that there is petty crime, and particularly when talking about the minor assaults. I feel that any attack on the person should be regarded as serious whatever the end effect. While I support the amendment, I am sorry that we appear to be trivialising some very serious offences.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I could start by putting this in context. What we are discussing is a schedule which describes those people who may not
882
be released under the emergency provisions, where the Secretary of State is empowered to release people before the full term of their sentence has expired. We are not weighing different matters delicately in the balance of justice. We are seeing who should actually get an unexpected bonus at the end of their sentence. That said—I may repeat it in other words—the schedule was inserted into the Bill in another place to take account of the concern expressed there that prisoners convicted of violence should never be among those released under the emergency provision for the early release of prisoners set out in Clause 29—that is what I was referring to.
Problems of definition are bound to arise in drawing up such a list and I stress that we do fully accept that such an approach does not provide a definitive measure of seriousness in relation to individual offences. That is best provided by the length of sentence and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, made a very relevant indication of the importance of that. Your Lordships will recall that Clause 29 restricts the use of the early release power to those prisoners with no more than six months of their sentence left to run, and where the expedited procedure is followed, no more than one month of their sentence left to run.
The purpose of the list in Schedule 1 is to exclude prisoners convicted of violent offences completely from eligibility for early release under the scheme. Thus we deliberately confined the list in Schedule 1 to those offences where violence on the part of the offender is an inherent element of the offence. I think I am right in saying that the assault, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred as being trivial, is one that one would not expect to find imprisonable for six months. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong. That is the reason for the present exclusion of drug trafficking. The reason is not that is does not represent a serious offence in the Government's eyes. Indeed, the Government have every sympathy with the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment. Those who traffic in hard drugs are clearly a deep menace to society and are often responsible for more deaths than the individual murderer or person who commits manslaughter.
The amendment as it stands is technically defective. But if your Lordships are content, and if the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will agree to withdraw it, I will undertake to return at Third Reading with an amendment which will give effect to what this amendment seeks to achieve and in the process I shall look with a good deal of hesitancy at what my noble friend has said about arson, because there are dangers in extending lists—
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for giving way. While accepting everything that has been said in relation to arson, would he bear in mind, however, the next offence—that is, aggravated arson, arson with intent to endanger life, which is in a rather different category?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord will find that arson with intent to endanger life, arson endangering life, is already covered by the schedule. However, I will keep all this on board while I look at the noble Lord's amendment between this stage and the next one.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I should like to make one point because he kindly invited me to comment on his remarks on assault. Therefore, with the leave of the House, may I just say that I cannot conceive of a case where there could be an ordinary assault and one had a term of imprisonment of six months. I was only trying to be realistic in saying that it must be a case of grievous bodily harm because otherwise the charge would be wrong.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord the Minister; he is quite right. That offence is, in fact, included. I am sorry for wasting the time of the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for meeting the point in this amendment and, with the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 47:
Before Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Reference of cases of prisoners serving life sentences to preliminary review committee.
Parole for prisoners serving life sentences.
.—(1) Before the end of the period specified in subsection (2) below the Secretary of State shall refer to a preliminary review committee the case of any prisoner serving a life sentence whose case has not previously been referred to the Parole Board or reviewed by a local review committee; and the preliminary review committee shall consider and report to the Secretary of State on the suitability of his case for review by a local review committee.
(2) The period referred to in subsection (1) above is the period of ten years from the date on which the prisoner was sentenced, less any period by which, if he had been sentenced to a determinate sentence, the length of that sentence would have been treated as reduced under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
(3) Before a preliminary review committee considers a prisoner's case under subsection (1) above a member of the committee shall interview the prisoner if he is willing to be so interviewed.
(4) In this section—

"local review committee" means a local review committee established under section 59(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967;

"the Parole Board" means the Parole Board established by section 59(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967;

"preliminary review committee" means a body of two or more persons nominated for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State; and

"prisoner serving a life sentence" means a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment for life or custody for life or sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 47. The House is naturally preoccupied in discussing this Bill with the fortunes of young offenders and short-term prisoners. I must ask leave once again to turn for a while to long-term prisoners, including specifically the 1,500 or more life prisoners. For all such prisoners, by common consent, the Bill does nothing and I am afraid that the public on the whole is anxious to forget about them.
I do not underestimate the degrading conditions under which thousands of short-term prisoners are
884
serving their sentences. But as I have remarked previously, long-term prisoners are degraded still more, particularly when, in the case of life prisoners, they are so often left without hope. The prisoners concerned arouse little public sympathy. In discussing prisoners as a whole, we often refer with a rather sweeping gesture of dismissal to those convicted of grave crimes as though they were beneath our Christian consideration. But in fact they share one thing in common with Members of your Lordships' House; they are all members of the human race.
I am glad that the right reverend Prelate is here because he will confirm one translation anyway of the sayings of the founder of the Christian religion when He said: "I have come to call not respectable people, but outcasts" and this amendment is pre-eminently concerned with outcasts. I represent, I hope, a small step in the direction of showing justice and mercy towards them in the spirit of the Christian Master, the great Jewish teachers and the great teachers of humanist philosophy.
I moved an amendment at the Committee stage which provided that after 10 years, at the outside, life prisoners should have a right to be considered by a local review committee—that is to say, they should have a right to enter the parole process. The works of the historian Lecky are, I know, familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, because I attribute all culture to him in a general sense—that is his prerogative as a Minister at the Home Office. At any rate I must not invoke his father's name again because that was done last night and the noble Lord rather felt that it was hitting him below the belt. I will not do that again. At any rate, the great historian Lecky said of the Act of Union between England and Ireland that the whole unbribed intellect of Ireland was opposed to that measure. It is not for me, perhaps, to use quite that language here, but I can say that my amendment on the last occasion was supported by the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, the SDP and some distinguished independents, including the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. However, it was defeated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and his faithful cohorts.
I am trying again today with a much emasculated version, a version so timid that I am rather ashamed of it myself because it does not express my full feelings in anyway at all. On the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was unfortunately absent, although he sent a message of support. It may be that if he had been present, we would have prevailed. It may be that, after today and after I have consulted with him, I may feel it better to return to the earlier amendment at the next stage, because there are certain unsatisfactory technical features—difficulties of drafting—involved in the present amendment. However, we shall see how we get on.
My present amendment, of course, does not go anything like as far as the last one. It simply says, in effect, that life prisoners, after not more than 10 years, would be allowed a personal interview with the committee that plays a crucial part in deciding their fate. Strictly speaking, this committee—three members of the Parole Board and two members of the Home Office—would make a recommendation to the Home Secretary, but we can take it that nearly always this recommendation would be decisive. All that I am asking is that a prisoner, after he has been in prison for more than

885
10 years, should be allowed to meet these people face to face.
Your Lordships may ask whether this does not happen at present. There was little argument last time as to whether members of the Parole Board met prisoners and whether they descend on prisons. I do not think that anyone doubts that they descend on prisons. But if your Lordships ask whether they have personal discussions, one to one discussions with prisoners, then my experience is that they do not do so. I cannot say that they never do, but my experience is that they do not, and I have met many life prisoners in recent years. For example, one life prisoner who has been in prison for 17 years had a personal interview with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, 15 years ago. But during the last 15 years this particular prisoner has never been conscious of having had a personal interview with any member of the Parole Board or with one of the members of this committee. Of course, one may say that one could have an interview with a member of the Parole Board without knowing who the person was, and that is just possible, but I think that most prisoners are well aware of who the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was. Whether they would know who the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, was, I do not know—perhaps she took them unawares.
However, speaking broadly, I am simply saying that life prisoners do not see the people who decide their fate. They can be there for years and years and as far as they are concerned, their fate is decided by someone with whom they have never had a conversation. So I am making a very small request that that should now be available to them.
I must not take up too much time today, although this happens to be a subject on which I feel all too strongly. But there was one major objection raised by the noble Lord the Minister last time. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, in effect said that a proposal such as the one I brought forward in Committee was not kind to prisoners, that it was not in their true interests. To me that argument is utterly bogus; it is really rather disingenuous. I am afraid that I must view this a little through the eyes of prisoners and their families, and their legal representatives, who, one may say, would be slightly dispassionate. I cannot imagine that, if one took that group, or any section of it—the families, the prisoners or the representatives—they could be persuaded to agree that the Home Office plan of not letting them see these mysterious individuals who would decide their fate was in their true interests. Therefore, to repeat myself, I regard that as a bogus argument which I hope we shall not have trotted out again today.
There was one rather sinister implication in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, last week. I suppose that I cannot ask him to repudiate it because remarks are not usually repudiated by Ministers between the Commitee and Report stages. However, perhaps I may refer him to something he said on 1st July at column 356 of Hansard. He said many things, but he said this:
"If this amendment went through …"—
and that was the amendment which I was proposing—
"what would happen would be that a judge would sentence a notorious and dreadful villain"—
886
that is quite emotive language for a Minister and I do not like a Minister using that particular language, but those are the words—
"to a life sentence which society would expect to be served."
Are we taking a new attitude to long-term prisoners? We know that the average sentence served by a life prisoner is perhaps fewer than 10 years, but are we beginning to accept that in future quite a few life prisoners will serve the whole of their lives and die in prison? To the best of my belief that approach has never been adopted up till now. We had capital punishment and we got rid of that—it is one of the few real advances that has been made in penal reform in my lifetime. But are we to substitute this—an almost equally barbarous idea? The noble Lord may have used that expression without very much reflection, but if that is to be the objection to my amendment—that people of this kind must expect to spend their whole lives in prison—it would mean putting back the clock 100 years.
Therefore, I shall give way to other speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that my last proposal was moderate, and this can only he described as timid. But heaven forbid that any Government in this country—which I would still call Christian, and I know that the noble Lord's Christianity is as strong as mine—should reject a timid little amendment of this kind because we want to keep some of these people in prison all their lives. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has returned to this subject again because I think that your Lordships need to consider the situation that has arisen in the last decade when the life sentence population of our prisons has, in fact, increased enormously. I refer to the excellent Home Office Research Study No. 51, Life Sentence Prisoners, which was published in 1979, where it was shown that the life-sentence population of the prisons in England and Wales was only 133 prisoners at the beginning of 1957 and that by the end of 1977 that had increased to 1,353—more than a ten-fold interest in 21 years. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said in his remarks, that has now gone up again to over 1,500. So this is a serious and growing problem of the number of long-term prisoners in England and Wales, and the question is whether or not any additional consideration should be given to feeding those cases into the parole system.
Just by way of preliminary, may I say that the increase to which I have referred does not have anything to do with the abolition of capital punishment, as has been suggested in some quarters. If one looks at the figures, between 1956 and 1964—the date of abolition—the number of executions did not exceed five in any one of those years, and in the last three years it did not exceed two. So we must look to other causes for the major increase in the number of long-term life-sentence prisoners, and that may be something which we should debate on another occasion.
Here, as the noble Earl has said, we are considering an extremely modest proposal for having an additional review of long-term life-sentence prisoners at the end of the first 10 years of their sentence. When the noble Lord, Lord Elton, replied to the debate on the

887
previous occasion, he said that the system already provided a much more civilised alternative than was proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, because the first review of the life-sentence prisoner was carried out by a joint committee of the Parole Board and the Home Office within three or four years of a man being sent to prison. He said that if the joint committee does not consider that it is yet time for a date to be fixed at which the case may be referred to the LRC, then it asks for the case to be put before it main at some future date, and, as I understand it, that process continues more or less ad infinitum until the committee finally considers that the case ought to appear before the LRC or the man dies, whichever is the sooner.
I must emphasise that what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, proposes is in addition to these reviews: it is not in substitution for them. He is not suggesting—and he did not suggest on the previous occasion—that the three- to four-year process outlined by the Minister should be cancelled in favour of the 10-year process that he was suggesting, but that this is an additional consideration that would be given to the cases of the long-term prisoners at the end of 10 years.
So the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was quite wrong when he assumed that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was trying to cancel the existing three- to four-year reviews for the sake of his argument, as he did on 1st July. In a particular case, about which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, knows, it was emphasised that fresh minds ought to be brought to bear on the consideration of parole for a particular individual. I think it reasonable and sensible that another opinion should be sought. If a man is seen by a different governor, a different wing officer, chaplain or welfare officer if may help to secure better consideration of his case. So why does not the same principle apply to the next stage of the process where the reports of those officals are considered? A 10-year period is a very substantial chunk out of any man's life, and it is proper that after being in prison for that length of time he should have his case examined by a new agency other than the special joint committee of the Parole Board of the Home Office which, as we have heard, has already been looking at his case for the last six or seven years.
The other important feature of the noble Earl's amendment, and I am glad he emphasised this, was that the prisoner would have a chance of appearing personally before the persons nominated by the Secretary of State to consider these cases. It is well known that many prisoners are not good at expressing themselves in writing and are therefore unable to take advantage of the right they are supposed to have to make representations either to the local review committee or indeed to the special joint committee which the noble Lord mentioned on a previous occasion. However, they might well be able to advance considerations of material importance to their case if they were able to appear before such a body in person, as this amendment suggests.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, knows, I am particularly worried about the position of non-English
888
speakers in our prisons. We came across a case the other day where the noble Lord was good enough to tell me that there was no Spanish welfare officer in the Isle of Wight and therefore the Minister was prepared, in the circumstances of the case, to agree that a Spanish-speaking prisoner in, I think, Parkhurst, should be transferred to Maidstone where he might have better facilities for communicating with other prisoners and staff.
We have had Arabic-speaking prisoners, again on the Isle of Wight, who were totally incapable of communicating with the rest of the inmates and the staff. It seems likely to me that among the 3,500-odd foreign nationals in the prisons of England and Wales there will be many lifers who would need a great deal of help if they were to present any sort of a case in writing to the special committee. But if they could appear before this prelimiary review committee, as the noble Earl suggests then obviously they would have a right to interpretation, as they are supposed to have in disciplinary proceedings before the governor and the board of visitors. This is a modest proposal but one that would give some hope to lifers of an additional stage in the consideration of their parole, and therefore it would hold out some hope to them of a fairness in the system which they do not see at present.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, my reason for rising in this discussion is mainly because I was so extensively quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, during the Committee stage when he presented a different shaped amendment, that I thought I could not with honour sit here, having been a kind of disembodied voice on the previous occasion, and disclaim what was said on my behalf. I can, and gladly do, confirm that what the noble Earl said that I felt about his amendment is in principle correct. But I am not entirely happy—and I have told the noble Earl this—about the method that he is proposing. He has acknowledged that the method may have to be thought about again. The point here is that the preliminary review committee to which the amendment refers, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, knows very well, is an informal and unofficial body which is in the business, and has been since 1973, of looking at all cases of lifers to see whether and if so at what appropriate point of time, their cases should be put into the formal review process. I question whether in a statute it would be proper to make reference to an informal and unofficial body of that kind, and whether the Home Secretary could be required to give instructions to such an informal and unofficial body.
That is really by the way, because I strongly believe in the principle behind this amendment. It is right that the formal process of reviewing life prisoners should begin at about the 10-year mark, if it has not begun, at the instance of that informal and unofficial body, earlier. I believe that is absolutely right—of course, without prejudice to the views in the formal process of the local review committees and of the Parole Board, to say nothing of the views of the trial judge and of the Lord Chief Justice. It is a long-drawn-out and lengthy process, and it is right that it should be a long-drawn-out process.
I also believe that, as happens in parole for determinate prisoners, the life prisoner, when his review

889
takes place, as I think it should at, if not before, the 10-year mark has been past, should have the right to refuse to have his case considered. He should have the right to opt out. This is a proper safeguard which places the onus on the prisoner to risk disappointment if, as is almost certain to be so in a few cases of particularly heinous crimes, no recommendation for release is going to be made following that 10-year review. It may well be that the view of the Parole Board, the recommendation to the Home Secretary of the Parole Board, is that the case should not be reviewed again for perhaps three or as much as five years. At least that will have been the risk taken by the prisoner in allowing his review to go forward and not refusing to have it looked at. That is better than oblivion.
I believe strongly in the principle of the amendment, which is to ensure that a life prisoner has a milestone ahead to look forward to. Having read Hansard, I am well aware that the views of my noble friend Lord Harris in this matter, and from a similar experience, are quite different from mine. I have visited life prisoners. I could list to your Lordships the eight or nine prisons I have visited, where I have spoken to life prisoners. In all cases I can say that they live on hope. Whatever one may feel about the heinousness of the crimes they committed—and they are not all criminals, in the sense that they did something once that was dreadful and maybe they would not think of doing such a thing again—the one thing they have a right to expect is to have some hope rather than to deteriorate (which, if they have not got hope, there is a grave danger of their doing)—into vegetables.
There are perhaps some of your Lordships who will say that that is no less than they deserve. I can only say that I profoundly differ with such a view. Only yesterday I spent a considerable time, the whole afternoon, with a probation officer who until recently had served four years in the lifers' wing at Maidstone Prison, her responsibility being to do social work among those prisoners. She confirmed absolutely the views which I am now expressing from an inside view, from a human contact view with human beings. I can only say that that strengthened my belief that the principle of this amendment is right, and I support it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved by my noble friend and to which I have my name. Most of the arguments in favour of the amendment have already been used and explained. The main resistance to the amendment moved by my noble friend at Committee stage—and he referred to it—was that it was cruel to give hope when that hope would not be realised. But, together with other noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment, I believe that it is far more cruel to feel ignored, isolated, and forgotten.
Whether the vehicle that my noble friend has chosen is quite right or not—and I listened with great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, and it is right that in a statute a statutory body should be written into it—what attracts me about this particular amendment, although it is rather more mild or, as my noble friend said, more timid than his previous amendment, is the opportunity, if the prisoner is willing, that he should be interviewed by a member of whatever committee it is, a local review committee or another
890
sort of committee which could be incorporated in the statute.
This point of the opportunity for contact with another human being is absolutely essential. If the answer is to be, "What is the point of that if the prisoner will be told that it is useless our talking about him getting parole for the next unimaginable number of years?" The fact that it is spoken about and that the person is able to hear it from another human being is very important. He knows in his own mind often the hopelessness of his case, certainly in the short and medium term. Nevertheless, the fact that there is contact—personal contact, not something just considered by a committee removed from him—makes all the difference. Having many years ago worked as a prison visitor at Holloway and having there dealt with some very long-term prisoners, I am convinced that this human contact on a one-to-one basis is of the greatest importance, and therefore I support the amendment.
5.41 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I too support the amendment from the point of view of maintaining hope and allowing personal contact with a member who will make the recommendation.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I supported this amendment in its stronger form and I support it in its lesser form.
Lord Elton: My Lords, let us start by looking at what now happens—and with two eminent ex-chairmen of the Parole Board and one probably silent chairman present, I shall be corrected if I am wrong. As I explained at an earlier stage, when a life sentence prisoner has been detained for three to four years—and in some cases it may be earlier—the joint committee meets to consider the facts of the case and all the reports that have been made on the prisoner during his detention so far. It then either recommends a date when the case should be referred to the local review committee or, if it is clear that he could not be released for several years, or not immediately clear how soon he might be released, asks to see the case again after a specified interval.
Although the joint committee may not immediately recommend a date for the review and ask to see it again, the great majority of cases are referred to the local review committee well before the prisoner has been detained for 10 years. Even where it is apparent that the prisoner will not be released for many years, the joint committee follows a working rule that it will always look at his case again after he has been detained for 10 years. So it is not a question, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, claimed, in Committee, of the file being brought out and some officials sitting round and deciding not to look at that particular file again for some time.
The Earl of Longford: The Minister seems to be saying that I got something wrong, my Lords. May I ask him to say what I got wrong? So far as I am concerned, the procedure he has described is the one. I have been denouncing.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am trying to establish whether what the noble Earl is denouncing is what I am describing, and he has now confirmed that it is. As was made clear more than once in the debate, officials are in a minority on the joint committee. Senior members of the Parole Board, including the board's chairman and vice-chairman, form the majority, and it is right that that should be so because the committee is, in effect, winnowing the cases to be presented to the local review committee and the full board so as to present to them only those cases with at least some prospect of success.
The review process is elaborate and thorough and it would be wrong for the whole of it to be put into action in every case and at short intervals where there is no prospect of doing anything but consuming the time of free men and dashing the hopes of the prisoners; and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the importance of not dashing the hopes of the prisoner and giving him the opportunity of opting out of the stress of that process if he feels that suits him.
In the relatively small number of cases where a prisoner has been detained for 10 years and no date has yet been set for his case to be referred to the local review committee, the case will have been seen by the joint committee at least twice. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, regards that as a milestone, but it is not 10 years languishing with one's case unconsidered; nor, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, suggested, is the prisoner ignored, isolated and forgotten.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, perhaps I may make it clear that the fact that the case has been looked at twice up to the 10-year mark by an unofficial and informal body gives no knowledge to the prisoner concerned as to the outcome of those two reviews. Therefore, he or she will not know what the outcome is going to be, or will have been, until the formal review process has been gone through.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged for that comment because I am anxious to learn. What the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is saying is wanted is an indication to the prisoner of the progress of what I might call his case, and that did not seem to me to be the principal object of the amendment. I am informed that the prisoner knows at every stage of the review—and I see the noble Lord, Lord Harris, a more recent occupant of the hot seat, nodding his head. That being so, I think what Lord Hunt has advanced is somewhat weakened.
I was referring to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to as the prisoner being ignored, isolated and forgotten. He is in fact interviewed very frequently indeed by people skilled in doing that—governors, probation officers, chaplains and so on—and their considered reports are before the joint committee for their consideration. Apart from the Parole Board's psychiatrists, who may interview a prisoner on behalf of the board—but that is rarely done—it is true that the present members of the joint committee are not necessarily skilled in interviewing.
We must accept that in prison we have not only people who, some of us feel, perhaps are there only by mischance and who are straightforward and honest people in other respects, but also people who are
892
consummately skilled in misleading those to whom they talk. The judge of course has skills, and the chairman of the board may very well have those skills too, but it is not the training of other people, and interviews on behalf of the local review committee about the prisoner's representations are, I think, the appropriate point at which the prisoner has contact with this procedure.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the point I make about representations is that many prisoners are not able to communicate in writing and that foreigners would not be capable even of communicating in the English language, whereas if they could appear in person before the special committee—which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, advocates—they would make verbal representations with an interpreter present.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is difficult to deal with such views put in one after the other. Noble Lords are saying that there should be personal contact, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is saying that where the person is a foreigner, it is better that the translation should be done verbally than on paper, so the point he makes is the same as the point other noble Lords are making. I have to be advised in these things, and when I look at the annual report of the board for 1977 I see that personal hearings, while they might work to the advantage of the sophisticated criminal, could "disadvantage the unsure and the inarticulate". I am quoting the Parole Board, in its report—and I should have thought that the members of the board are the people with the most direct experience. Then:
"There is much to be said for the view that the good documentation by the people with knowledge of the prisoner over the years is the best method of guiding those who have to decide whether parole should be granted".
It is a difficult case. In the light of the weight of the advice that I have quoted—the views of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, support what I have said—it appears that your Lordships are asking for something which appears so simple, but which I do not feel will in fact amount to what you would expect of it. I hope that before he comes to a final decision, the noble Earl will consider very carefully his amendment, which he has himself said he finds not altogether satisfactory.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, to put the noble Lord out of any anxiety, I say at once that I shall not today be dividing the House on this question. This is mainly for the reason mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which has already occurred to me—that it is not a very satisfactory amendment. However, it is a straight issue of principle affecting a number of human beings. Last night we rightly discussed a question of principle affecting one woman and one child. It was rightly considered that that raised a great question of principle.
Life prisoners might in the past have deserved badly of society, but they are now among the most agonised and vulnerable people. Our whole approach to them raises a question of principle, which should be very carefully considered. I shall discuss the matter with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who, over such a long time, has taken such enormous interest in

893
prisoners. I shall discuss with them all the question of what is the most suitable amendment to put down, but I shall certainly put down something—
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—
The Earl of Longford: I am not sitting down quite yet.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am an optimist. I wonder whether the noble Earl will be kind enough to give some indication whether it is the frequency or the formality of the review with which he is principally concerned; or is it the immediacy aspect?—that is the personal interview, which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has rather emphasised might be the main concern. If the noble Earl would give such an indication, I would be clearer about the focus of his intentions.
The Earl of Longford: The noble Lord will be clearer about my intentions before the next stage, my Lords, since I gather that the Government are allowing several months for all of us to think over these matters; I do not suppose that we shall again be going into the question yet awhile. But I should like to try to answer the noble Lord's point. Certainly I consider that it is monstrous that the prisoner should not be seen by a member of the committee. That principle is accepted in the case of the local review committees. It is argued that a member of the local review committee—a local bank manager, for example, as it may well be—is not capable of interviewing a prisoner. To be told that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, with all his immense abilities, is incapable of interviewing a prisoner, is not acceptable. The same would apply in relation to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, or the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. Such eminent people command the attention of your Lordships whenever they speak; yet we are told that they cannot interview a humble prisoner, that it must be left to someone more skilled. That is what we were told just now—
Lord Elton: My Lords, as it happened, I specifically exempted the chairman of the board. It is a small point.
The Earl of Longford: I see, my Lords. Well, it is a funny sort of board, with about 50 members, if only the chairman is capable of interviewing. That argument is quite absurd; I can say that without giving offence. It is asked, who can interview the prisoners? The noble Lord says that they can be interviewed by governors and other people on the spot who know them well. Well, let us accept that arbitrament. I must not go into detailed cases, but I know of more than one case where the prisons collectively are entirely on the side of the prisoner being sent forward for parole. We know who has been standing in the way of that. If it were said, hand over the matter to the prison, there would be many prisoners known to me who tomorrow—I would not say that they would be out—would pass to the review process. The argument there, I am sorry to say, is far removed
894
from reality. However, let us leave it there. To use the noble Lord's expression, I have to be advised; and I hope that he will be advised better next time. If he is not, I feel that it will not be for want of other people, as well as his own official advisers, trying to help him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt moved Amendment No. 48:
Before Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Supervised release scheme
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a person who after the commencement of this Act is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than 3 years shall be released on a supervised release licence when he has served one third of his sentence or one month; whichever is the longer; or such later date as may be necessary to take account of any forfeiture of remission.
(2) Where a court considers that it is necessary for the protection of the public, it may order that an offender who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than three years shall not be released on a supervised release licence under subsection (1) above.
(3) A person subject to a supervised release licence—

(a) shall be under the supervision of a probation officer, and

(b) shall comply with such requirements, if any, as the Secretary of State may specify in his licence.

(4) For the purpose of this section consecutive and concurrent terms of imprisonment shall be treated as a single term.
(5) A person whose sentence is reduced by the operation of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (reduction of sentence of imprisonment by reference to periods spent in custody on remand) shall for the purposes of this section be treated as if any period taken into account under that section were included in his sentence.
(6) A person shall remain subject to a supervised release licence until he has served two-thirds of his sentence, with the addition of any period for which he may have forfeited remission unless the licence is revoked under subsection (7) below.
(7) A person subject to a supervised release licence who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement imposed under subsection (3)(b) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to—

(a) a fine not exceeding £200;

(b) a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding 30 days.

(8) Where a person subject to a supervised release licence commits an offence punishable with imprisonment, a court may order his return to custody for a period not exceeding—

(a) the outstanding period for which the supervised release licence would otherwise be in force, or

(b) 30 days,

whichever is the longer").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move Amendment No. 48, I would remind your Lordships that we had a very good debate on the matter in Committee on the evening of 28th June, when, unfortunately, only very few of your Lordships were present. I withdrew the amendment, saying that I would bring it up again, which is what I am now doing. I am well aware that Ministers' main hope of reducing the grossly-overcrowded prison population rests on Clause 28, and on what I call the crisis measure embodied in Clause 29. I realise, too, the inclusion of my amendment in the Bill would possibly add to the difficulties of the courts. The Government have stated firmly that they have already made their choice in the two clauses.
We—and in saying "we" I am talking about that much referred to body, of which I shall give only the initial letters, so as not to spell it out again: APPAG—feel that the issue is much too crucial for such finality of judgment. We have no confidence in the measures

895
embodied in the other two clauses. That is why I am now persisting in the proposals which I shall briefly outline once more to your Lordships, assuming, rightly or wrongly, that you may not have read Hansard of 28th June.
The amendment as it now appears has been slightly modified. Its purposes are two-fold: first to reduce the present prison population to within manageable, safe, and morally acceptable limits; and, secondly, to enable many more prisoners, both within and below the present threshold of the parole scheme, to benefit by support and supervision in the community before the end of their sentences.
Subject to directions by the courts—which are contained in subsection (2) of my amendment, as modified from the previous amendment at the Committee stage—that the full period of the sentence, less, of course, remission, should be served in prison, offenders sentenced to periods ranging from three months to under three years would serve the middle third of their sentences non-custodially, but under a supervised licence. Unlike partly-suspended sentences, the second part is intended, as with parole, to be a positive and rehabilitative period, with advice and support from a probation officer.
The proposal is not new, but it is a new concept of sentencing, possibly with wider implications in the future for all determinate sentences. The idea was put forward by the Home Office itself in its review of parole in England and Wales, published last year. Explaining that proposal in the House of Commons on 23rd July last year, Mr. Patrick Mayhew, the Minister of State said, at col. 694 of the Official Report:
"I … take this opportunity to emphasise that what is envisaged would not be a reduction in sentence lengths as such. Rather it would be a question of restructuring the nature of sentences so that part of the sentence is served in custody and part under supervision in the community".
If I may say so, I think that the Government Minister put it very well.
The proposal received favourable comments from, among others, the Lord Chief Justice himself. However, in later references—this was really unfortunate—it became known as automatic parole, regardless of the discretion given for the courts not to apply the non-custodial part of the sentence. In my submission, that power makes the use of the word "automatic" both misleading and quite inappropriate.
Apart from the primary purpose of making a very significant reduction in the prison population, which is of crucial importance, the proposal has the merit of important savings in the parole assessment procedures in respect of 3,500 prisoners serving sentences of under three years but more than 18 months. That advantage would enable the Parole Board, and, before it, the local review committees, to concentrate on the more difficult cases of those serving longer sentences for more serious offences. In saying that, I am not in any way underrating the seriousness of any offence which commands a lesser sentence.
I would stress again the importance we attach, from parole scheme experience, to contacts with and help from supervising probation officers, even for short periods of down to one month. That, under this proposal, will include, I believe, something in excess of 4,000 prisoners, and it will certainly include many
896
recidivists, who need that kind of help most. Again, under a partly-suspended sentence they would not get it, and that fact accounts in no small measure for many failures to survive in the community without re-offending on release when suspended sentences have been imposed in the past.
As regards the potential saving of the number of people in prison at any one time, the Home Office gave an optimum figure of 7,000 to the scheme they adumbrated in their review of parole, but on the basis of a threshold of six months. My amendment proposes a lower threshold of th ee months, and that should add up to another 1,000 prisoners. Of course, this potential (if your Lordships have done your mental arithmetic correctly, as I am sure you have) of 8,000 does not take into account the numbers who might be disallowed by the courts under subsection (2).
But bear in mind these facts: first of all, that these prisoners serve shorter sentences for the less serious range of offences; secondly, that prolonging imprisonment certainly does not deter most offenders, and certainly does not enable recidivists to survive and go straight; thirdly, that the rate of re-offending while on parole has been consistently within 5 per cent.; and, finally, that all within my bracket will, within a matter of months, return to the community, if the middle third of their sentences is disallowed by the courts, with no support and no strings attached. Bearing all these facts in mind, I would not expect more than a quarter, 25 per cent., to be so disallowed by the courts. I am therefore confident of a reduction in the prison population of some 6,000 places.
This amendment is bound to be called a radical step, but so was parole when it was being considered in your Lordships' House and in the other place in 1967, when the Criminal Justice Act of that year was passed. There were serious reservations about it, including (and I am glad to mention them) the National Association of Probation Officers, who, incidentally, are expressing misgivings about this amendment now. But, as we all know, parole soon came to be looked upon as a great leap forward in penal reform. It is now an established feature in our criminal justice system, and there is clear evidence that parole supervision has reduced the rate of offending. I can see no reason why this proposal should not come to be accepted by everyone as another important advance in enlightened penology.
I do not believe for a moment that the judges would increase the length of sentences if this proposal found its place in the statute book. Nor do I doubt that probation officers, if it becomes law, would make a success of it, as they have of parole. If further resources are needed for the probation service—and they may well be—I say with emphasis that this, too, is a positive and desirable step. It would be offset, and more than offset, by savings in the prison establishments and savings in the enormous cost of keeping so many individual prisoners inside. In moving this amendment, which I now do, I repeat what I said in Committee. The nettle of prison overcrowding must be grasped. It was the Home Office itself which initially gave the lead, but they retreated from it. Now, I submit, is the time to advance again. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment so admirably moved, if I may say so,

897
by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This Bill has been much criticised for its major deficiency in failing to contain a provision which would be sure of substantially reducing the prison population. We have many times canvassed and described the intolerable conditions in our prisons, and I think that about that there is substantial agreement on all sides of the House. But the problem that we have endeavoured to grapple with is by what means we can, for instance, get somewhere near the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, proposing the progressive reduction of the present prison population from 44,000 to 37,000. We have the further recommendation of the Prison and Borstal Governors' Branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants, calling for a reduction to 32,000. Our fear is that what the Government have proposed in their proposals will come nowhere near achieving that result, and the horrid conditions of prisons, especially local prisons, will continue in spite of all our endeavours.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has explained, the new clause provides for the introduction of an automatic, supervised release scheme for prisoners serving sentences of less than three years, but with the proviso that a court may exclude an offender from automatic release on supervision where it considers that this is necessary for the protection of the public. That proviso meets the objection which the judges, and in particular the Lord Chief Justice, had previously in respect of automatic supervised release. Your Lordships will recollect the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in this House in April of this year, when, referring to this proposal, he said:
"The judges suggested that there should be power to non-apply that rule in specific cases particularly where the public require protection. That suggestion was turned down flat. But if that suggestion were adopted I would respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there is no possible objection to the scheme."
So one has there a backing for the scheme from perhaps the most responsible judicial source, and certainly the most authoritative.
My Lords, whether or not the Minister agrees with the precise estimate of the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—that is, whether or not he agrees that the proposal for this concept of a new kind of sentence (which has been termed a custody plus supervision sentence) will produce the precise reduction the noble Lord has indicated—we feel it will indeed be a very considerable reduction. What I think is significant is that there is now clear evidence from Home Office research that release on parole licence, which combines supervision by a probation officer with the deterrent effect of recall to prison for misbehaviour while on licence, for which the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, provides, does reduce the offender's likelihood of re-conviction. So we believe that there are powerful arguments in favour of this scheme, combining the impact of a short period in custody with controls over an offender's future behaviour of the kind contained in a parole licence. It is a new initiative; we believe it is a responsible one, and I hope that at this stage the Government will accept it.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I merely
898
want to add to the very thorough exposition so far that the only reason of a substantial kind that we have ever been given for not adopting this system is that the courts would not accept it. We now have the word of the Lord Chief Justice that he, at least, would accept it with the proviso in subsection (2), so I think the case against it is really totally demolished. We have spent I do not know how many days on this Bill, but I believe that this is very much the most important thing in it that we have discussed. I hope that we shall get some change which will save the inevitable disaster which is facing us in the prisons if we do not.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. We have a prison in Lincoln which I visit from time to time, so I am well aware of what has been described as the conditions of overcrowding in our prisons, and of the extreme seriousness of that. For that reason alone I should want to support this amendment. I had prepared a few words, but the points that I had in them have already been made very clearly and cogently by Lord Hunt and Lord Elwyn-Jones, and there is no point in going over things which have been well put already. I should have thought that this new venture would also provide the sort of space in which those likely to be responsive to rehabilitation may find some sort of encouragement, and again that is something to be in favour of. For those reasons, I support the amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, a person sentenced to three years may be released after one year if he qualifies for parole and receives the full one-third remission of his sentence, so that he is released after 12 months. But a person who is sentenced to 18 months in prison may still be released after one year because he does not qualify for parole. It is absurd that a person serves the same actual length of sentence when the courts have thought fit to impose a difference of two to one in terms of the length of sentence given. They finish up by serving the same length of time as a result of the inoperation of the parole system on short sentences.
Earl Fortescue: My Lords, I should like to speak against the amendment. I know that the Magistrates' Association is against the proposal for several reasons. First, it would drastically reduce the sentencing power of magistrates' courts to, I should like to say, a ridiculously low level. The maximum sentence of imprisonment available to a magistrates' court at the moment is six months. If you deduct one-third of that for the automatic one-third remission and then this proposal would knock off another two months, the maximum term of custody that a magistrates' court would be able to impose would be a net two months.
The second reason is that it must put a considerable extra burden on the probation service. I am rather doubtful whether they are ready at the moment for that additional burden. Having said all that, one would not object to such a proposal if this early release under supervision had to be earned. I understand that parole has to be earned. If the threshold of parole could be lowered to sentences of six months, then I think this release under supervision would be

899
acceptable. Being automatic, it is not acceptable. If magistrates' courts are going to have the power to imprison at all, a net of two months is totally inadequate.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I did not intend to speak because everything seems to have been said. But I felt that I must do so in view of the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue. I am also a member of the Magistrates' Association, but disagree with them. I was not aware that they came out officially against this. I am not sure they have. It may be just a view expressed by a number of the members of Magistrate's Association.
Earl Fortescue: My Lords, they have come out officially against it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, on the other hand, the Justices' Clerks' Society is for it. One of the points that the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, made, was the unwillingness of the probation officers. The Conference of Chief Probation Officers has repeatedly welcomed this proposal. When the noble Lord said that two months was not a deterrent, I would take issue with him. It is generally accepted at the moment that it is the first few weeks or days in prison which act as a deterrent before the person gets used to it and is institutionalised. With great respect, if one has not been in prison—and most of us have not—it is probably impossible to judge the effect of this. I think that two months is a deterrent, but this provision would also be helpful in emptying the prisons.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, this is a subject about which I know very little. My instinct tells me that there is a great deal of merit in the amendment. I should like to support it. However, with regard to Clause 7, why should a man who fails to comply with the requirements of his licence not be made to go back and serve the rest of his sentence? If he has to serve an additional sentence of only a maximum of 30 days, he may end up with less sentence than the courts gave him in the first place, although having broken the terms of his licence.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, there is one small thing. Obviously, I support this amendment. I have my name to it. My noble friend Lord Fortescue says that it will put an extra strain on the probation service. Even if there is an extra strain on them, the probation service have said they like the idea. The lack of strain or the release of strain on the prison service will outweigh any extra strain that might be put on the probation service.
Lord Elton: My Lords, at the Committee stage the noble Lord brought to the House a proposal for a scheme for supervised release which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway showed to be mandatory and in which the element of discretion was entirely executive. After much discussion, he prudently took it away and he has now, as he threatened, brought it back. It has undergone a certain amount of surgery in the interval with the result that the court now does have a discretion. In what the noble Lord sees as
900
the normal way of things, an offender would still leave custody, under supervision, after only the first third of his sentence has run but in what are, I suppose, intended to be exceptional cases the court will have the power to disapply that decision and the noble Lord has sought to quantify the number of occasions when that would happen.
So it may be, my Lords, but the discretion is important in more than one respect. The discretionary measure may have mitigated one of the features to which the judiciary have taken exception but at the same time it has opened the arrangement to one of the objections which the noble Lord and his friends, apparently have to the alternative scheme, at present in the Bill, of partly-suspended sentences. We were told, were we not, that the benefits to the prison system of that scheme—our scheme—were uncertain, since no one could tell how the courts would choose to use their power? To the extent that this discretion meets the objection that the courts must be free not to apply supervised release, it becomes open to the objection that the numerical benefit to the prison system is uncertain and potentially small.
Now that is not an academic consideration, because the noble Lords opposite—and not only opposite, either—have sent up a very great cry at several critical junctures that what this Bill lacks is any certain impact upon the excessive number of people in prison. If the concession the noble Lord claims to have made is a real one, this measure now joins those others whose effects are uncertain. If it is not, his gesture to the judiciary is a hollow one and will not serve to commend his proposal to them.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I must intervene on this answer. The argument about the suspended sentence is that the range is from plus-4,000 to minus-4,000, roughly speaking. You have a figure of 6,000 in the figure here, which may be reduced by a percentage. If it were reduced by 100 per cent., you still have nought. There is absolutely no question of its going widely the other way, and the analogy is quite false.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not know that the analogy is false, but I am merely using the arguments in exactly the same circumstances that the noble Lord has used them himself against my discretionary scheme. I was told that the scheme that we have in the Bill is discretionary and will not therefore certainly reduce the prison population, whereas the scheme produced in the amendment when it came to this House at Committee was automatic and it would not reduce the prison population. That was the principle reason that it was commended to your Lordships. Now your Lordships opposite have introduced the discretionary element and if you had done so in an unfettered way, as it is in our arrangements, then the noble Lord's amendment is open to exactly the same objections as what is in the Bill. If, on the other hand, he had not, then it does not meet the objections of the judiciary which it claims to do.
I noted with interest the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that release on parole reduced the likelihood that an offender would reoffend and be reconvicted. But that surely is an

901
argument for selectivity in the parole process, and to the extent that this is a mandatory scheme that is lost. So, what he is arguing for is selectivity and not automatic release.
What I have said so far merely places the noble Lord's proposal at the same level for consideration as what is already in the Bill. That alone would not be enough to persuade your Lordships to prefer the Government's plan to theirs. But is not, of course, the only consideration, and the Government are acutely conscious of this because the debate which now occupies your Lordship's House is to us a very familiar one. It has already been argued within Government itself when we ourselves faced the choice between a discretionary scheme of partly suspended sentences and a discretionary scheme of supervised early release.
What commends our scheme to us, my Lords, is that first that it is ready to hand. The power existed in the Act as we implemented it. Secondly, that it secures, where suitable, an even greater reduction in sentence lengths (to a quarter of the sentence as against one-third); and thirdly, there is the not inconsiderable matter of cost. If, as the noble Lords' opposite hope, their scheme was widely used and rarely disapplied, the actual volume of supervisory work would be very considerable indeed. That would cost money and that is always a consideration for Government. It is a consideration, of course, that must be carefully and even willingly gone into where there are certain or even hopeful benefits perceived. But the regrettable fact is that the benefits of supervision in this case are very much less indeed than certain.
The comments that the Government received upon the likely benefits from schemes of compulsory supervision over short periods of unwilling clients make us despondent of any great benefit—particularly so since prominent among those with grave doubts was the probation service itself—and the noble Lords who have advanced the case of supervised release with such conviction this evening had better remember the even greater conviction with which they told me on Monday that it was irresponsible to fly in the advice of exactly that service upon professional matters.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as the conference of chief probation officers is taking place at this moment I should be interested to know exactly to whom he is attributing these views.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am attributing them to the probation service, who run this. What we are offered—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if the noble Lord says the probation service, I am asking him specifically what is the view of the conference of the chief probation officers. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said something wholly different on that point, and the noble Lord is appearing to contradict her and then when challenged he is saying that he is not prepared to specify to whom he is referring.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall burrow into the background of my information and revert to that, as is my habit. What we are offered in place of our scheme—and it is a choice; I really do not think that we can have both in the Bill although the noble and learned
902
Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has not put down an amendment to remove what is now in the Bill, the two would sit very oddly side by side—one that could be made to work only at the expense of an elaborate and costly supervisory effort provided by a probation service that is already exceedingly hard worked, and that appears to be profoundly sceptical of its benefits, and if the scheme really did combine genuine discretion and the prospect of a greater reduction in the prison population, it might be worth preferring it to a partly suspended sentence, despite the disadvantages. But it cannot provide a significant element of discretion without eating equally significantly into the expected benefits to the prison system. What we would have is a scheme not perhaps dramatically worse than what we already have but something, nonetheless, that really is not as good and to be had only by much trouble and great expense. But it would be a deception to think that discretionary supervised release can conjure up a reduction in the prison population which is not available through partly suspended sentences. It is quite simple: the existing sentencing powers give the courts discretion to fix sentences no longer than the seriousness that the case demands. That is what the courts do. The Lord Chief Justice has made that clear to this House himself. The power to suspend all or part of a sentence enables the courts to reduce the amount of the sentence which the offender actually serves. Discretionary supervised release will achieve no more than that—indeed, given that the proportion of the sentence to be served would be fixed at a third of or two thirds, it offers less. There is no reason to suppose that the courts should find it possible to use this early release power more frequently than the power of partial suspension. By definition, a discretionary scheme could not compel the courts nor should it. On any basis, it is they who fix the lengths of sentences.
I had hoped to reply with chapter and verse to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but I am not sure that I can pursue it through the index. I admire the aspirations of noble Lords opposite. I am not sure that I admire the way in which they deplore that fact that the Government have considered this matter at considerable length and as a result of their reflection have changed their mind as though that is an improper result of reflection. I think that a Government which cannot change their mind is likely to be in very great trouble. Nonetheless, I admire the aspirations of noble Lords opposite. I admire their ideals and their evident philanthropy but the hard fact is that what they have put before your Lordships is less flexible to the courts (because the discretion is all or nothing) and less welcome to the supervisory service (because an unwilling short-term clientele is the least treatable and rewarding to work with and the least likely to benefit).
My Lords, I have now been told that the answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is that I was referring to the National Association of Probation Officers.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, He will, of course, appreciate what he said: he referred to the probation service, implying a unanimity of view. He has now indicated that it is one part of the probation service that he was referring to. It is a point of substance, as I think he may agree.
Lord Elton: My Lords, yes, it is a point of substance; but it is a prestigious body involved in this work. Your Lordships told me to ignore their advice at my peril only two days ago. I quote their advice in support of my case and I do not see why I should be denied that pleasure. I was saying that it would be less welcome to the taxpayer because that same supervisory effort, though of limited and doubtful benefit, will give rise to certain and inescapable costs. I think it will be less welcome to the prisoner, who would stand to serve a slightly larger portion of his sentence. Those various counts all add up to a great many discontented customers. I hope that your Lordships, too, will feel discontented and will follow me to the left below the Bar if the noble Lord presses this to a Division.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not think it would be right to pretend that this decision was in any way an easy one for the Government to take. I say that at the outset. In the middle of last year I was consulted by Home Office officials, at the request of the Home Secretary, on his own proposals. On that occasion I ventured to give a number of opinions. I was only giving a personal reaction at that time, and the first important point I put forward was that I hoped this was not going to be called "parole", because it was not. It was, in fact, an early release system; there was no qualitative judgment on the individual cases coming before anything approaching an institution like the Parole Board itself. It was in fact an early release scheme and there was a principle of automaticity. There are problems about automaticity and about imposing a form of supervision on people who do not want to be supervised. I accept that at once. Though I do not object to the Government's changing their minds, the warm agreement being expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on this point disguises the fact that it was his Government who were putting forward the proposal in the first place.
Lord Elton: Exactly, my Lords.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord has just made the point that the Government have changed their mind, and asked: should they be censured for that? No, of course they should not. But I think that a number of us are concerned about the character of the new decision. I do not believe there is any serious comparison at all between the partially-suspended sentence and what is proposed in this amendment.
First, as to the numbers concerned, the claims made by the enthusiasts for the partially-suspended sentence are pretty modest and, as my noble friend Lord Donaldson has pointed out, it is possible that there will be an increase in the size of the prison population rather than a reduction. I do not propose to become involved in that argument all over again, but that is the real situation. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Hunt has pointed out that, as far as this amendment is concerned, we could be facing an increase in the number of people subject to supervision by the probation service in the community of somewhere in the region of 6,000. If I may say so, that demon-
904
strates the very substantial differences that exist between two schemes.
Of course the Government were faced with a very difficult position at the end of last year. We know there was some opposition from some members of the judiciary. I do not want to become involved in the argument as to who were consulted, but it would not be right to suggest that all members of the judiciary were consulted on the matter, because that is not so. The problem undoubtedly was that there was some significant judicial opposition to what was proposed, and there was opposition from the Magistrates' Association and also from the National Association of Probation Officers. I would not dispute that. I believe there was dispute about that, just as there was over the original parole scheme itself, as far as the National Association of Probation Officers was concerned; and I do not think they were too keen on community service either, so far as I can recall. I make this point because it is right to recognise that the Government did face a genuine difficulty. But the problem we face in this matter was not really dealt with at all by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, because, as he well knows, the problem is one of what is to happen in the prisons.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln was discussing conditions in one of the grieviously overcrowded local prisons in this country: Lincoln. When I last went to Lincoln Prison just after the POA dispute, the Governor told me there was a great possibility of breakdown in that prison. What did he mean by that? He meant that the main services and the whole of the sewage system could basically bust up as a result of the sheer pressure of numbers in that institution. That is what we are talking about when we refer to prison over-crowding. It is not simply a question of discomfort—though, heaven knows!, there is plenty of discomfort—but the real problem is one of an imminent breakdown of the service. This has been dealt with by the former first independent Inspector of the Prison Service, the late Mr. Pearce, in his first annual report. Those of us who go to prisons are aware of the great concern of the entire prison service about what is now happening.
What is the Government's approach to this? We have Clause 29. I believe that will one day be implemented. I must say to the Minister—and I apologise for coming back to a point which a number of us made on Committee stage—that of all the possibilities the Government have examined, the least attractive option of all is the executive release system which is set out in Clause 29 of the Bill. It is now even worse because of the exceptions which have been made—this is the view of many experienced prison governors—which will cause widespread unrest if it is ever implemented. I repeat that there is a high degree of likelihood that it will have to be implemented because, if it is not, we shall have a total breakdown of the prison system.
That is the problem the Government faced, and although I recognise only too well the difficult character of the decision they had to make, I fear they have made the wrong decision. I think the proposal of my noble friend Lord Hunt answers the difficulties and, if I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, when he said that the powers of magistrates would

905
be dangerously reduced, there is in fact a power to dis-apply, so that the magistrates, as the Crown Courts, also, would have to make a judgment in each case as to whether they were going to dis-apply or not. To come back to the point that was made by everybody who has spoken on this debate, there are a series of choices and I think that this is by far the most sensible way of dealing with it. I think there would be a greater degree of public sympathy and support for this approach, certainly as compared with the executive release scheme which, in my view, will cause widespread public anxiety. I will gladly give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord was good enough to give way so that I might intervene. I now have before me the submissions of the National Association of Probation Officers, the Conference of Chief Probation Officers and the Central Council of Probation and Aftercare Committees, all of whom express grave reservations. I think it right to put that on the record. The noble Lord was then addressing himself to the overcrowding, which we are all aware of; but what your Lordships have to accept is that we want a method that will produce certain results, and this method is no more certain than what we propose and it has certain disadvantages.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I accept that. When the noble Lord mentions reservations, of course there are reservations among many institutions which have been consulted. The question, however, is whether they opposed the Government's proposal in principle or whether they did not. We all have reservations on virtually every possible scheme we have been considering. There are painful and difficult choices in this matter. I believe the Government have taken the wrong decision and that, if this amendment is not carried and not added to the Bill, we shall be driven into the executive release scheme, which I believe will be a profound error and will cause widespread public anxiety and further trouble in the prisons.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harris for making an admirable summing-up speech, which saves me from making one myself. I do not think it would be the wish of your Lordships that I should go into the argument again. I valued enormously the contributions made in the debate on my amendment, and I should particularly like to say how much I valued the intervention of the right reverend Prelate. There is only one point which I am in duty bound to clear up. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, referred to subsection (7) of my amendment, and asked why a person who infringed his licence should not come back and serve the whole balance of the sentence. If he looks at subsection (8), he will see that there are two conditions in which a person could be recalled; one for breach of his licence and the other for committing a further offence. The breach of his licence may be for not keeping appointments with a probation officer on a number of occasions. It is the much lesser offence, although to be deplored, and not the criminal offence, in any sense, that is catered for in subsection (7). Therefore, I hope that
906
the noble Earl will not feel that that is wrongly drafted.
Your Lordships have listened to a very interesting interchange between what I had to say at the beginning and what the noble Lord the Minister said at the end. Late on 28th June, when I made a slightly longer speech, I was not sure whether I would be meeting in the semi-final today the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, or the noble Lord, Lord Elton and which encounter I looked forward to most. I enjoyed enormously what the noble Lord had to say and I hope that he has not taken personally any remarks that I made; for instance, about the Government changing their minds. I change my mind very often, on reflection. All we are asking the Government to do is to have the courage to change their mind again.
I should like to mention one point, about which there has been a lot of discussion; that is, the attitude of probation officers. It is perfectly true that the Conference of Chief Probation Officers has expressed reservations about having adequate resources. But subject to that, they have welcomed this and I know that that is the attitude of the Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees. As regards my friends, the National Association of Probation Officers—and I was their president for something like seven years—I would only say to them that, whereas on many occasions they reflect correctly the attitudes and concerns of the probation officers, they being the professional body and trade union, I believe that they are quite wrong on this occasion, as they were wrong in 1967 in not opposing, but expressing strong doubts about, parole. I do not believe that those strong doubts, which they believe to be in the best interests of probation officers, are shared by many probation officers in post around the country.
There is nothing more that I need to say, except that I propose to divide the House, because I believe that this amendment puts down a marker for those of us who will not accept that, with more than 44,000 prisoners in establishments whose certified normal accommodation is 37,000, we can go on as before, with the courts putting away offenders for ineffectually long periods in prison, as opposed to non-custodially out of prison—many of them in the scandalous conditions of local prisons—and notwithstanding the time required, to say nothing of the cost, to build more establishments to contain those prisoners.
I put it to your Lordships that we should not rely on the proposition of the partially suspended sentence, or on that sentence alone, with all the reservations and doubts which have been expressed about it and which were aired during the Committee stage of this Bill. Suspended sentences have largely failed, because they have failed to support those on whom they are imposed. Nor do I, with my noble friend Lord Harris and others, believe that we should await a breakdown in the administration of our prison system, and wait for a crisis to arise, before resorting to the early release proposal, which it is suggested the Home Secretary should have as a power of last resort, in a crisis. That is quite the wrong way to approach the prison problem. Something more effective and more continuous in its effects must be introduced into this Bill, and I suggest that this amendment does it.

907
In conclusion, this really is not a measure which is put forward by "wets", unless your Lordships like to consider me in that category, nor by people who have scant regard for law and order. We are moved as much by pragmatism as by considerations of humanity. We are convinced that law and order are better served in this way. So having given an all-party lead to an amendment which I believe can be fitted in, in addition to the partially suspended sentence, although it creates more difficulties, I urge your Lordships—and I wish that I could be heard in the Bars and lounges—to give a non-party lead by coming into the Division Lobby in favour of this amendment.
6.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 89.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Avebury, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Banks, L.

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

Barrington, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bernstein, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bishopston, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

Mayhew, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Melchett, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brockway, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Onslow, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Peart, L.

Collison, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Rochester, L.

Denington, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Diamond, L.

Stedman, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Stone, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Strauss, L.

Foot, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hall, V.

Underhill, L.

Hampton, L.

Vernon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Walston, L.

Hunt, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

White, B.

Ilchester, E.

Wigoder, L.

Ingleby, V.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Cockfield, L.

Auckland, L.

Coleraine, L.

Avon, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Bellwin, L.

Colwyn, L.

Beloff, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Bethell, L.

Craigton, L.

Blake, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Crathorne, L.

Caithness, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Davidson, V.

Cathcart, E.

De La Warr, E.

Chelwood, L.

Dilhorne, V.

908

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mersey, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elles, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, B.

Gainford, L.

Polwarth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Portland, D.

Glanusk, L.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ridley, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gridley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Sempill, Ly.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Holderness, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Kimberley, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Terrington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Teviot, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Lyell, L.

Torphichen, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trenchard, V.

Mancroft, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Marley, L.

Young, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, at this stage I think that it would be suitable to discontinue our consideration of the Report stage of the Bill in order to take further business and to return for further consideration on Report at eight o'clock. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.57 until 8 p.m.]

Criminal Justice Bill
Further considered on Report.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 49:
Before Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Remission of sentences
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument vary the amount of remission granted under Rule 5 of the Prison Rules 1964 so that it shall not exceed

909
one-half instead of one-third of the periods specified in the Rules, and may exclude from the operation of any such order such classes of prisoner as may be specified by reference either to the nature of the offence committed or to the length of the sentence imposed.
(2) An order shall not be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment represents not only a fall-back position, but if one fell back any further one would finish up flat on one's back. It is the barest minimum which I venture to put forward as a proposal to the Government to enable them to take some steps in relieving the vast overcrowding in our prisons, about which so much has been said during the course of both Committee and Report stages.
I do not propose to repeat anything that has been said. The conditions are inhumane for the prisoners and are intolerable for the prison staff. The dangers for the community as a whole of letting those conditions develop are self-evident. There is now little in this Bill—particularly since the previous amendment was defeated—to provide hope of any immediate remedy to this overcrowding situation. There is the executive release proposal, which I believe is recognised on all sides as being undesirable except as an extreme. There is the partly suspended sentence proposal, about which opinions vary as to the likely results. In seeking any other possible remedy, one is forced to look to the question of whether the amount of remission might be increased. All that this amendment provides is that the Secretary of State may by order, and, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament increase the amount of remission from the present one-third to whatever amount seems appropriate, to a maximum of one-half—that being the amount which is available in Northern Ireland.
I would accept at once that there may be grounds for going carefully on this matter. It is obviously necessary that any such proposal should be acceptable to the public. Perhaps one ought to remind your Lordships that the view sometimes expressed that the public would find it totally unacceptable to increase the amount of remission appears to be based on the belief that there is no remission at all at the moment. The public accept a situation in which sentences are passed in court, and yet for all prisoners, whatever their crimes and whatever their records, remission of one-third is in practice available provided that they behave themselves in prison.
Not only must such a proposal be acceptable to the public; I believe it must be acceptable also to the judiciary. I say that, not in order to put the judiciary in a separate category or to give them a power of veto, but simply because there is no purpose in increasing the amount of remission if the judiciary as a result are going to increase the length of sentences. Therefore, any such proposal would have to be made in consultation with the judiciary, in order to discover precisely what was acceptable to them.
I believe it may be that the Secretary of State already has the power to vary the amount of remission. What I do not believe he has the power to do is to add to it the possible exclusions which I have indicated in this amendment. One is that, at his discretion and subject to the approval of Parliament, he might exclude from
910
the operation of any such order certain classes of prisoner; for example, those who have committed serious offences of violence. The other is that the Secretary of State might, at his discretion, exclude certain prisoners by reference to the length of their sentence—imposing neither a minimum nor a maximum—as seems to him to be appropriate. The proposal that if there are to be prisoners excluded from any increase of remission, then it should be done by a reference of that sort rather than allowing it to be subject to the discretion of the judge in the individual case (which was the proposal in the previous amendment) may be rather more acceptable to the judiciary. I doubt that they would want the task of trying to distinguish between one case and another. If they were to have that power, it would give rise to a torrent of appeals by prisoners who were aggrieved because in their individual case an order had been made.
This amendment has, I hope, the virtue of being completely fluid and of allowing the Secretary of State time to consider the present situation and to take such soundings and to have such consultations as he thinks fit; then moving on as quickly as he possibly can in the circumstances to increasing the amount of remission, subject to whatever provisos, again, that he thinks fit and subject to the approval of Parliament, in order that at least some steps can be taken in the near future to decrease the burden of overcrowding in our prisons. I beg to move.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, this is the last opportunity that the House will have at this stage of the Bill of inserting a provision that will make it certain that machinery has been devised for bringing about a swift reduction in the prison population. I was astounded by the reaction of the noble Lord the Minister in relation to the immediately preceding amendment. May I say, in parenthesis, that I regard it as a pity that one has to discuss these various and alternative proposals individually rather than all together, when one would be able to weigh the merits and demerits against each other and come to some sort of global conclusion at the end.
I was astonished that the noble Lord the Minister was exhibiting such messianic fervour in his condemnation of the proposals in Amendment No. 48. If in fact that scheme is so fallacious, why did the Government consider it for a moment as their main proposal for the reduction of the prison population—as was their policy some nine months ago? What the House is entitled to know is this: when the Government decided upon the partly suspended sentence, did they decide upon it on its own merits, as an institution which would probably find its place in the whole scope of the disposal of criminal cases; or did they decide upon it on the basis that it was, in their view, the most sure way of bringing about a reduction in the prison population? As I understand it, the Government are committed to that end. At the Committee stage of this Bill, the noble Lord the Minister said that he regarded that as being one of the main objectives of this legislation.
If it be that they held up the two plans—the partly suspended sentence on the one hand and the one-third plan on the other—to the light of scrutiny, and said, "We come to the conclusion that

911
on the whole the partly suspended sentence will bring about a greater reduction in prison population", I believe every Member of the House could well under stand that approach to the problem. But I doubt whether any Member of the House would say, on the evidence that one could reasonalby come to that conclusion. It is perfectly clear, of course, that in relation to the partly suspended sentence, putting it at its lowest, there must be a real risk that the uncertainty is not as to the numbers brought about by way of reduction but as to whether there would be an increase or a reduction. What I think the Minister must, with great respect, tell the House is whether that was their approach to the very problem itself. If that was their approach, upon what basis did they come to the conclusion that the ends we all seek to attain would be best achieved by the partly suspended sentence? What were the criteria involved? What were the facts upon which they based their judgment?
If, on the other hand, they say, "It never was like that at all. We considered Section 47 as being something entirely separate, and came to the conclusion that there was every case on merit for it to be included in the range of criminal disposal "—what it means is this: that even though they say the main objective is a reduction of the prison population the Government have not applied their minds to any single plan. They are unable to say that they have weighed the possibilities of one plan against another at all. If that be the case, then, with the greatest of respect, it would not be proper for them to say that they have made a genuine effort to bring about what they say is the main objective of this piece of legislation.
I have no doubt that when the noble Lord the Minister comes to reply he will say that there are really two basic objections to this amendment. One is that the gap between the gross sentence and the net sentence that would in practice be served by the convicted person is too great to maintain credibility between those two, the difference between, let us say, three years sentence and the 12 months actually served. Secondly, they will say that there is the danger that the judges will take that into account and will "up" their sentences, so that it may well he that the actual time served in the end will be longer than under the present system. The first point has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. So far as the second point is concerned, in my submission, there is not the slighest evidence that judges have ever taken remission into account. They certainly did not take parole into account. There is no statistical evidence, as far as I know—and I should certainly welcome rebuttal on this point if that is the case—to show that there was any policy on the part of Her Majesty's judges that reacted to parole in 1967 by upping the level of sentences.
This is not an ideal amendment. The Government have left the House in the position that it is now the only possibility that is left if the main objective of this legislation, as described by Her Majesty's Government, is to be achieved.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it obviously was not the main objective of the Government to reduce the prison population, or we should not have been left
912
at the end of the day with the partly suspended sentence, which by agreement of everybody who has looked at it does not permit one to predict with any degree of certainty whether, or indeed by how much, the prison population is to be reduced. The noble Lord even failed to see, on the previous amendment, the difference between the Government's solution, which may lead to either a plus or a minus in the prison population, and the supervised release system, which, although subject now to the protection of the public qualification, would have led to some reduction; whether it be as large as the figure of 6,000 quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, or some lesser figure is a matter for argument and debate, but undoubtedly there would have been a certain and significant reduction in the prison population. Therefore, I say it is impossible to believe that the Government have set out as having one of their main objectives that the prison population should be reduced.
If that had been the desire, I prefer the scheme proposed by my noble friend, even though it has had to be watered down into a permissive power instead of the substantive one that he suggested putting in at Committee stage. Among other arguments, it is a step towards uniformity throughout the United Kingdom, and I believe that is a substantial plus in its favour. As your Lordships know, there has been one-half remission in Northern Ireland for some time. The system works well there, and the Northern Irish will confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has just said; that when the system of half remission was introduced it did not lead to any discernible change in the sentencing practice of the courts.
My noble friend has taken account of the objections that were raised during the Committee stage, and has now made the concession that the Secretary of State will only have the power to increase remission by any amount up to one-half, and this would accommodate the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, whom I am very glad to see in his place, who said that while he would accept some cautious advance in the remission up to 40 per cent., he did not think that at this stage it was possible to go as far as 50 per cent. So if we can move in steps towards 50 per cent., not getting there all at one time, while satisfying the public and also the judiciary that no harm has been done by increased remission, but that it does lead to a reduction in the prison population, then I think the conservatives would have every reason to be as happy about the amendment as the liberals.
If I may put one final point, it was mentioned on the last amendment that executive release was really a matter of last resort, and I certainly hope that it would be. In the executive release scheme the excluded offences are actually written into the Bill, and there is nothing we can do about it afterwards, in spite of the objections that have been made to that provision. But my noble friend has said that one could have excluded offences as part of his system, but his could be a matter for wide consultation before the Secretary of State decided whether to have excluded offences, and, if so, what they should be. So I am much more inclined to suggest to the Government that this power, which gives them all the flexibility they could possibly want, ought to be the power of last resort rather than

913
executive release, and I very much hope the noble Lord will see it that way and write it into the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I say a word in brief opposition to this amendment. I agree wholly with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that it must be acceptable to the public and it must be acceptable to the judiciary. In submission there is no evidence whatever that it is acceptable to the public here as distinct from the public of Northern Ireland. There is no evidence that it is acceptable to the judiciary, and I rather decline to entertain the notion that even if it were not acceptable to the judiciary this would in any way be reflected in sentencing, because I do not think that it would.
So perhaps your Lordships may think that the true emphasis, the real emphasis, is on acceptability to the public. If that is right, the only justification must be to ease the overcrowding situation in the prisons. This, as has already been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, may well involve a weighing of the merits, as he puts it. I agree with that. But surely it will not do to say, "Well, we have a problem of overcrowding" and then to produce an answer which is unacceptable to the public, an answer which indeed, could well affront public opinion, and to entertain, at this stage of your Lordships' deliberations a circuitous consideration of available options. Surely it is too late for that process, and one reverts to the sole question: If this is not acceptable to the public then surely it would be wrong to support the amendment?
Lord Hunt: I should like to make a brief comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has just said. He has laid great stress on the importance of this amendment, or perhaps any measure designed to reduce the prison population, being acceptable to the public. I really do question that as being a criterion. It may sound an odd thing to say, but if it had been put to the public—however one addresses oneself to the public on complicated matters like this—as to whether there should be remission of a sentence of one-third. I would very much doubt if they would be in favour of it. My own hunch is that the great majority of the great British public have no idea that remission exists. If it had been put to the public that the middle third of the sentence should be subject to parole—release under certain conditions—I am quite certain that in 1967 the public would not have worn it. So I just do not think that it is right to lay quite so much stress on that aspect. The Government of the day have to give a lead to public opinion and prove by experience that these things work before, in some cases, the public come to accept them.
Lord Monson: I intervene at this stage because I spoke briefly on this subject in Committee as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has indicated. I have slightly mixed feelings about this amendment because I fear that there is a tendency among those who might loosely be described as "penal reformers" to become impatient with the attitudes of the general public towards crime and punishment. I think that what we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, illustrates that.
However, in a democracy I contend that the public's
914
voice ought to be heard and I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, acknowledged that. In my view the public would be outraged if those guilty of crimes of violence were eligible for more than one third remission of their sentences. Certainly my qualified support for 40 per cent. remission did not extend to those guilty of crimes of violence. However, I do not believe that the public have any strong feelings one way or the other about crimes not involving either violence or intrusion into their homes. Therefore, I would have been happier if this amendment restricted itself to crimes not involving violence or vandalism. However, on studying the amendment I see that it is so drafted that both Houses of Parliament would have to approve any order made under the new section, and the fact that the Secretary of State would have the power to exclude certain types of offence from the operation of the order are probably safeguards enough. Therefore, on balance, I support the amendment.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has not read this as carefully as he should have done because subsection (1) says:
"may exclude from the operation of any such order such classes of prisoner as may be specified by reference either to the nature of the offence committed or to the length of the sentence imposed".
That is not the same as Lord Wigoder's original amendment. But this is a permissive amendment; it does not entirely deal with the point which the noble Lord has just made and I hope that he will agree with that.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I point out that I was a Minister in Northern Ireland in charge of prisons and penal affairs when our arrangement was made. We were fully aware that we took a risk that the public might object. Noble Lords must realise that the attitude of the public towards crime in Northern Ireland is much more intense than it is of the public towards crime here because there we were talking about terrorists who were killing people.
We came to the conclusion that we had the biggest proportion of our population in prison of any country in Europe and that it could not go on like that. It was doing absolutely no good. It was curing nothing and the situation was becoming unmanageable. It was my business to persuade my boss—of whom I was very fond but who took a hell of a lot of persuading—that something had to be done. He is a brave man. He took the risk and it went through. Two things happened. The first, is that the public as a whole ignored it—a few people objected but as a whole they ignored it. Secondly, because we had a Lord Chief Justice no less powerful and no less imaginative than the one we have here, who told his judges—and of course we consulted him—that this was something that he thought could work if they would play ball, they played ball. I am absolutely certain that, if we did something of that kind, the judiciary, with the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary saying to them, "We are doing this as an experiment and we want you to make it work and if it does not work we will remove it", would play ball as they always have done. It would work in exactly the

915
same way as the one third remission has worked, which nobody—either judges or public—has ever noticed. It is a most extraordinary thing. There has never been a comment in the whole of the penal history of the last 30 years on the 30 per cent. remission. Yet, in a way, when one comes to think of it, it is a violation of the court's right to sentence. It is something to which the public might easily object, but it never have done so I believe that it is absolutely wrong to suppose that they would do so.
I now come to the real point. We are nearly at the end of this Bill. In many ways it has been a very good Bill, particularly in small matters. We have a lot of small concessions from the Government for which we are very grateful, and I think that the noble Lord on the Front Bench—I was going to say my noble friend—has been flexible on a number of matters and has persuaded his colleagues to meet us.
But the truth of the matter is, as my noble friend Lord Harris said earlier, that we are on the verge of a really serious breakdown. Anybody who says anything from inside knowledge about the prisons, says the same thing. It is intolerable in my opinion that we should have a Criminal Justice Bill which makes no effort whatever to deal with that situation. When I say "whatever" that must be qualified in that the partially suspended sentence is a shot in the dark which could do some good, but which could do some harm. I would have preferred the last amendment but we lost that and so we are concerned with this amendment.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, would make a reduction of, I think it is, between 2,000 and 4,000 prisoners if it were adopted. That would make the prison population slightly more manageable in one year and much more manageable in two years. It might save the kind of thing that we think is going to happen. So I beg the noble Lord to take this back as his last chance in this Bill. There is no other chance in this Bill of doing anything which will affect the situation. I beg him at least not just to say, No, but to take it back as the last chance of dealing with an explosion which I prophesy in this House will occur within the next three years.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for returning to the charge and being able to move this amendment himself at the Report stage, on a principle which has already exercised us. I think I have made it clear already that the Government's view is that any proposal to increase remission equally for all prisoners or any class of prisoner from the present one-third of the sentence to one-half is open to fundamental objections, which I have already outlined in previous debates in relation to supervised release. I do not propose to preface my remarks by going over the ground of the comparison between the partly suspended sentence and the scheme of supervised release. After all, we did that on Amendment No. 48 immediately before dinner. We are now on Amendment No. 49; and as to the basis of the comparison which exercises the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, I refer him to the debate on his noble and learned friend's amendment and that of the
916
noble Lord, Lord Hunt, at Committee stage, where I fully described it.
This part passu, if I may so call it, increase of remission would automatically increase the gap between the nominal sentence passed by the court and the effective period served in custody. I stress the word "automatically", because it is that feature of the scheme which goes to the heart of the problem. It is already possible under the parole scheme for a prisoner to be released before he has served half his sentence, but the parole process is founded on the principle of selectivity, and that is why it commands the confidence of both the courts and the public. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said. Certainly in a democracy, and I should have thought in any civilised society, the view of the public has to be taken into account. But a universal reduction is something of which every court must always be aware when setting a sentence, and what they will aim at is the proportion of the sentence that they know will be served; and the scale of reduction now proposed is such that it could not be ignored in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said that it has been so far.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the scale of reduction now proposed is anything that the Secretary of State chooses to make it—between one-third and one-half.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords—
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are not in Committee. If the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, will be brief, I will give way to him, but after that I must stick to my irons.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I will be brief; but to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elton, say that a judge takes into account the amount of remission that is to be awarded is absolutely against all principles of sentencing. No judge in this country ever takes into account the amount of remission. He is trained not to do so. It is nothing to do with him whatever. I really would ask the Minister to think again before he makes an observation of that kind.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that interruption and for his brevity. I observe, of course, that on occasion judges recommend that life sentences should have a minimum period to run and I was under the impression that judges were concerned about the length of time a prisoner remains in prison. But if the noble Lord corrects me, I stand corrected. As I made clear at the Committee stage, we are certainly not opposed in principle to extending the benefits of parole to a wider range of prisoners, provided that the principle of selectivity is not undermined.
I think that I must also repeat that we welcome the movement towards shorter prison sentences, to which the courts, under the guidance of the Lord Chief Justice, are committed. But, again, the essential feature of that strategy is that it is left to the discretion of the courts to determine the shortest sentence that is compatible with the nature and the seriousness of the crime. An increase in remission imposes a blanket reduction

917
in sentence lengths. That would work against the grant of judicial discretion and, therefore, run the risk of jeopardising what we firmly believe to be the best prospect of achieving a sustained reduction in the prison population; namely, the policy of encouraging and reinforcing the movement towards shorter sentences in appropriate cases. The blanket reduction is an approach which we do not think is justifiable in principle or in practice.
I do not think that it is counter to the arguments that I have adduced against an increase in remission to suggest that certain categories of prisoners could be excluded. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out in the debate in Committee, to have a scheme under which different prisoners, perhaps within the same prison, are subject to different rates of remission is likely to aggravate tensions. But, more crucially, it does not overcome the arguments about the need for any reduction in effective sentence lengths to be on individual and selective bases if the sentencing discretion of the court is not to be affected. The seriousness of an offence is determined primarily by its category. It is by the length of sentence passed by the court; and if remission were increased for certain categories of sentence length the courts might respond by increasing overall sentences within the range affected.
But if the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and others who have spoken in favour of this amendment are not swayed by these considerations—and I do not detect that they are in the mood to be swayed by anything that I say, even if I could say it more cogently and mellifluously than I am now attempting to do—then I must refer them to Section 25 of the Prison Act 1952, because that already enables the Secretary of State to vary the amount of remission to any extent he chooses by amending Prison Rule 5, which is contained in the amendment of the Prison Rules 1964, and to differentiate between the classes of offender according to the length of sentence, but not by the category of offence. What is more, he can do so by the negative resolution procedure, whereas the noble Lord's amendment would require the affirmative procedure. In other words, the change that he proposes would just marginally increase the difficulty of doing what the noble Lord wants done and which can already be done. The opportunity that he seeks to create already exists.
If he was looking for an amendment, it would be a question—though I am not sure that it would be advisable—of considering whether the differentiation that already exists might be by category of offence as well as by length of sentence. But what he asks for he already has on the statute book. I know that this is disappointing to your Lordships, because the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in particular feels that this is a great cornucopia of relief of tension in prisons which can somehow be magically unleashed. But if it is, it is in the statutes already, and if it is not a cornucopia it is not worth pursuing, so I hope that he will not press his amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, am I right in understanding that as things stand at the moment the Home Secretary could announce that the remission would be increased
918
from one-third to two-thirds or a half? Is that what the noble Lord has said?—because, if so, it is something I did not know, and if it is true it makes a very great difference to this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is and it does.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, before the noble Lord is deemed to have sat down, may I say that the noble Lord has said very fairly that the Government wish to see in principle the benefits of parole extended to a wider community. Of course, the noble Lord has said at an earlier stage—as, indeed, has his ministerial colleague in another place—that a review is now taking place with regard to the powers that might be taken under Clause 30 of the Bill.
Lord Elton: My Lords, by leave of the House, if the noble Lord would be kind enough to give way, may I point out that this is the Report stage and I do not think that the noble Lord moved this amendment, which does not give him a right of reply, and he appears now to be making a second speech. I am very ready to be corrected if I am wrong, but I think that he is probably out of order. Is that not right?
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I certainly would not wish to be out of order, and if the Minister does not wish to deal with that particular matter there is no way that I can take it up.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is not a question of my wishing to deal with it or not. Both the noble Lord and I have now used up our ration of speech at the Report stage.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I accept that.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, leaving aside the last altercation, I still find these proceedings faintly baffling. We have just heard the Minister say why the amendment that I have moved is totally undesirable. It is totally undesirable because it might lead to a blanket reduction; it is totally undesirable because the judges might want to compensate for it in the sentences that they pass; and not only is it totally undesirable, but the Secretary of State already has the power. The logic of the Minister's argument is that he should table an amendment himself to repeal that power, because he clearly regards it as so totally unacceptable.
I only want to make one or two comments on the very interesting debate that we have had. First, I deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I entirely accept that any such proposal would have to be acceptable to the public. That is right. At the same time, one must bear in mind that the public have accepted the parole system. They have accepted that in certain cases there can be an increase, in effect, in remission—people can be let out before they have served two-thirds of their sentence. Without wishing to be too dramatic about it, I am not at all sure whether the choice, so far as the public is concerned, is not going to be whether they find an increase in remission acceptable or prison riots acceptable. It may be as stark as that. I therefore venture to think that this is a matter of considerable urgency.

919
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has misread the amendment. He spoke about its being quite unacceptable that there should be an increase in remission of one-third to one half. That is not proposed. It is one-third to any amount not exceeding one half. It could be 35 per cent. as a start. I find it difficult to think that that, for example, would be unacceptable. The noble Lord spoke about the effect on the judges. I can only echo what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has said; judges are trained not to take account of that, and I think never have. Certainly if there were a modest increase now in the amount of remission I am certain that the judiciary, if their views were taken on this, would say that of course they would find that entirely acceptable and not seek to compensate for it by longer sentences.
The noble Lord repeatedly used the words "a blanket reduction in the length of sentence served". But that is what we have: the one-third remission is a blanket reduction. All I am suggesting is perhaps a slightly larger blanket would have a beneficial effect. I accept, as I indicated in the course of my original observations, that the Secretary of State already has a similar power, although not quite as extensive as in this amendment. I wish there was some indication that the Secretary of State had reflected carefully as to whether he might exercise his present powers under the section of the Prison Act to which the noble Lord referred.
I think in the circumstances that the proper course here is not to seek to divide at this stage; it is to ask to withdraw the amendment, but in the hope that the noble Lord the Minister of State will reflect upon the position between now and Third Reading and may be able to offer by then some gleam of hope that the Secretary of State has been reminded by this debate of his existing powers and will actively consider engaging in consultations with all parties, including the judiciary, to see to what extent he can implement them in the near future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.43 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Days of imprisonment
(1) A court which passes a sentence of imprisonment of not more than 12 months for any offence, or fixes a term of imprisonment for failure to pay any sum of money shall express the sentence or term of imprisonment imposed by reference to the number of days for which the offender is committed to custody, and that number shall be specified in the warrant of commitment.
(2) This subsection applies to any enactment or subordinate instrument which as regards any offence makes a person liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding a specified number of months, not being more than a total of 12 months.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a quiet and simple amendment. It is simple in its aims and in its language. I hope it can easily be understood. I should like in that way to contrast it with the Government Amendment No. 52 which comes shortly. This is an amendment that asks for prison sentences of 12 months or less to be expressed in days. Sentences are normally expressed in years or in months and rarely
920
in days, although there is nothing in any Act to prevent sentences being expressed in days, and that I accept.
This means that a sentence of a month or X months is of variable duration according to the time of the year it is passed, since it starts from the month in which it takes effect plus any subsequent months. A defendant sentenced to one month in February would serve 28 days or 29 in leap year, and a defendant sentenced in April, June, September or November would serve 30 days, and any other of the seven months 31 days. Passing shorter sentences of imprisonment in days would have the following advantages. The unfairness which arises through sentences being expressed in months by reason of the variable length of sentence would be removed. Offenders would know more precisely the period for which they were committed to prison.
Sentences expressed in days would be welcomed by the prisons. It would be easier when calculating the proportion of the sentence to be served and suspended for the purposes of a partly suspended sentence under Section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. It would help courts to think in terms of multiples of seven or 10 days rather than months, and this is likely to encourage courts to pass shorter sentences of imprisonment. A sentence of 50 days is just as likely to be as effective as one of two months, or 100 days as one of four months. There would be greater flexibility. The upshot, we hope, would be marginally shorter prison sentences and marginally fewer people in prison. This is a simple amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I find myself in the position of supporting the objectives underlying this amendment, but having to say that we should not legislate to achieve these objectives in the way that the noble Baroness has suggested. Of course, we want to encourage shorter sentences—and I think this is common ground between us—of imprisonment where this is appropriate. But of course we should build on the now widely aknowledged proposition that it is the first days or weeks of a sentence which have the most salutary effect on offenders. And, of course, we should ensure so far as practicable that all offenders are treated equably. This is a point that the noble Baroness made, among other points she raised.
As regards the question of ironing out the vagaries in the calender, we are up against a particular point here. It is of course a fact of life that there are very many circumstances in which the inequalities in the length of our months cause some inequalities in the treatment or entitlements of individual people. But, as demonstrated by this amendment, if one tries to tackle the inequalities caused by calender months an anomaly is immediately created between sentences of up to and including one year and those longer than a year. The inequality of calendar months is not the only factor which may produce unequal terms of imprisonment. Where a prisoner is due for release at the weekend or on a bank holiday, the practice is for him to be discharged on the nearest preceding weekday. That results in prisoners with identical sentences serving different periods. It is therefore impracticable to give absolute equality of treatment. Such inequalities as do arise, however, from unequal calendar months are reduced by the effect of remission.

921
Then, if it is agreed that there are advantages in shorter sentences, it is open to the courts to pass such sentences within the present framework. They can, and do, sentence in days, weeks, months or years as appropriate to the particular case. But to oblige the courts in all cases, where a sentence of 12 months or less is involved, to express the sentence in days seems both an unnecessary interference with their discretion and lacking in principle if the idea is thereby to induce shorter sentences. And there can be no certainty that it would achieve that result. Indeed, on what basis can we assume that a sentence of, say, three months would be rounded down to 90 days? Would not 100 days—a much rounder figure—become the norm, increasing rather than decreasing sentences overall?
There would be uncertainties in the administration of sentencing law. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to this. Many inter-dependent parts of sentencing legislation rely on calendar months. Take for example the provisions relating to partly suspended sentences in Section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. They now apply to sentences of not less than six months and not more than two years. If a court was minded to pass a sentence of the minimum term to which partial suspension may apply, but was required to sentence in days, it would need either to compute the exact number of days in the period concerned, which in this example of six months can vary from between 181 and 184 days, or take 180 days and add on four days in all cases in order to ensure that the sentence was valid. This is a mathematically straightforward proposition, but it does appear to be totally contrary to common sense.
I can point to other examples when confusion might arise—the limit of six months' imprisonment available to magistrates' courts for a single offence; the minimum term of six months for the application of a suspended sentence supervision order. And there would also be implications for parole eligibility and many aspects of prison life. Those examples demonstrate that we could not adapt a measure along the lines which the amendment suggests in isolation. We should need to carry out a comprehensive review of all provisions relating to sentences.
I think I have said enough to indicate the Government's view that, far from being a very straightforward and simple amendment, there are many wide complications which stem from both the vagaries of the calendar and problems of administration, and I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I intervene with some trepidation, not being a member of the legal profession. I seem to recall that, in Scottish law, 60 or 90 days is often awarded by the sheriff court for an offence like poaching salmon, which is always a far more serious offence in Scotland than in England. In the courts-martial system, 120 or 140 days' detention is awarded and, so far as I am aware—I speak as a complete layman here among some very distinguished lawyers—that does not have a very deleterious effect on the defendant. Having examined the amendment, I hope the Government will look at it again, whatever period of time is imposed—be it in weeks, months or days; there must be certain difficulties with any of them—because days imposed for short sentences would appear to result in a provision of greater clarity.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am grateful for that support from the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. I never heard such a lot of flannel as came from the Minister; just words, words, words. There are such things as calculators nowadays if one wants to work out how many days, weeks or months are involved. I should have thought this was a simple proposition. Of course, I shall not press the amendment, but I must ask the Minister if he will look at the matter again because his answer was totally unsatisfactory and stupid.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, my honourable and learned friend Mr. Patrick Mayhew, Minister of State, raised two interesting, points on this matter on 25th March in Standing Committee when, at column 803, he put the situation much better than I have:
"Certainly the Magistrates' Association, which has been in favour of the idea"—
the idea of expressing days rather than months—
"is aware of our view that sentences expressed in days can provide a finer sentencing tool, and in so far as the approach may lend itself to shorter sentences, there are cases in which that is to be welcomed. But that does not mean that I believe we ought to legislate to require courts to adopt that approach. There are difficulties in such a requirement which oblige me to advise the Committee not to accept the new clause".
He put the situation very fairly; that to legislate to require this to happen would be unsatisfactory.
Baroness David: My Lords, I shall read again the lengthy first speech of the Minister and decide what to do at the next stage of the Bill, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [The standard scale of fines for summary offences]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 35, line 33, leave out ("contained in an Act passed after this Act ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 34 establishes a standard scale of maximum fines for summary offences and provides that enactments which specify maxima by reference to levels on the scale shall be construed as meaning the scale with the values as shown in the clause or whenever those values are altered by order. The amendment is merely a drafting correction to ensure that this meaning applies to any enactment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [General increase of maximum fines for summary offences under Acts of Parliament]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 36, line 27, at end insert—
("(3A) An enactment in which section 31(6) and (7) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (pre-1949 enactments) produced the same fine or maximum fine for different convictions shall he treated for the purposes of this section as if there were omitted from it so much of it as before 29th July 1977 had the effect that a person guilty of an offence under it was liable on summary conviction to a fine or maximum fine less than the highest fine

923
or maximum fine to which he would have been liable if his conviction had satisfied the conditions required for the imposition of the highest fine or maximum fine.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a somewhat technical amendment to ensure that Clause 35, which abolishes enhanced penalties on second or subsequent convictions, will operate correctly on certain enhanced penalty provisions affected by the Criminal Law Act 1977. I could, if necessary, give a fuller explanation of the necessity for the amendment, but perhaps what I have said may suffice. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this is the most perfect example of gobbledygook the House has confronted for a very long time. It is worth reading aloud:
"An enactment in which section 31(6) and (7) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 "—
and then for some reason which is not absolutely apparent to me, there appears in parenthesis:
"(pre-1949 enactments)".
Whether that is a state of historical fact or whether it is relevant to some important legal principle is not immediately apparent. It goes on:
"produced the same fine or maximum fine for different convictions shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if there were omitted from it so much of it as before 29th July 1977 had the effect that a person guilty of an offence under it was liable on summary conviction to a fine or maximum fine less than the highest fine or maximum tine to which he would have been liable if his conviction had satisfied the conditions required for the imposition of the highest fine or maximum fine".
This measure will be applied in magistrates' courts and Crown Courts throughout the country. It does not begin to make sense. May we plead that this should be sent back to the draftsman with our best wishes and prayers that he can produce clarity out of gobbledygook?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am sure the draftsman would be the first to acknowledge any help that the noble and learned Lord might have thought fit to offer him on an improvement of this matter, but the problem with which the provision deals is, as I said, rather technical. I think it might be possible to read the amendment in a way which would convey its sense even better than the reading that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was able to do for us, but I fear that in Hansard it might look the same as his reading, so I will not attempt it.
The problem is that in 1977, the provisions that were introduced to modify existing penalties, without modifying each statutory provision which contained penalties, had to work on a fairly broad brush principle, and in particular it had to operate on provisions in which there was a different fine for the first offence from the fine for the second offence. When one sees how they operate, one sees that in some cases—because of the provisions here referred to, and the part in brackets to which the noble and learned Lord referred is intended simply to state the sidenote for the sections—these sections have the effect that the first offence and the later offence would have the same penalty. If we operated now only on the second part, we should have two levels of penalty for the
924
different offences, according to whether they were the first or second offence, and the policy of the Bill is to get rid of the enhanced penalties for the second offence. That is the rather difficult problem which this provision addresses, and so far I have not seen anyone suggest anything better than this form of words to deal with that problem, but naturally we shall be glad to receive any suggestions for its improvement.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend saying that what he is trying to do is to put right the complications of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which presumably was passed by your Lordships' House when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was Lord Chancellor, so he is therefore trying to straighten out what went wrong before?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Maximum fines to be increased by more than the general increase]:
9 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:
Page 71, leave out lines 29 to 31.
Page 73, leave out lines 26 and 27.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to deal with these two amendments together. They delete from Schedule 3, which secures special increases in maximum fines, the entries relating to the Cinematograph Act and to Section 106 of the Food and Drug Act 1955. These provisions have now been catered for respectively by the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982 and the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act 1982, and therefore are no longer necessary. This at least is a fairly simple series of amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 54A:
Page 73, line 34, at end insert—

("Housing Act 1957 (c.56) Offence under Section 27(1) (Permitting unfit premises to be used in contravention of a Closing Order).

Section 27(1)

£100 and £20 per day following conviction.

£1,000 and £50 per day following conviction.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I should like briefly to explain its significance. I brought this matter forward earlier at Committee stage. At that time it was slightly different, in that I included a proposal about a continuing penalty which was then not acceptable to the Government. However, I think it very important that I should bring back the matter again. The Government have accepted two amendments which I earlier put forward and which are now included in the Bill between lines 28 and 34, on page 73, relating to the Housing Act. If a person uses premises that are declared unfit for human habitation because a demolition order is placed on them, or because there has been a contravention of an undertaking, the penalty would be £1,000. With regard to the manuscript amendment, in view of the fact that the column headings are not shown, I should

925
like to make clear that the £100 and £20 per day following conviction refer to the existing maximum penalties. If one goes on using a property on which there is a closing order, there is a maximum fine of £100, which is quite different from the other penalties for similar offences, which now go up to a maximum of £1,000. So I should like the inconsistency to be rectified by adding what is proposed in the amendment.
It should also be appreciated that in some areas there is a problem where people secure closing orders on properties simply to have the tenant rehoused by the local authority, which then has an obligation placed on it. Having got rid of the tenant, the owner is then quite free to relet the property with a risk of only £100 fine, which is not a sufficient deterrent.
So I move the amendment on two grounds. One relates to the present gross inconsistency. The other ground is based on my view that it is wrong that people should be rehoused in this way, taking priority over everyone else on a housing list, only for the property to become empty and then re-used in a way that was not intended in the first instance, the closing order having been imposed because the property was unfit for human habitation. I should like to emphasise that the London Boroughs Association and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities are both very anxious to see the penalty brought into line with the other penalties that have already been accepted and are now part of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, from these Benches we support the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the problem with regard to amendments of this kind is to know to which other offences one should relate them. However, in the very particular circumstances, and awaiting perhaps a more general review of offences in this area, I would be prepared to accept the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Special increases of maximum fines]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 55:
Leave out Schedule 4.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, for the leaving out of a schedule to be described as a drafting amendment is to me at the moment incomprehensible, but I am sure that it is right.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord means that the schedule is incomprehensible to him, or the explanation is incomprehensible. At the Committee stage amendments were made in the interests of simplicity to take into Schedule 3 all the special increases in maximum fines specified in Schedule 4, with the result that Schedule 4 became unnecessary. Therefore I think it is reason-
926
able to describe the deletion of Schedule 4 as a consequential drafting amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I was not disposed to shed tears about the loss of Schedule 4; indeed I am quite happy to see it go.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Byelaws relating to the burning of straw or stubble.
. Any byelaws relating to the burning of straw or stubble made by a local authority under section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 (byelaws for good rule and government and suppression of nuisances) may provide that persons contravening the byelaws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 and, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding £5 for each day during which the offence continues after the conviction thereof; and any such byelaw in force at the coming into force of this section which specifies £200 or any smaller sum as the maximum fine which may be imposed on summary conviction of an offence under any such byelaw shall have effect as if it specified £500 instead (but with no change by virtue of this section in the maximum daily fine, if any, for which it provides).")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think that this amendment will, to your Lordships, have an appearance of similarity. In speaking to the main amendment, Amendment No. 56, I should like to take also Amendments Nos. 57 and 123. These amendments flow from the undertaking given in Committee in response to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley to consider applying the new maximum fine of £500 for offences connected with straw and stubble burning directly to the relevant local authority by-laws, instead of only to the primary legislation by which they are empowered.
As was explained in the Committee, the general approach in this Part of the Bill is to affect maxima in primary legislation, but to leave the penalty provisions in subordinate legislation for revision under these powers when the relevant instruments are re-made by the authority responsible for the subordinate legislation. However, in the light of my noble friend's reasoning that it was particularly important in this instance to preserve consistency in maxima in all by-laws relating to straw and stubble burning, and since the Criminal Law Act 1977 achieved that by applying the then maximum directly to the by-laws, we have agreed to adopt a similar approach. The amendments that I now ask the House to accept, therefore, provide a new clause for this purpose in substitution for Clause 39, and make a consequential repeal in Schedule 15. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the Question is, Whether Amendment No. 56 be agreed to. As an amendment to this amendment I call Amendment No. 56A, Lord Monson.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, if it is in order to speak on No. 56 first, before we go on to the amendment to the amendment, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend for tabling this amendment. I am not in order?
The Deputy Speaker: No, my Lords. Amendment No. 56A has been called.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved, as an amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 56A:
Line 6, leave out ("£500") and insert ("£1,000").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 56A and, with the leave of the House, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 56B, which is consequential. First, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the Government for the partial concession that they have made; but we do not think it goes far enough. The purpose of these amendments is to raise the maximum permissible fine to £1,000 from the £500 proposed, and I stress that it is a maximum. Of course, the average fine imposed in practice would almost certainly be less.
Some of your Lordships may remember that many of us spoke in favour of broadly similar amendments in Committee, but we did not press them at the time because the Minister promised to give the matter further consideration. Following the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was kind enough to write to me at considerable length setting out the reasons why, in the Government's view, they did not favour raising the maximum fine to £1,000. Both I and other noble Lords to whom I sent copies of the Minister's letter have studied it with the greatest care, but, with respect, we find it difficult to accept the Government's arguments.
In Committee I gave instances of other offences in the Bill, seemingly of lesser gravity, or at any rate of no greater gravity, where the Government had nevertheless thought it right to fix a maximum fine of £1,000—double that proposed for the straw and stubble burning offences. The first instance I cited concerned selling a car with a defective reflector or reflectors, bearing in mind that both this and irresponsible stubble burning can occasionally cause road traffic accidents. In his reply the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested that the latter—that is to say, selling a car with a defective reflector—was a deliberate offence, whereas straw and stubble burning offences were accidental. I am bound to say that I find this rather hard to accept, given that replacement reflectors will almost certainly cost less than one half of 1 per cent. of the value of the second hand car being re-sold. It would hardly be worth a trader's while to omit to replace them deliberately. As for straw burning offences, the effects, of course, may be accidental, but the motive quite often is not. To be blunt, there is money to be made.
Another instance cited where the Government propose in this Bill to raise the maximum fine to £1,000 concerns tree-felling offences under the 1967 Forestry Act, which hardly seemed to me more serious than straw burning offences. However, the Minister replied that the forestry offences
"affect the promotion, establishment and maintenance in Great Britain of adequate reserves of growing trees, with serious long-term economic and environmental consequences for the country as a whole".
I am bound to say that this seems more appropriate to the age of Queen Elizabeth I than Queen Elizabeth II. It may well be that we need more men o'war—indeed, that is what the navy lobby are claiming—but men o'war nowadays tend on the whole to be iron-clad or even aluminium-clad; they are no longer built of
928
stout English oak. But I do not want to go any further down the path of the 1967 Forestry Act except to point out that there are no laws to ensure the establishment and maintenance of good agricultural land or to preserve it from the depredations of developers.
Lastly, the Minister pointed out that the fine proposed was unusually large for a by-law offence. This is quite true; we should not wish to deny that. But although it is not the case that there has always to be a first time, it is true that there is no reason why there should not be a first time if circumstances demand it. Suchrespected bodies as the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association and the Association of County Councils all believe that circumstances now demand it. None of these organisations has any enthusiasm for drastic punishment as such, but they do believe that a £1,000 maximum fine is necessary as a deterrent in view of the profits that can be made by a small minority of rogue farmers in the absence of such a maximum. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I seem to have started a little early last time. I should like to thank my noble and learned friend for tabling the first amendment, and I hope he will not think me ungrateful because I am asking for more. I am only following a good Tory principle of trying to do better. I would have preferred that the habitual offender was banned. I was not able to get that so I am supporting the £1,000 maximum fine. I would ask the Government whether it is possible for them to publicise the merit of these straw-burning by-laws to local authorities. There are still local authorities in straw-burning areas in the South and East who have no by-laws. I know it is not the Government's job to tell local authorities what to do but perhaps they could publicise it for it would be very helpful for all in straw-burning areas to have by-laws so that we were all equally treated if we offended against the straw-burning code. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment of £1,000 maximum fine. If they cannot do that, then I ask that they give the House a categorical assurance that by the harvest of 1983 the maximum fine will be raised to £1,000 for contravening the by-laws.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. It may seem peculiar that somebody who is probably, without boasting, one of the largest straw burners in East Anglia should support an increase of fine over that which the Government propose; but I think—the National Farmers' Union with whom I frequently disagree, also think—that it is of enormous importance that the public should come to realise that responsible farmers are just as aware, if not more so, of the dangers and damage done by indiscriminate straw burning as is the ordinary urban or rural dweller who is not a farmer. I think it important the farmers should be made to realise their responsibilities with regard to straw burning. These days, it has become an essential part of many farming systems. We cannot ban it altogether. I hope it will never come to that. But in order to prevent a universal ban it is necessary that farmers exercise proper control over their burning.
I do not agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, when he talks about the profit which comes from straw-burning. It is a convenience. Farmers

929
do not burn carelessly in order to increase their profits. They do it because they have got to get on with the job. For example they say: "I cannot be there myself. I have to carry on somewhere else with the combine. I will leave it to the boy to do it. We cannot plough round properly because there is not time to get the tractor out". It is the sense of urgency which comes at harvest time which is understandable. Unless it is very clear that this is a serious offence that attitude will continue. The best way of bringing to farmers the seriousness of the offence is by having this very substantial fine. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accede to this amendment and will raise the maximum fine from £500 to £1,000.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I should like to say that I think the Government have it about right as they have it now. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley that local authorities ought to be notified of this so that they can all put themselves in the same position to deal with the rogue in the same way. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was taking to task for using the word "profit" in connection with straw burning. That is not why any of us do it. I am not as big a straw burner as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, but I am one who, like him, does it with great care—with youngsters, it is true, but well supervised. I hope that the Government will give no undertaking to my noble friend Lord Stanley about what they will do in future. Let him be satisfied with the tact that they have gone a long way to meet his point. It seems that they have it right. Let them leave it at that.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I speak on this not only as a countryman but on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and my noble friends Lady David and Lady Llewelyn-Davies whose enthusiasm on this matter knows no bounds. The support that was given on a previous occasion was explained by a careful examination of all those substantial arguments in favour of the higher penalty. We remain utterly unrepentant in relation to those matters and utterly unremitting in our attitude.
9.18 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I should like also to support this amendment. I confess to being an unrepentant straw burner and hope to be able to go on doing so. Like my noble friend Lord De La Warr, I cannot burn as much as does the noble Lord. Lord Walston, but I intend to do my best in the forthcoming harvest and consider it important. I am afraid that the conservation lobby, if this thing gets out of hand, will achieve a total ban on straw burning. This is the danger we face. The deterrent has got to be realistic. Had the noble Lord, Lord Monson, put down £2,000, I should have supported it; I think that £1,000 can mean little to a farmer of the standing of Lord Walston.
My Lords, we have to make this a serious offence if we are to get across to irresponsible farmers the importance of it. I speak sometimes on behalf of county councils. They are the fire authorities responsible in the arable areas of England, if not the metropolitan areas. As I am sure my noble friend on the Front Bench knows only too well, they are very keen that the penalty should be realistic and they have made
930
repeated representations to Government that the penalty must be increased to £1,000 and more as inflation goes on. They again today have confirmed that they feel very strongly that we should, if at all possible, keep the penalty as high as we can.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. We have been careless in the past with straw burning. The penalty was not a strong enough deterrent. I entirely support my noble friend in the figure of £1,000 and perhaps more.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am no farmer, but I have gazed through Schedule 3 and I find no logic in the maximum penalties newly allocated for various offences. Therefore, its seems to me that the Government can readily agree to this amendment without being inconsistent with the other factors in Schedule 3.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, listening to some of the speeches in connection with the amendment, I am reminded of someone who in your Lordships' House told me the other day that they had been pressing hard for the enforcement of the speed limit in a particular locality, and not long after they pressed successfully for that they were the first to be prosecuted.
I am not suggesting that that would happen to anyone who has spoken here; but it is a fact that the penalty is being raised from £200 to £500, which is a considerable advance on the existing position. Secondly, it has to be remembered that these offences are by-law offences concerned essentially with negligence in carrying out an activity which is not in itself unlawful and which as my noble friend was saying he would like to see continuing in that category. They are concerned specifically with the provision of fire breaks, observance of the times allowed for burning, supervision of the activity and, in some by-laws, notification of the fire brigade. They cannot therefore be placed on a par with more serious offences triable by the magistrates' courts where the maximum fine available is generally £1,000.
Some of your Lordships have argued that other offences were subject to maxima of £1,000; but all of those quoted are in Acts of Parliament not by-laws which are of a selective, local application at the local authority's discretion, as indeed has already been emphasised.
Thirdly, where a farmer can be shown to have failed in the duty imposed on all employers and self-employed persons to conduct his operations so as to ensure that those not in his employment are not exposed to risks to their health and safety, he may be prosecuted for breach of Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the maximum penalties there being £1,000 on summary conviction and two years' imprisonment or a fine at the discretion of the court, or both, on conviction on indictment. That provision has successfully been invoked in cases where, for example, road accidents have been caused by smoke from straw burning.
It is clear therefore that the general laws that may be used against farmers for the consequences of their failure to exercise proper control over burning are serious. We should not duplicate the general law by upgrading the by-laws to try to cover offences with which they are not designed to deal.

931
Finally, the new maximum of £500 made available for by-laws relating to straw and stubble burning under Section 235 of the Local Government Act—like all summary maxima in enabling powers—once the Bill receives Royal Assent, will be subject to increase by order to take account of changes in the value of money. My honourable and learned friend Mr. Mayhew has already indicated in another place that the order-making power to increase maximum fines will be exercised as early as practicable next year. The timing will be affected by a number of factors, but that is the way he has put the matter. There is every likelihood, on the basis of the calculations which have been made, that the appropriate factor by which this fine will be multiplied will be two so that, on the basis of what has been said, the likelihood is extremely strong that fairly early next year this particular maximum will be increased to £1,000 in the primary legislation.
I hope that, in the light of these explanations, although I well appreciate what has been said by so many of your Lordships about this particular offence, your Lordships will feel able to agree that this amendment should not pass and the Government amendment should stand on its terms. The Government have moved a considerable distance in this matter and I hope the House will recognise that by accepting the amendment as the Government have proposed it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I hope the House will not. I really do not think the noble and learned Lord is right to suggest that an increase from £200 to £500 is significant when all of us who are involved in farming—along with other noble Lords, I am a farmer who also burns straw—know perfectly well that there is a very real possibility that straw burning will be banned altogether. Against that background, an increase from £200 to £500 is not adequate at all, and that view has quite clearly been expressed from all sides of the House both tonight and during the Committee stage.
The noble and learned Lord also mentioned the penalty available under the Health and Safety at Work Act. It seems to me that argument could go both ways. If somebody could be fined under one piece of legislation for a particular offence, there is surely some merit in suggesting that similar fines should be available under other legislation which applies to very similar activities. That seems to me to strengthen the case for suggesting a fine of £1,000, as proposed by the amendment.
The noble and learned Lord then went on to talk about the automatic uprating which will occur some time next year. He was not able to give us any guarantee—I must say I did not think that he would be—about the precise timing of that. It is, of course, crucial if next year's harvest and straw burning is going to be affected that the increase should take place before that. In any event it seems to me that the job of your Lordships' House tonight is to make a decision about the level that is suitable for this offence in relation to other penalties in existence at the moment. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, it is quite clear that £1,000 is certainly not too high a penalty for the sort of consequences that can arise from the unsafe or irresponsible burning of straw for whatever
932
reason—whether carelessness, profit or whatever it may be. As we heard at the Committee stage from a number of noble Lords, the consequences can be very serious indeed and can lead to serious accidents and loss of life.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord tonight, as did the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at Committee stage, has suggested that this is not really suitable for a by-law. It seems to me that your Lordships' House can perfectly well decide that the right penalty is £1,000. If the Government then decided that the right offence is not a by-law but is some other one, the Government are free to take action and amend the Bill in a suitable way. What we are being asked to decide tonight is that £1,000 is by no means too high a fine for irresponsible and careless straw burning, and I hope the House will do decide.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I do think we must get this matter right for harvest 1983. The Bill will be too late for harvest 1982. It is really a question of whether the by-law fines will be in time or not for the harvest of 1983.
I do not feel entirely satisfied that my noble and learned friend has been able to give an assurance that is quite adequate for this purpose. Most definitely, we need to get this matter under proper control in order to avoid a total ban on straw burning, which might follow if we do not. A total ban on straw burning would be most regrettable economically and we should avoid it if we can. There is no doubt that the farming industry must be made to get this situation under control, in order to avoid a total ban which, nationally, would be most costly. In view of all this, I must support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, because we must be sure of getting things right for 1983, whatever other consequences might arise there-after.
Lord Monson: My Lords, may I say how very grateful I am to the many noble Lords in all quarters of the House who were kind enough to support this amendment. I am sorry if it appeared to one or two noble Lords that I was suggesting that there were enormous profits to be made from straw burning. All I meant to say was that it was often less unprofitable to contravene the by-laws than to obey them. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, put that very well. I feel strongly that the maximum penalty for this offence, whatever it is, ought to go more or less hand in hand with the maxima fixed for the other offences which I cited, both in Committee and this evening, such as selling a car with a defective reflector, or offences under the 1967 Forestry Act.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in particular, for dealing more than adequately with the arguments put up by the Government. I think it is right that we should test the opinion of the House and, at least, give the other place a chance to look at these amendments. If, after due consideration in October, when I gather they are going to look at our amendments, they reject them, all well and good, but I think we ought to have the opinion of the House tonight.
9.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 56A) to the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 30.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Killearn, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Llewelyn-Davis of Hastoe, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Auckland, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Avebury, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Birk, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bishopston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Blease, L.

Melchett, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Monson, L.—[Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Peart, L.

Davidson, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ridley, V.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sharples, B.

Ferrier, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.—[Teller.]

Fortescue, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stone, L.

Glanusk, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hall, V.

Teviot, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Torphichen, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hives, L.

Vernon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Vickers, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Walston, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kemsley, V.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Lyell, L.

Avon, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Beloff, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Portland, D.

Elton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Trenchard, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Vaizey, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment to the amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.39 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved, as an amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 56B:
Line 12, leave out ("£500") and insert ("£1,000").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 56B, which is consequential upon the amendment I have just moved.
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the Government show their generosity by moving Amendment No. 56, notwithstanding the fact that Amendments Nos. 56A and 56B have been carried. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment No. 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Bye-laws relating to the burning of straw or stubble]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 57:
Leave out Clause 39.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Power to alter sums]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 42, line 30, at end insert—
("(fa) paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 5A to the Army Act 1955 and to the Air Force Act 1955 and Schedule 4A to the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (compensation orders);
(fb) paragraph 14(1) of those Schedules (recognisance from parents and guardians);").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 82, 84A, 106, 117 and 127 together with Amendment No. 58. These amendments deal with changes in the armed forces Acts, such as the Army Act 1955, et cetera, which are necessary in consequence of the changes made in this Bill. The powers of armed forces tribunals—the court martial and the standing civilian court—are usually kept broadly in line with the powers of the criminal courts in England and Wales. The main amendments are Nos. 82 and 84A, which together set out a schedule of changes to the armed forces Acts.
In consequence of Part I of the Bill, these amendments abolish imprisonment for offenders aged under 21 and replace it with custodial orders and custody for life. There is provision for service offenders to be allocated to appropriate institutions in England and Wales, as if they had received sentences under Part I of this Bill. The powers of the standing civilian court when imposing financial penalties on a juvenile are amended to bring them in line with the changes made in Clauses 25 to 27. Amendment No. 58 makes changes in line with Part III of the Bill, to increase and inflation-proof the financial penalties available to those tribunals. The whole purpose of these amendments is to bring the armed forces provisions into harmony with the provisions we are making in the Bill. I should like to give notice now that it might therefore be necessary to make further small changes to account for amendments made to the Bill as it goes through this House. I hope that your Lordships will bear with us if it proves necessary to bring forward such amendments to do that on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the only matter that puzzles me a little is this: those who have to enforce the Army Acts, armed with the manual of military law, will not have the benefit of having the Criminal Justice Act with them. How will these important matters, which will obviously affect the armed forces (and I am not querying the content of what is proposed but merely the procedure), be wedded into the Army Act? On a consolidation I can quite understand its happening, but I am a little puzzled at the moment

935
as to why we see these Army Act and Air Force Act amendments appearing in the Criminal Justice Act. I may be missing the obvious, but it is not very clear to me at the moment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would never expect to leap at once on something which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, did not find obvious. Incidentally, I regret that he did not receive the document I hoped he might have had, which explains some aspects of this matter, but not the aspect to which he applies. Plainly, the effects of this Bill will be carried into the legislation with which the noble and learned Lord is concerned, and I imagine that the manuals will be updated. This is an important matter and I will find out the machinery by which it is actually achieved and will write to the noble and learned Lord at the first opportunity. I can tell him that the provisions are now scattered throughout the armed forces Acts and that they will probably be consolidated in 1986. The noble Lord is anxious, no doubt, to know how justice will be conducted in the armed forces between now and 1986, and I shall try to enlighten him.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No.59:
Page 42, line 33, at end insert—

("(ga) the Table in section 31(3A) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973;

(gb) section 8(1)(b) of the Armed Forces Act 1976 (maximum fine awarded by Standing Civilian Courts);

(gc) paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (various offences relating to sex establishments);

(gd) paragraph 23(2) of that Schedule (permitting persons under 18 to enter sex establishments and employing persons known to be under that age in the business of sex establishments);

(ge) section 7(4)(a) of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982 (using premises without licence);").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 44 lists the provisions which are affected by the power to alter maximum fines and certain other sums by order. The amendment merely adds to the list the table of maximum periods of imprisonment in default now applicable to Crown Courts by virtue of Clause 60, the maximum fine available to standing civilian courts under the Armed Forces Act 1976, the relevant provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 which provide maxima higher than £1,000 for offences relating to the licensing of sex establishments, and the similar provision in the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982 relating to the licensing of cinemas. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Fines for certain offences under Merchant Shipping Acts and Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 60.:
Page 43, line 36, after ("(fa) "insert ("shall").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 62 together. Amendments 60 and 61 are merely drafting corrections to the provisions in Clause 45 on fines under Merchant Shipping and Oil Pollution legislation. Amendment 62 simply makes provision for different categories of persons to be guilty of an offence under regulations and to be subject to maximum fines according to those categories. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, it is getting a little late and I am obvoiusly getting tired. I cannot at the moment understand these amendments at all. In line 36, if we put in the word "shall" after "(fa)" we shall make it two consecutive "shalls"; so it will read:
"nor paragraph (fa) shall shall be substituted for".
Then if we go to line 37 it will read:
"shall be substituted for paragraph (f) shall".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I think this is a matter I can look at further. I do not believe it is right to delay the House at this point to try to explain this further.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness White): My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: No.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, can we agree to this which says, "shall shall"? Surely not. It does not make any sense. We have to treat the thing seriously. I think the amendment should be withdrawn.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister is just as capable of reading what it says on the Marshalled List as anybody else in the House, including my noble friend. Either my noble friend is right and the amendment does cause the Bill to read "shall shall", or my noble friend is misreading the amendment and the Bill as amended would make perfectly good sense. It is a simple matter on which I would have thought the noble Lord would have no difficulty in making an immediate reply.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I thought it might be easier for me to explain this later to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, but if your Lordships wish me to do it now I certainly shall—and that is the third "shall". If your Lordships look at line 36 you see that what is provided there is:
"in the words following paragraph (g),"
and then there is a quotation
"neither paragraph (f) nor paragraph (fa)",
and that ends the quotation and then it goes on "shall be substituted for". What this amendment is doing is putting a "shall into the quotation; and there is nothing wrong in saying the quotation ending with "shall" shall be substituted for paragraph (f). So the matter is by no means a nonsense. But I would hope that perhaps I would avoid delaying your Lordships by explaining that. The same explanation applies to the next amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 43, line 37, at end insert ("shall not").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 44, line 28, after ("regulations,";") insert—
("(bb) that, in such cases as are prescribed by the regulations, such persons as are so prescribed shall each be guilty of an offence created by virtue of paragraph (b) or (ba) of this subsection;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Variation of instalments and means inquiries.:
9.52 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 46, line 7. at beginning insert—
("( ) Section 85 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be amended by inserting after the words "under section 82(5) above" the words", or where the offender is serving a term of imprisonment or detention in a detention centre, or a sentence of youth custody,"").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the matter of fines outstanding when a defaulter is in prison and it is necessary because of a judgment in the House of Lords. In Forrest v. Brighton Justices the House of Lords held that a magistrates' court was not authorised by Section 82(5) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to issue a warrant of commitment against an offender serving a sentence for default in payment of sums ordered to be paid, without giving prior notice to the offender and giving him an opportunity to be heard. Moreover, the Lords have emphasised that the issue of a commitment warrant under Section 82(5)(b) is a judicial act to be performed only at a hearing of which notice has been given.
The effect of Section 82(5)(b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 is to enable a magistrates' court to issue a warrant of commitment against a defaulter who is in prison without any necessity for holding a means inquiry at which the defaulter is present. One reason why Parliament did not require a means inquiry to be held in such circumstances was, presumably, that the majority of defaulters in prison would have no money, so that the inquiry would be futile. Another reason might have been that any period of imprisonment for default would generally be ordered to run concurrently with the sentence which the offender was already serving, so that its length would have little practical effect. An offender will always welcome a commitment warrant for a concurrent term being lodged because it means that it will wipe the slate clean, and he will come out of prison no longer owing fines.
Many magistrates acknowledge that while the lodging of a commitment warrant for a concurrent term means an offender is being let off his fines, it may, nevertheless, help to encourage him to make a fresh start, and avoid the possibility of his being returned to prison a few weeks later for unpaid fines. From the court's point of view, this arrangement has the advantage of writing off the books of the court, fines which might otherwise prove difficult to recover after the offender's release.
Before the decision in Forrest v. Brighton Justices, it was the policy of most magistrates' courts to lodge commitment warrants for unpaid fines, generally for concurrent periods, as a matter of routine practice. Since that decision, a notice of hearing must be given whether a warrant of commitment is to be issued for a concurrent or consecutive term, and a hearing before at least one justice must take place. With the advent of the court hearing there is some evidence to suggest that, having given notice to the defendant, magistrates are scrutinising the question of lodging a warrant more closely and the incidence of consecutive terms being ordered has increased. If this tendency were to be reflected nationally it would have an adverse effect on the prison population.
In busy magistrates' courts, a dozen or more warrants will need to be lodged every week. The procedure that must now be followed adds significantly to the administrative work of the courts, and, we suspect, to that of the prison service. In return, there is no real benefit or gain in the majority of cases where warrants for concurrent terms are ordered.
We accept the reasoning behind the House of Lords decision, that the rules of natural justice require a notice of hearing to be given before a consecutive term of imprisonment is ordered, but the decision is wasteful of public resources for the majority of cases where the court is content to order concurrent terms. With a view to simplifying the procedure, we propose that as an alternative to lodging a commitment warrant, a magistrates' court should have power to remit a fine, on being satisfied that the offender is detained in prison. The power to issue and lodge a warrant of commitment after notice of hearing had been given, should remain for those cases where the court considered a consecutive term should be ordered. We believe, however, that in most cases courts would adopt the simpler procedure of remission and not wish to consider ordering consecutive terms. If this amendment were accepted, it would save both the courts and the prison service time, and the defendant would emerge from prison with a clean slate and the opportunity of a fresh start. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I have listened with care to what the noble Baroness has said, and although the Government have every sympathy with proposals which might relieve the judical and administrative burden, to which she has referred, falling on magistrates' courts, they cannot support the amendment. It is readily accepted that the decision of this House in the case of Forrest v. Brighton Justices, to which she has referred, requires courts to go through procedures which place a burden on them and which end up with what is, in effect, very much the same result as would be achieved if this amendment were accepted and brought into effect. That is to say, at present the court will frequently lodge a warrant in default of payment of a fine which requires a term of imprisonment concurrent with the imprisonment the defaulter is at present serving, so that he effectively serves no extra term and leaves prison with outstanding fines wiped off the slate, as the noble Baroness mentioned. But there is an important point of principle here. The very issue of a warrant of commitment in default is an expression of the court's displeasure that the

939
offender has failed to fulfil his duty to pay the fine which was imposed upon him. Whether the displeasure should extend to ordering a term of imprisonment in default to run consecutively to or concurrently with the term the prisoner is at that moment serving is rightly left to the judicial discretion of the court.
The power to remit a penalty which is contained in Section 85 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980—the section which this new clause would seek to amend—is rather special. It allows the court to interfere with a penalty it has previously imposed if at a subsequent inquiry the court discovers that the offender's circumstances have changed since his conviction and if it forms the view in consequence that it would only be just to set aside the whole or a part of the fine originally imposed upon him. Its essential purpose is to protect the individual who has been fined from unjust enforcement of the fine if he subsequently falls on particularly hard times—he might have become unemployed through no fault of his own or becomes ill and unable to work because of that. But the present new clause would equate the mere fact of imprisonment with such circumstances, and remission of any outstanding fines would quickly become seen as an entitlement for persons who are sent to prison, regardless of whether or not they still have means which would allow them to meet those outstanding liabilities.
940
What is proposed in the present amendment would come into effect only when a person had committed an offence for which he was fined and thereafter had defaulted in payment of the fine and, what is more, been convicted of a further offence for which he had been imprisoned. By the operation of a provision along the lines of this amendment, that person would then be placed at a distinct advantage over the offender who paid his fine immediately and he would be placed on a par with a person whose circumstances have changed so much since his conviction and sentence that it is only just that the fine be set aside by the court. I cannot agree that that should be the position.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thought that this was a suggestion which would save the courts a great deal of time, and I think that the prisoners would benefit from it and come out with a clean slate. There would still be the opportunity for the courts to impose fines and get the money if, in fact, they thought that the prisoners were being treated too generously. I do not think that it would prevent that from happening. However, I shall, of course, read what the Minister has said, and if I am not convinced, as I feel I am not convinced at the moment, I can come back at the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Attachment of earnings orders
.—(1) The Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 shall have effect subject to subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2) If it appears to a court by which a sum has been adjudged to be paid by a conviction that the offender is a person to whom earnings fall to be paid, the court may, after inquiring into his means, make one or more attachment of earnings orders.
(3) A court shall not make an attachment of earnings order under subsection (2) above unless the offender has defaulted in payment of the sum or consents to the making of the order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this clause, which has the support of the All-Party Penal Affairs Group, would enable the courts to make an attachment of earnings order at the time a fine is imposed, provided that the offender consents. At present the offender may apply for an attachment of earnings order to be made at any time, including the time the fine is imposed, but unless he himself takes the initiative and applies for an order to be made, the court has to wait until he has defaulted in payment before it is empowered to make an attachment of earnings order.
We went over this ground on Committee, so I shall not go into the argument that then took place. It was evident that it was not clear. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, accepted the point that there was a difference between saying to the offender, "Are you willing to have an attachment of earnings order?" and the offender saying, "Are you going to ask me to do so?". The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that he had been a recorder for over 18 years and did not know that this existed that way round.
It ended with the Minister saying that he agreed that it was desirable for a provision of the kind contained in the amendment to be included in legislation if it was felt that it was not clear, and he agreed to take advice on the best way of clarifying the courts' powers in this regard. As an amendment has not yet been put down, we have put this down again and hope now to get a positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment, because the amount of time that the police spend on collecting and dealing with fines is out of all proportion to what needs to be done. I have never known anybody ask for an attachment of earnings order. They have never known that such a thing exists.
Earl Fortescue: My Lords, in my experience a lot of court time is wasted in dealing with fine defaulters. Unfortunately, I am not too well acquainted with the details of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971. If a man is brought before the court for failing to pay a fine and he is in employment, by far the easiest way of getting that fine paid is to make an attachment of earnings order.
The court on which I sit is close to a Royal Air Force base. Many of the people who are fined are members of the Royal Air Force. But for some extraordinary
942
reason, the employer has to consent, and in the case of this particular Air Force station—I do not know whether it is general in the Air Force—they will not accept an attachment of earnings order. I do not know whether that helps in this present discussion. I apologise if this is rather like a Second Reading speech.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I do not think that an employer can refuse to accept an attachment of earnings order. I do not think it has anything to do with him. The person who has to accept it is surely the employee.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I can start by saying—and this will illuminate the last two exchanges—that in most instances an attachment of earnings order is very much a soft option for the offender. When such an order is made, all the duty for making regular payments to the court which settle the fine passes away from the offender on to the shoulders of the employer. I imagine that if the employer is the Crown, the employer stands in rather a different relationship to the court than if he is a private person or a corporation. The offender, when the order is made, is relieved of any need to discipline himself to make the payments, although of course he loses the money. Therefore, it has certain attractions from the offender's point of view.
May I come back to the main ground of the discussion. There are two things here which concerned us last time. One was the question of where the initiative lay and the other the question of whether anybody at all knew that the initiative was there to be taken. May I summarise the first issue as follows. The difference between the present situation and what the noble Baroness would have is that her amendment would mean that the courts would have to say, "Do you mind if we make an order?", and as things now are they have to say, "Do you want us to make an order I think that when we said, when we were last discussing this matter, that it was a question of semantics, that was right.
I am very much seized of the point that there is not the knowledge of this arrangement that perhaps there should be. Noble Lords will be aware that Government departments are extremely reluctant to give guidance to the courts which would appear to be interpreting the law. However, I am satisfied in this particular case that some advice could and should be given to the courts in an appropriate manner, and we shall seek an opportunity to do so. That opportunity may arise fairly soon, as the department is at present considering how it should follow up the report of the Working Group on Magistrates' Courts which, among other things, makes a number of suggestions as to ways in which fine enforcement could be improved. The report has already been sent to the courts. Once they have had time to consider it, we have it in mind to draw their attention to particular ways in which fine enforcement methods could be improved, and we would certainly include mention of this point. As in everything except the detail of what the phrase is at the moment that the decision is taken to make the initiative,

943
I hope the noble Baroness finds that that meets her concern.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, we shall probably have to accept that, but I think it is fearfully halfbaked. What one wants to happen is for the court to be able to say to the man it is fining, "How much do you earn?" and if he replies, say, "£40", the court should then be able to say, "Your fine is £50. We can give you an attachment of earnings order of £5 for 10 weeks. Would that be satisfactory?" At present that cannot be done. The court can only say, "If you ask us to do it, we can do it". That is on the periphery of silliness, and the law should not be silly. The law should be straightforward and right. But it is not worth while keeping the House over this point now.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure which of us is being silly. It seems to me that the court is in a position to do exactly what the noble Lord wants; it is just a question of the mood of the verb in which it is expressed. Perhaps he can discuss it with me afterwards, but the substance of what the noble Baroness wants is there to be had.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if the Minister is saying that in the guidelines to the courts this will be spelt out and it will be made clear to them that the initiative will lie with them, then, from my point of view, I should find that satisfactory, and my noble friend probably would as well. But we wait to see the wording. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Power to alter certain fines and other sums]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 65 and 66:
Page 48, line 32, leave out ("of this Act").
Page 48, line 37, leave out from ("section 289B(6)") to end of line 41 and insert—
("of this Act;

(b) section 289G(2) of this Act;

(c) section 407(1A) of this Act;

(d) section 435(e) of this Act;

(e) section 453(3) of this Act;

(f) section 7(4)(a) of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982;

(g) paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 2 to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments add to the list of sums which can be altered to take account of changes in the value of money regarding summary fines which have been provided for offences under the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982 and paragraph 19(3) of Schedule 2 to the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill. In these respects they achieve for Scotland what Amendment No. 59 achieves for England and Wales.
On Question, amendment, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Revision of penalties for summary offences and of certain other sums]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 66A:
Page 51, line 1, after ("the") insert ("fine or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 51, line 10, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 11 and insert ("commencement of this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 68 and 72. These amendments replace references to the passing of the Criminal Justice Bill with references to the coming into force of the relevant provisions in the Bill. They are designed to ensure that the Bill has the correct effect on enactments passed between the date on which the Bill is passed and the date on which the fines provisions are brought into force.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 51, line 22, leave out from ("before") to (";and") in line 24 and insert ("the commencement of this section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 53, line 12, leave out from ("in") to ("any") in line 13.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69, with the permission of your Lordships I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 70 and 71. These are purely drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 53, line 13, leave out from ("enactment") to ("to") in line 14.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 53, leave out from beginning of line 15 to ("shall") in line 16.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 53, line 45, leave out from ("before") to end of line 46 and insert ("the commencement of this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 54, line 17 at end insert—
("(8) Where an enactment to which subsection (5) above applies confers a power such as is mentioned in subsection (4)(a)(ii) above, the power shall be construed as a power to make a person liable to a fine or, as the case may be, a maximum fine of the amount corresponding to the level on the standard scale to which the enactment refers by virtue of subsection (4) above or of a lesser amount.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment achieves for Scotland what Clause 42(2), as inserted at the Committee stage, achieves for England and Wales; that is, it confers upon the makers of subordinate legislation the discretion to provide in their subordinate legislation fixed fines or maximum fines of an amount less than that specified in the relevant enabling power, even where such discretion is not currently conferred by the enabling power itself. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Schedules 7A to 7D to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and Schedules 7 and 8 to this Act]:
[Amendment No. 74 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 74A:
Page 59, line 32, leave out ("Subsection (3) above does") and insert ("The amendments provided for in Schedule 8 to this Act, other than paragraph 4 thereof, do").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 74A, with permission I should like also to speak to Amendment Nos. 74B and 75. These amendments are designed to make it clear that the district court can impose fines of up to £500 for common law offences in respect of which proceedings have been instituted after Schedule 8 comes into force, even if the offence were committed before that schedule comes into force. This is desired because the increase effected by Schedule 8 in the district court's sentencing powers for common law offences is in the nature of a jurisdiction change, rather than an increase in criminal penalties. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 74B and 75:
Page 59, line 34, leave out ("it") and insert ("that Schedule"). at end insert—
("(5) The amendment provided for in paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 to this Act shall not apply in relation to proceedings commenced before the coming into force of that provision; and for the purpose of this subsection, proceedings shall be taken to have been commenced on the day on which the petition or complaint is served on the accused.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Schedule to be inserted as Schedule 7D to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 80, leave out lines 28 to 32.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 81, line 24, at end insert—

("PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT 1945 (c. 15)

. Section 1(5) (contravention of regulations as to treatment and spread of certain diseases).

For "one hundred pounds" substitute "level 5 on the standard scale".

£100 and £50 per day during which the offence continues.

£1,000 and £50 per day during which the offence continues.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment effects an increase in the penalty for offences under Section 1(5) of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1945, similar to that which is effected by Schedule 3 in the penalty for the corresponding offences in England and Wales under the Public Health Act 1936. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 81:
Page 85, line 2, column 4, leave out ("£200") and insert ("£500").
Page 85, line 4, column 2, leave out ("3") and insert ("4").
Page 85, line 9, column 4, leave out ("£200") and insert ("£500").
Page 85, line 12, column 2, leave out ("3") and insert ("4").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 80, and 81 en bloc. These amendments increase the penalty for offences under Sections 98(2) and 132(2) of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 to a fine not exceeding £500. This increase is in line with the increase effected by Schedule 3 in the penalty for similar offences under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1962. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 81A:
Before Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Prisons.
.—(1) The following shall be inserted after section 5 of the Prison Act 1952—
"The Chief Inspector of Prisons
Appointment and functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.
5A.—(1) Her Majesty may appoint a person to be Chief Inspector of Prisons.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Chief Inspector to inspect or arrange for the inspection of prisons in England and Wales and to report to the Secretary of State on them.
(3) The Chief Inspector shall in particular report to the Secretary of State on the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons.
(4) The Secretary of State may refer specific matters connected with prisons in England and Wales and prisoners in them to the Chief Inspector and direct him to report on them.
(5) The Chief Inspector shall in each year submit to the Secretary of State a report in such form as the Secretary of State may direct, and the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of that report before Parliament.
(6) The Chief Inspector shall be paid such salary and allowances as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury determine.".)
(2) The following shall be inserted after section 6 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952—
" Appointment and functions of Her Majesty's Chief
6A.—(1) Her Majesty may appoint a person to be Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Chief Inspector to inspect or arrange for the inspection of prisons in Scotland and to report to the Secretary of State on them.

947
Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.
(3) The Chief Inspector shall in particular report to the Secretary of State on the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons.
(4) The Secretary of State may refer specific matters connected with prisons in Scotland and prisoners in them to the Chief Inspector and direct him to report on them.
(5) The Chief Inspector shall in each year submit to the Secretary of State a report in such form as the Secretary of State may direct, and the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of that report before Parliament.
(6) The Chief Inspector shall be paid such salary and allowances as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury determine.
(7) In this section references to prisons include legalised police cells within the meaning of section 14(1) of this Act.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the post of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. As many of your Lordships will recall, the Committee of Inquiry into the United Kingdom Prison Services, which reported in October 1979 (the May Committee), recommended that there should be a system of inspection of the prison service distanced as far as may be practicable from the prison department. It recommended that there should be constituted within the Home Office an independent department called the Prison Inspectorate, with a senior rank. When the post of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector was first created following this, it was agreed that the appointment should be made by the Crown on the advice of the Home Secretary in order to emphasise its stature and the holder's special relationship with the Home Secretary.
The appointments of the first Chief Inspector in England (the late Mr. W. H. Pearce) and the Chief Inspector of Prisons in Scotland (Mr. D.A.P. Barry) were made in anticipation of legislation with the agreement of the Palace, the Civil Service Department (as it then was) and the Civil Service Commission on the understanding that legislative cover would be sought at the next opportunity. This amendment is in fulfilment of that commitment. The amendment provides, separately for England and Wales and for Scotland, for a Chief Inspector to be appointment by Her Majesty. It sets out briefly the duties of the Chief Inspector, and arranges that he should, as the May Committee recommended, produce an annual report which the Secretary of State is to lay before Parliament.
In moving this amendment perhaps I could pay tribute to the way in which the first Chief Inspector, Mr. Pearce, discharge his duties in this important new post. His untimely death was a great tragedy both for the inspectorate and for the prison service, whose work he subjected to such searching and careful scrutiny. I am sure that his work has done much to establish the Inspectorate as an important and useful feature of our constitutional arrangements for prison matters.
However, it is also my pleasure to take this opportunity to announce, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the appointment of Mr. Pearce's successor. Her Majesty's next Chief Inspector of Prisons will be Sir James Hennessy, and his appointment will take effect from 1st September this year. I am sure that other noble Lords will wish to join with me in wishing good fortune to Sir James, who has an experi-
948
enced career in the diplomatic service which may well stand him in very good stead in this important and exacting post. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am sure the House will wish to join in the expression of thanks to the late Chief Inspector, and to wish good fortune to his successor.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like to join the noble and learned Lord in what he has said, but I should like to add that the proceedings during this Bill have not indicated that the Home Secretary is taking much notice of the very grave and serious warnings which Mr Pearce gave in his report.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, may I also welcome the appointment of Sir James, and wish him every possible success. This is an important new clause, which I certainly welcome, even if it is brought forward at a comparatively late stage of this Bill. Purely in order that we may ensure that in due course the Long Title is correct, would the noble Lord the Minister be kind enough to indicate on what basis he says that this is in fact relevant to this Bill?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if I could perhaps strike not quite so happy a note, in view of the history that my noble friend gave us, why is this coming forward as an amendment at Report stage instead of being part of the original Bill? It seems quite extraordinary.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the processes by which this sort of legislation is generated are complex and slow, and it was not apparent until a latish stage that it would be possible to have it ready for your Lordships in time for this Bill.
However, in the light of the fact that we had given this undertaking and in the light of the fact that we now had an appointment to make, it seemed proper to create the statutory provision in time for the appointment of the new incumbent. This is a purpose connected with the other purposes set out in the Long Title of the Bill.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, with leave, would the noble Lord be good enough to say which purpose?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Long Title of the Bill—and I will not read it out in full because the noble Lord has it before him—at the end says:
"and for connected purposes".
This is one of the purposes that is connected to the other purposes.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, which purpose is it connected to?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I think it is connected in the sense that the warnings of the prison inspector are essential to the proper running of the prisons and are not at the moment being taken notice of.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it is just as connected as the amendments which aim to reduce the number

949
of people who may be sent to prison by reducing the number of things which are subject to criminal law. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will agree with that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the purpose of the Bill is to try to reduce the population of the prison, which is what everybody is urging us to do. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has taken my right honourable friend to task for not having sufficiently acknowledged the crucial rôle which the reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector play in this purpose. The appointment is central to what the Bill sets out to do.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, with leave—and I am sorry, but I am trying to be persistent for it will affect matters later in the Bill—there is nothing in the Long Title of the Bill about reducing the prison population or anything to do with that. How can this be a connected purpose to that?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Long Title and the Bill itself are about the sentencing and treatment of offenders and the Inspector of Prisons inspects the treatment of offenders.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, this is the last time. With respect, it is not about the sentencing and treatment of offenders but about the power of the court with regard to the sentencing and treatment of offenders. The appointment of the Inspector of Prisons can have nothing to do with the powers of the court in relation to sentencing and treatment of offenders.
Lord Elton: My Lords, this can go on for ever. It seems to me that, where you have courts with a power to sentence to institutions inspected by an inspector, there is a close connection between the court and the inspector; and that is the person of the prisoner and the building of the prison.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 82:
Before Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Courts-martial and Standing Civilian Courts.
. Schedule (Courts-martial etc.] shall have effect in relation to offenders who come before courts-martial and Standing Civilian Courts.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 83 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 84:
Before Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Cautioning.
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person who has not previously been cautioned for or convicted or found guilty of an offence admits that he has committed an offence, he shall not be charged with the offence but shall instead be cautioned by a police officer.
(2) No person shall be cautioned under subsection (1) above if it appears to a police officer not below the rank of inspector that his offence was so serious that a caution would not be justified.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which on the face of it really is quite clear.
950
I do not intend to detain the House by expanding on it. I would say that in a number of debates on amendments to this Bill at the Committee and Report stages, and during Second Reading, it has been clear that the major concern of this House is the number of people who end up in prison. It is also clear that once a person has embarked, as it were, not on a criminal career but on a career through penalties, starting maybe with a conditional discharge or a fine and progressing through more serious penalties to institutions, it is extremely difficult to stop. We have heard repeatedly about the extraordinary high percentage of people, young and old, but particularly young, who are sent to some institutional penalties and who are reconvicted within a comparatively short time
Therefore, it seems to me that in looking at the way the courts are able to treat offenders one of the priorities should be to try to do our utmost to keep offenders from getting on to this career through penalties. By far the most effective way in doing that is to increase the use of the police caution. This is widely used in some areas but much less widely used in others, and one of the arguments in favour of the amendment seems to me that it may lead to more standardisation of practice between different police forces in the use of the caution. More important, I hope that by laying down a criteria of the kind that I have in the amendment it will lead to a considerable increase in the use of cautioning in circumstances where I do not believe anybody could possibly object to its use, and that would be a considerable benefit.
There is a great deal of evidence that young people or first offenders who are cautioned are no more nor less likely to re-offend in a given period than anybody subjected to any other penalty. They are a lot less likely to re-offend than people who are put in custody of any sort. That seems to me to be an extremely powerful argument in favour of the amendment, which I hope the Government will able be to accept and send us all home to bed in a good mood. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, if this amendment were accepted, I should be grateful to know whether in the case of a child's or a young person's cautioning, it would be put down on the police record.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I shall not answer for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but I think it certainly should not. What we want is that the police should feel more ready to use a caution than they are today, and the evidence is that a large number of young people are charged who have never been cautioned. This is a very important amendment and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to it, because if does not seem to be subversive or awkward in any way but to be the first item in the Bill that will have some influence on the number of people who go to prison.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to say one word in opposition to this amendment. Again, your Lordships are faced with a problem of overcrowding in prisons, so your Lordships are invited to endorse this innovative experiment which puts far too great a degree of discretion in the power of the police. It is, in my submission, something which should not be accepted.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me what is innovative about this? The procedure of cautioning offenders is extremely widely used by police forces throughout Great Britain. The idea that there is anything new in this is, if I may say so, quite ridiculous.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am fully alive to the system that is operated at the moment where there is a degree of discretion in the police which, to the general satisfaction of everyone, so far as I am aware, operates and is accepted publicly. If the purpose of this amendment is to achieve anything further, it is objectionable for the reasons that I have given. If it is merely to state in this form what in practice happens already, it is otiose and irrelevant to the problem of overcrowding the prisons. There is, in my submission, absolutely no merit in this proposal at all.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am always anxious to provide the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, with an agreeable nightcap; but perhaps his prospect of getting it would be better in the bar than in the Chamber. Nonetheless, I do not think that we are very far apart—at least in what we wish to achieve. The new clause would require that a caution be issued to a first-time offender who admits the offence, save in the case of serious offences. It would thus remove from the police and others who want to bring criminal proceedings against first-time offenders for non-serious offences the discretion to prosecute. It has a number of clear technical deficiencies and would give rise to a number of perverse results. I shall not go over these; I will come straight to the issues of principle which the noble Lord has raised.
Cautioning itself is a non-statutory procedure, and the circumstances in which a caution should be issued do not, of their very nature, lend themselves to statutory form. Guidance issued to chief officers in the case of juveniles lays down certain criteria for the issue of a caution. These criteria are generally followed in the case of adults: the evidence must be available to support a prosecution; the offender must admit the offence; and the offender (for a juvenile, his parents or guardian) must agree to the issue of a caution.
If all these criteria are met the decision then turns on the circumstances of the offender, the nature of the offence and the attitude of the victim or aggrieved person. The noble Lord's new clause, however, goes beyond laying down criteria for the issue of the formal caution; it puts on the police an obligation to issue a caution, rather than to initiate criminal proceedings in certain circumstances. It is a long-established principle that the police should have discretion in deciding whether to bring criminal proceedings or deal with an offender by some other means. I do not believe that it would be right for this House to remove that discretion, nor for the police to be prevented from bringing criminal proceedings in the case of all first-time, self-confessed, minor offenders.
None of this is to say that the Government do not recognise the important part the formal caution has to play in the criminal justice process, particularly in the case of young offenders. It allows the police, taking account of all relevant circumstances, to give a self-confessed offender, a formal warning and to give
952
that person the opportunity to mend his ways; the need for criminal proceedings, which might have effects on the offender and his family beyond all proportion to the seriousness of the offence (and I think this is what the noble Lord has in mind) can be avoided.
The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure noted the considerable variations in the use made of the formal caution by different police forces and recommended that it should be put on a more consistent footing. But, as the Royal Commission itself observed, some of these variations can be explained by different social and geographical factors in different areas. Nonetheless, there is a greater degree of variation than that would allow for. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary does fully accept the case for seeking to reduce these variations so far as possible. The Home Office is at present discussing the issue with chief officers of police, and we hope that these discussions, which will be aided by research findings, will show whether there is scope for a reduction in the variations and how this might be achieved. We do want the same thing. We are setting about it in a rather different manner. I hope the noble Lord will be able to reflect upon that peacefully upon his pillow, because we are trying to finish up in the same place.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether the criteria are published, and will the new criteria be published when they are decided and agreed upon? We are very grateful to see the sympathetic approach to the process of cautioning the first offender who has confessed to his offence.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is the sympathetic approach of my noble friend that I have to wait upon before I can reply to the noble and learned Lord. The answer is that they are not published but they are not secret. If the noble and learned Lord thinks it would be helpful to have them available either to his noble friend or otherwise, I will discuss that with him, if that would be helpful.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble and learned friend's intervention. I think it would be very helpful indeed for him to discuss it with the noble Lord. Also, it might be possible for me to see the criteria.
I tabled this amendment at the Committee stage, and, unfortunately, was not able to be in your Lordships' House when it was eventually reached. But, since then, there has been a television programme, which some noble Lords may have seen, where a number of people concerned in the criminal justice process, including chief officers of police and, I think, my noble and learned friend as well, were involved, where this subject was discussed and the grounds on which a caution might be used were put to the test. It seemed to me that, although in the programme, all those involved decided that somebody charged with a first offence of possession of cannabis would actually end up with a caution, the reality in a great deal of the country is very different indeed from that.
It seemed to me to support very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, that there is a very wide variation in the use of the caution between different areas and that must be undesirable and unfair to

953
individuals. It is not right that whether they ended up with a criminal record or a caution depended on which side of a county boundary they were when they were arrested. It is a more serious matter than that. So I very much welcome what the noble Lord said about attempting to draw up some new criteria, and it would be very helpful, in reaching a decision about whether or not something should appear in statute about this before we come to the Third Reading of the Bill, to see what exists at the moment.
Finally, if I may just answer the noble Baroness's question, I think I am right in saying—I stand to be corrected by people who know more about this than I do—that the police force would obviously keep a record of those who were cautioned, because it would be necessary to know, if somebody was re-arrested, whether or not he had already been cautioned. But the process of receiving a caution would not give somebody a criminal record for the purposes of employment, and all the other things which are very seriously affected by a criminal record. That is one of the things which makes it such a very important and attractive procedure. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I hope that we can have an exchange of information before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.37 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 84A:
Before Schedule 9, insert the following new scheduler—
("SCHEDULE
COURTS-MARTIAL ETC.
1. Section 71A of the Army Act 1955 and of the Air Force Act 1955 and section 43A of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (powers of courts in relation to juveniles) shall have effect subject to the following amendments—

(a) in subsection (1), for "17" there shall be substituted "21";

(b) the following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection—

"(1A) Where a person under 21 years of age is convicted of murder or any other civil offence the sentence for which is fixed by law as imprisonment for life, the court shall sentence him to custody for life unless he is liable to be detained under subsection (3) below.

(1B) Where a person aged 17 years or over but under 21 years of age is convicted of any other offence for which a person aged 21 years or over would be liable to imprisonment for life, the court shall sentence him to custody for life if—

(a) it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate; and

(b) it considers that a custodial sentence for life would be appropriate.

(1C) For the purpose of determining whether any method of dealing with a person to whom subsection (1B) of this section applies, other than sentencing him to custody for life, is appropriate, the court shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances, and shall take into account any information before the court which is relevant to his character and his physical and mental condition";

(c) subsection (2) shall be omitted; and

(d) in subsection (5)—

(i) after the word "of", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "custody for life or"; and

(ii) after the word "detention", in the second place where it occurs, there shall he inserted the words "and to a sentence of custody for life".

2. In section 71AA of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 and in section 43AA of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (custodial orders)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words "instead of so punishing him" there shall be substituted the words "subject to subsection (1A) below"; and

(ii) for the words from "maximum" to the end there shall be substituted the words "period to be specified in the order not exceeding the maximum period for which he could have been sentenced to imprisonment if he had attained the age of twenty-one years.";

(b) the following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection—

"(1A) The court shall not make a custodial order in respect of a person unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate.

(1B) For the purposes of determining whether there is any appropriate method of dealing with a person other than making a custodial order in respect of him the court shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances, and shall take into account any information before the court which is relevant to his character and his physical and mental condition.";

(c) in subsection (6)(a) the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraphs (i) and (ii)—

"(i) if the period specified in the order is four months or less and he is male, a detention centre, and

(ii) in any other case, any place where he could have been detained under section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 if he had been sentenced to youth custody for the period specified in the order;";

(d) the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection—

"(6A) Section 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (supervision of young offenders released otherwise than on licence) shall apply to persons released from a term of detention under a custodial order as it applies to persons released from a term of detention under a detention centre order or a term of youth custody."

3. In section 85 of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 (powers of different descriptions of Courts-martial)—

(a) the words "or make an order committing a person to be detained under section 71AA of this Act for a period exceeding two years" shall be inserted at the end of subsection (2); and

(b) the words "or detention under section 71AA of this Act for a period of two years" shall be inserted at the end of subsection (3).

4. In section 145(1)(b) of those Acts (forfeiture of pay for absence from duty), for the words "Borstal institution" there shall be substituted the words "youth custody centre".
5. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 5A to the Army Act 1955 and to the Air Force Act 1955 and Schedule 4A to the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (custodial orders) shall have effect subject to the following amendments—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—

(i) for the words "instead of so punishing him" there shall be substituted the words "subject to subsection (1A) below"; and

(ii) for the words from "for" to the end there shall be substituted the words—

"(a) if the order is made by a court-martial for a period to be specified in the order not exceeding the maximum period for which he could have been sentenced to imprisonment if he had attained the age of 21; or

(b) if it is made by a Standing Civilian Court, for a period of not more than six months.";

(b) the following sub-paragraphs shall be inserted after that sub-paragraph—

"(1A) The court shall not make a custodial order in respect of an offender unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate.

(1B) For the purposes of determining whether there is any appropriate method of dealing with an offender other than making a custodial order in respect of him the court shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances, and shall take into account any

955
information before the court which is relevant to his character and his mental and physical condition.";

(c) the following sub-paragraphs shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (3)—

"(3A) Where a Standing Civilian Court makes a custodial order in respect of an offender, it shall state in open court the reason for its opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate.

(3B) A Standing Civilian Court shall cause a reason stated under sub-paragraph (3A) above to be specified in the Custodial Order and to be recorded in the proceedings.";

(d) in sub-paragraph (6)(a) the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraphs (i) and (ii)—

"(i) if the period specified in the order is four months or less and he is male, a detention centre, and

(ii) in any other case, any place where he could have been detained under section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 if he had been sentenced to youth custody for the period specified in the order;";

(e) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after that sub-paragraph—

"(6A) Section 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (supervision of young offenders released otherwise than on licence) shall apply to persons released from a term of detention under a custodial order as it applies to persons released from a term of detention under a detention centre order or a term of youth custody."

6.—(1) In paragraph 11(2) of those Schedules (compensation orders) for "£400" there shall be substituted "£1,000".
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above has effect only in relation to offences committed after this paragraph comes into force.
7. The following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 13 of those Schedules (imposition of fines on and making of compensation orders against parent and guardian)—

"(1) Where—

(a) a civilian under 17 years of age is found guilty of any offence for the commission of which a fine may be imposed or a compensation order may be made under paragraph 11 above; and

(b) the court is of the opinion that the case would best be met by the imposition of a fine or the making of such an order, whether with or without any other punishment,

it shall be the duty of the court to order that the fine or compensation awarded be paid by any parent or guardian of his who is a service parent or guardian, instead of by the person himself, unless the court is satisfied—

(i) that the parent or guardian cannot be found; or

(ii) that it would be unreasonable to make an order for payment, having regard to the circumstances of the case.

(2) An order under this paragraph may be made against the parent or guardian if—

(a) he has been required to attend in the manner prescribed by Rules of Procedure under section 103 above or, as the case may be, by an order under paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Armed Forces Act 1976 to attend the court, and

(b) he has failed to do so,

but, save as aforesaid, no such order shall be made without giving the parent or guardian an opportunity of being heard.".

8.—(1) In paragraph 14(1) of those Schedules (recognisances from parents and guardians) for £50 there shall be substituted "£500".
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above has effect only in relation to offences committed after this paragraph comes into force.
9. In paragraph 15(3) of those Schedules (scale of punishments and orders)—

(a) in the Table, in paragraph 3, in the second column, for the word "imprisonment" there shall be substituted the words "custody for life"; and

(b) in paragraph (i) of the Note following that Table for the word "imprisonment" there shall be substituted the words "custody for life".

10.—(1) In section 8(1)(b) of the Armed Forces Act 1976 (powers of Standing Civilian Court to fine and sentence) for "£400" there shall be substituted "£1,000".
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above has effect only in relation to offences committed after this paragraph comes into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 58. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 85:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Applications to Crown Court for bail by persons remanded in custody.
.—(1) In section 81 of the Supreme Court Act 1981—

(a) in subsection (1) (which lists cases in which the Crown Court may grant bail) at the end of paragraph (e) there shall be added "or

(f) who has been remanded in custody by a magistrates' court on adjourning a case under—

(i) section 5 (adjournment of inquiry into offence);

(ii) section 10 (adjournment of trial);

(iii) section 18 (initial procedure on information against adult for offence triable either way); or

(iv) section 30 (remand for medical examination),

of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980;";

(b) the following subsections shall he inserted after that subsection—

"(1A) Where the Crown Court grants a person bail under subsection (1)(f) it may direct him to appear at a time and place which the magistrates' court could have directed and the recognizance of any surety shall be conditioned accordingly.

(1B) The Crown Court may only grant bail to a person under subsection (1)(f) if the magistrates' court which remanded him in custody has certified under section 5(6A) of the Bail Act 1976 that it heard full argument on his application for bail before it refused the application.".

(2) In subsection (6)(a) of section 5 of the Bail Act 1976 (supplementary provisions about decisions on bail) after the word "Court", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or if it issues a certificate under subsection (6A) below".
(3) The following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection—

"(6A) Where in criminal proceedings—

(a) a magistrates' court remands a person in custody under any of the following provisions of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980—

(i) section 5 (adjournment of inquiry into offence);

(ii) section 10 (adjournment of trial);

(iii) section 18 (initial procedure on information against adult for offence triable either way); or

(iv) section 30 (remand for medical examination),

after hearing full argument on an application for bail from him; and

(b) either

(i) it has not previously heard such argument on an application for bail from him in those proceedings; or

(ii) it has previously heard full argument from him on such an application but it is satisfied that there has been a change in his circumstances or that new considerations have been placed before it.

it shall he the duty of the court to issue a certificate in the prescribed form that they heard full argument on his application for bail before they refused the application.

(6B) Where the court issues a certificate under subsection (6A) above in a case to which paragraph (b)(ii) of that subsection applies, it shall state in the certificate the nature of the change of circumstances or the new considerations which caused it to hear a further fully argued bail application.

(6C) Where a court issues a certificate under subsection (6A) above it shall cause the person to whom it refuses bail to be given a copy of the certificate.".

(4) In section 30 of the Legal Aid Act 1974 (scope of legal aid) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (1)—

"(1A) Legal aid which may be ordered to be given to any person for the purposes of any proceedings by a legal aid order under section 28(2) above, whether or not in the circumstances mentioned in section 29(1)(c) above, shall include, in the event

957

(a) of his being remanded in custody in those proceedings; and

(b) of the court issuing a certificate under section 5(6A) of the Bail Act 1976 (refusal of fully argued bail application),

legal aid for the purpose of proceedings in connection with an application for bail to the Crown Court.

(1B) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) above, legal aid in connection with an application for bail to the Crown Court shall not include representation by counsel except in a case where by virtue of subsection (2)(a) below legal aid ordered to be given for the purposes of the proceedings before the magistrates' court included representation by counsel.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause fulfils an undertaking which the Government gave at the time of the Bill's passage through another place. Its intention is to provide that defendants who are refused bail by a magistrates' court after a full application will have a further avenue of application to the Crown Court. It also provides that legal aid will be available for the purposes of such application. Legal aid will be provided by an automatic extension to existing legal aid orders; there will thus be no need for the defendant to make a separate application for it.
The avenue of application will be available where the magistrates' court adjourns a case for a later hearing before the same court, and where it refuses bail to the defendant after hearing a full application for bail from him. In such a case, the magistrates' court will be required to issue a certificate to the effect that it has refused bail after a full application and the Crown Court's power to grant bail will be limited to cases where such a certificate has been issued. Noble Lords will note that I have emphasised that the avenue of application will be available only after a full hearing. Your Lordships will be aware of the effect of the case of Regina v. Nottingham Justices ex parte Davies, which was that, where a magistrates' court has taken one full application for bail, then its decision on that occasion should bind the court, which would not have to hear further applications unless it could be shown that there had been a change in the circumstances of the defendant since the date of the first application. It is not intended that a court's decision that there has been no change in circumstances, and that it therefore need not hear a full application, should be capable of appeal to the Crown Court. The essential purpose of the new clause, therefore, is to allow the defendant to secure a review of the magistrates' court's substantial decision that, given the full range of circumstances existing at the time of his application, bail should be refused. The Government hope that this new clause will assist defendants to pursue their applications for bail at a rather more convenient forum than the High Court at present represents. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the Minister has indicated that this amendment is in response to the proposals in another place concerning the position of the applicant for bail in the Crown Court who has been remanded in custody and who has to function without legal aid. The provision of legal aid in those conditions is of very great importance. The House will be grateful to the noble Lord for what is proposed. It has long been pressed for. There was an attempt to introduce
958
a similar provision in the Supreme Court Bill. But better late than never.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 86:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Social inquiry reports on persons who have not previously served prison sentences.
The following section shall be inserted after section 20 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973—
"Social inquiry reports for purposes of s. 20.
20A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the court shall in every case obtain a social inquiry reports for report for the purpose of determining under section 20(1) above whether there is any appropriate method of dealing with an offender other than imprisonment.
(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply if, in the circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain a social inquiry report.
(3) Where a magistrates' court passes a sentence of imprisonment on a person of or over twenty one years of age on whom such a sentence has not previously been passed by a court in any part of the United Kingdom without obtaining a social inquiry report, it shall state in open court the reason for its opinion that it was unnecessary to obtain such a report.
(4) A magistrates' court shall cause a reason stated under subsection (3) above to be specified in the warrant of commitment and to be entered in the register.
(5) No sentence shall be invalidated by the failure of a court to comply with subsection (1) above, but any other court on appeal from that court shall obtain a social inquiry report if none was obtained by the court below, unless it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case it is unnecessary to do so.
(6) In determining whether it should deal with the appellant otherwise than by passing a sentence of imprisonment on him the court hearing the appeal shall consider any social inquiry report obtained by it or by the court below.
(7) In this section "social inquiry report" means a report about a person and his circumstances made by a probation officer.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment meets the undertaking which we gave in Committee to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that we would bring forward a provision to require a court, unless there are reasons to the contrary, to obtain and consider a social inquiry report before imposing a first sentence of imprisonment on an adult offender. The amendment is modelled on the similar provisions of Clause 2 relating to young offenders and brings Section 20 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 into line with them. I hope that the House will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I understand that there is a manuscript amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, Amendment No. 86ZA, which is an amendment to the proposed amendment, Amendment No. 86.
Baroness David Baroness David moved, as an amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 86ZA:
At end insert ("or by a social worker of a local authority social services department").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first I should like to thank the Minister for having produced this new clause, which is in accordance with the promise made at the Committee stage. We are very grateful. There is a very small amendment to it which I have had the courage to add. At the very end of the new clause, subsection (7) says:
"In this section 'social inquiry report' means a report about a person and his circumstances made by a probation officer".
My amendment adds "or by a social worker of a local authority social services department". I have been bold enough to put down this amendment, because the Government Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 to Schedule 12, which is about community service orders, make a similarly worded amendment, which again was almost promised at the Committee stage. Although this is possibly for older defendants, there are still families who are involved with the social services, and the social worker may be in a better position to make the report than perhaps a probation officer. This would save everybody's time and a certain amount of expense. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be minded to accept this amendment as they have accepted it in Schedule 12.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I fear that the encouragement given by our acceptance in principle of a number of the matters which the noble Baroness raised on the provision of social inquiry reports may have given rise to a degree of over-enthusiasm in this particular instance. We are dealing with the new clause introduced by the Government Amendment No. 86, with the requirement that social inquiry reports are to be provided in the case of offenders who have attained the age of 21. The responsibility for the preparation of such reports on adult offenders is solely in the hands of the probation service. There is no share or division of the responsibility with social workers, as may be the case with offenders under the age of 21. Where there is a shared responsibility, it is of course appropriate to include in the definition of the social inquiry report a reference to social workers as well as probation officers. That is achieved in Clause 2(9) and will be achieved by Amendment Nos. 96 and 97 in relation to the community service orders to which we shall come later.
Such a reference is inappropriate in relation to reports on offenders for which, as I have said, the probation service takes sole responsibility. Where, however, a social worker has relevant information on an adult offender, the probation officer, in the preparation of his report, will obviously liaise closely with him. Social workers are concerned with offenders under the age of 17 and not, as in the case of Amendment No. 86, adult offenders of 21 years of age. In the light of what I have said I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady David, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I shall have to accept what the noble Lord says, although, as I said, I am aware of social workers who are involved with whole families and have a great deal of information which they can provide. No doubt that information will be
960
shared with the probation officers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 86 agreed to.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I believe we have now reached a part of the Bill where we might well adjourn. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

London Transport (General Powers) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Lloyd's Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  AIRGUNS: PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN AGAINST MISUSE
  AIRGUNS: PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN AGAINST MISUSE
  LONG-TERM PRISONERS AND PAROLE
  LONG-TERM PRISONERS AND PAROLE
  DR. PINDER-WILSON
  DR. PINDER-WILSON
  THE LEBANON: UN PEACE-KEEPING FORCE
  THE LEBANON: UN PEACE-KEEPING FORCE
  IMMIGRATION: SPECIAL QUOTA VOUCHER APPLICATIONS
  IMMIGRATION: SPECIAL QUOTA VOUCHER APPLICATIONS
  THE FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL
  THE FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL
  THE ASSOCIATION OF SCOTTISH DISTRICT SALMON FISHERY BOARDS
  THE ASSOCIATION OF SCOTTISH DISTRICT SALMON FISHERY BOARDS
  HEAVY DRINKING: CIVIL SERVICE STAFF
  HEAVY DRINKING: CIVIL SERVICE STAFF
  LICENSED BARS IN CIVIL SERVICE PREMISES
  LICENSED BARS IN CIVIL SERVICE PREMISES