Sitting of 8 March 1982

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
COUNTY OF AVON BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Domestic Energy Supplies
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply of 8 February, Official Report, c. 731, to what extent the standing charges of the electricity and gas supply industries take account of the length of time the supply has been installed.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Mellor): Domestic standing charges do not reflect the length of time that a supply has been connected. They are set by the supply industries and reflect their fixed costs such as meter reading, billing, maintaining the connection and, in the case of gas, provision to deal with emergencies.
    Mr. Neubert: Would it not ease the financial burden on pensioners, who, in general terms, will have contributed more than their fair share of overhead costs over the years, and at the same time create equity between the long-established user and users with a new connection if the standing charge were to take some account of the length of time the supply had been installed?
    Mr. Mellor: As my hon. Friend will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and I are currently reviewing standing charges. We shall bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. Eadie: Does the Minister agree that the matter is urgent? Pensioners' tears have not yet dried and the bills are still racing in. Pensioners still face financial difficulties. I hope that the Government will approach the matter with urgency, as it would help to alleviate pensioners' problems.
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that pensions have been fully indexed during the lifetime of the Government. He will also know that 1½2million pensioners are receiving the additional sums paid by the Department of Health and Social Security. In case the hon. Gentleman suggests that this is an easy matter, he will recall that when he was at the Department of Energy a document called "Energy Tariffs and the Poor" was published. It recognised the difficulty of changing existing tariff structures and that there was no easy route to assist poor consumers through changes in tariff structures.
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the standing charges paid by retirement pensioners for their gas and electricity supplies.
    Mr. Mellor: Together with my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, I am reviewing the problems faced by the elderly and other low-income consumers in paying standing charges. We hope to reach a conclusion fairly soon.
    Mr. Durant: Is my hon. Friend aware that pensioners feel deeply that their standing charges are often much larger than their consumption costs? They do not resent having to pay for what they use, but they resent the standing charges. Will my hon. Friend therefore have a meeting with the heads of the nationalised industries to discuss the matter?
    Mr. Mellor: I have already asked the deputy chairmen of the Electricity Council and the British Gas Corporation to meet me to discuss the issue.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that standing charges often represent a substantial proportion of bills and that there is great anger and concern among pensioners that standing charges have been constantly increasing? Does he accept that that is felt in Scotland particularly because of the severe climatic conditions?
    Mr. Mellor: The standing charges reflect the cost to the industry of maintaining the supply. If the standing charges were abolished the gas and electricity industries would lose about £500 million in revenue each. That would mean a material increase in tariffs. While we are looking carefully at ways of assisting consumers, it is questionable whether that route would be the best.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware of the tremendous difficulties that fuel costs have presented to retired people and those on limited incomes? Is he aware that the removal of standing charges would at least relieve some of the agony that so many of our fellow elderly citizens have to face every winter?
    Mr. Mellor: That matter was considered when the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State. He said in his foreword to the energy document:
    "After considering the group's report, the Government have concluded that none of these possibilities offers a satisfactory way of helping poor consumers with their fuel bills."
    The hon. Gentleman is touching on a difficult subject that we are considering again. I urge him not to apply the double standards that are all too common in the House and not to expect that the Government will find it easier to answer these intractable questions than did his right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Eggar: Will my hon. Friend consider whether consumers could be given a choice between a standing charge and a low unit cost, as at present, or no standing charge and a higher unit cost?
    Mr. Mellor: That was the position with gas prices under the previous Government. There was a higher unit charge for the first 52 therms. The arrangement did not meet with the approval of the Price Commission, and it has been changed under this Government.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Minister confirm that gas prices have increased by 100 per cent. because of the

    585
    Government's actions and that the standing charge has increased by 300 per cent.? As there has been a decision to increase the charge, why can there not be a decision to change it in other ways?
    Mr. Mellor: Removing the differential charge for the first 52 therms of gas meant that when the Labour Government left office the standing charge was £6·37 a quarter, so the effect is not markedly different.

    Oil Sales
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 8 February, Official Report, c. 250, how much oil was exported to Israel in the most recent period for which figures are available.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): None, Sir.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister reconsider the unhappy policy of discrimination that has led to that sad answer? In the interests of free trade, should we not now sell our oil to a democratic customer anxious to buy it?
    Mr. Gray: The policy is not aimed against any country but is in favour of European Community and International Energy Agency countries, with whom we have a special energy relationship. We should ask licencees to recognise those relationships. There are many other friendly countries to whom we do not export oil because they are not members of those alliances.
    Mr. Marlow: As the Israeli war machine is the greatest threat to Middle East stability, would it not be a little absurd for Her Majesty's Government to provide it with fuel with which it could threaten world peace?
    Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend's point hardly relates directly to the question.

    British National Oil Corporation
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many barrels of oil produced daily from the oilfields in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf the British National Oil Corporation handles as a trader.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): In 1981 it was 1,037,000 barrels per day.
    Dr. Mabon: As that is such a profoundly overwhelming proportion of the total, does it not suggest that BNOC should remain an integrated trading, exploration and production company?
    Mr. Lawson: I fail to see the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's question. The figure points to the strength that BNOC, after the flotation of Britoil, will have in the world's oil markets.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the drop in world oil prices will affect the trading arm of BNOC, as it will the Government directly? Is it not time for the Government to act in concert with OPEC to cut production to maintain the price level and to save in Scotland jobs that will be lost if North Sea development does not take place?
    Mr. Lawson: The fall in oil prices will have a much more positive effect on jobs in the Western world, including the United Kingdom and Scotland, than the policy that the hon. Gentleman would like us to pursue.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: Does the question asked by the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) not demonstrate the fact that the SDP has great difficulty in making up its mind whether it is for or against nationalisation?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The SDP has great difficulty in deciding where it stands on everything and anything.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware that BNOC is facing its greatest crisis since it was created and that the fall in oil prices has created a major problem for the trading arm, which could lose large sums of money? Does he agree that now is not the time to smash up the corporation, as it would destroy the morale of the State trading arm personnel? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least consider postponing that part of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill for at least 12 months to give the corporation a chance to weather the storm?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. I am confident that BNOC will remain fully capable of dealing with world economic developments and developments in the oil market as they occur.

    Space Policy
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Energy with what aspects of Her Majesty's Government's space policy his Department is currently concerned.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): Clearly, I am concerned to ensure that my Department is aware of developments in space technology that are of interest to energy related issues.
    Mr. Marshall: With the growing increase of loading for commercial satellite projects in this country and the scientific satellite development through the European Space Agency, in which Britain plays a leading part, does my hon. Friend agree that the time is now overdue for us to take a wider look at those issues? Will he carefully consider the opportunities in the remote sensing programme and for solar energy through space developments.
    Mr. Moore: Knowing my hon. Friend's extensive knowledge and experience, I shall maintain my Department's watching brief.

    Diesel Fuel
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for Energy how much diesel fuel was produced in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Gray: My Department's estimate is 5·5 million tonnes in 1981.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the diesel engine industry is a strategic industry and that firms like Perkins in my constituency should not be exposed to unfair competition, from whatever source?
    Mr. Gray: I noted a recent article that suggested that Perkins, along with British Leyland, was carrying out research on a motor car diesel engine. We wish such a venture every success.

    Energy Prices
    Mr. John H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for Energy what will now be the estimated level of energy prices, whether electricity, gas, oil or coal, for industry and the domestic consumer in the United Kingdom over the next 12 months; and if he will indicate from information available to him how these are expected to compare with those in other EEC countries.
    Mr. Lawson: Market prices for oil products depend on the balance of supply and demand in a highly competitive market. The price of gas to the home will remain much cheaper than both oil and electricity and among the cheapest in Europe. For most other energy consumers, the prospect is that prices will rise broadly in line with other costs in the economy. I would expect that prices to the vast majority of consumers will remain generally in line with those on the Continent.
    Mr. Osborn: First, will my right hon. Friend tell industry how gas and electricity prices in Britain will compare with those on the Continent over the next 12 months? Secondly, will he assure domestic consumers that they will have a price advantage, at least for gas, especially over France and Germany, for the next two or three years, as they do not appear to be aware of the fact?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right that British consumers are generally unaware of the fact that, despite the considerable increase in the price of domestic gas, it is still a great deal cheaper here than in France or Germany. It is perhaps understandable that they are not fully aware of that fact, but they are more keenly aware of the fact that gas is still a far cheaper fuel for them than is electricity or oil.
    I expect that the price of gas and electricity to industry will remain broadly in line with prices on the Continent. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a problem with heavy users of electricity, but I hope that before long we shall have a little alleviation on that front.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Are the Government looking ahead to the time when North Sea oil will be dear oil and considering how best to protect ourselves against the danger of having to buy our own dear oil?
    Mr. Lawson: If I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman, these matters are probably best left to the market.
    Mr. Palmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the Select Committee on Energy did a great deal of work on the question, it is a pity that it had such a disappointing and unhelpful reply from his Department?
    Mr. Lawson: I do not agree that the reply was unhelpful. I applaud the Select Committee for its work on that and other energy matters. I do not believe that the last word has yet been said by my Department.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the market has done a splendid job in destroying the cohesion of OPEC? As the cohesion of OPEC was a virtual disaster for the Western world for the best part of the last decade, will he now formally encourage that process?
    Mr. Lawson: I hope that my hon. Friend is not trying to lure or seduce me into saying something that might be considered undiplomatic, but I fully take the force of what he has said. I hope that he will therefore approve the positive way in which BNOC recently responded to market forces in reducing the price of North Sea oil by $4 per barrel.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I understand it, the Minister has just confirmed the NEDC report's finding that comparative prices for heavy users of electricity work to the disadvantage of this country. Does his reply mean that he intends to do nothing about the NEDC report's recommendation?
    Mr. Lawson: First, it was not the NEDC report recommendation. The task force investigated all kinds of comparative industrial energy prices—oil, gas, electricity, and so on—both for small and large consumers. Although it found that in general there was no longer any disadvantage to speak of between industrial energy consumers in this country and on the Continent, it identified an area, particularly among electricity users, where there was a considerable disparity. I suggested that we hope very shortly indeed to be able to do something significant—I do not say that it will be all that the industry would wish—in that area.

    British Gas Corporation (Domestic Supplies)
    Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will seek to extend the requirement that the British Gas Corporation should supply gas to residential properties, which at present it is not obliged to supply.
    Mr. John Moore: No, Sir, but there is no statutory bar on the British Gas Corporation supplying premises outside the 25-yard limit. Moreover, the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill will allow consumers outside that limit to seek, where available, alternative supplies.
    Dr. Marshall: Will the Minister encourage British Gas to go over the albeit non-statutory bar to which he referred? Is he aware that the present arrangements discriminate unjustly by creating two groups within our nation—those who receive gas and those who are most unlikely ever to receive gas from the British Gas Corporation? Is he aware that those arrangments operate unfairly against many of my constituents and also against those of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Moore: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has reminded those who did know about it of the attraction of gas to so many people who cannot obtain it. I must remind him, however, that the British Gas Corporation has an obligation to seek economically to satisfy gas demand, as opposed to the specific duty to which I referred. Extension within that economic availability must be left to British Gas.
    Mr. Rost: Is my hon. Friend aware that British Gas has abused its monopoly powers by refusing supplies to district heating and combined heat and power schemes, or by agreeing to supply them only at the industrial rather than the domestic tariff? Is he aware that that has worked greatly against consumer interests, as cheaper heat could have been provided through many schemes which as a result of British Gas policy have not gone ahead?
    Mr. Moore: I am conscious of my hon. Friend's extensive knowledge of the subject of combined heat and power, and I am aware of the comments that have been made about past pricing policy in this regard. I am sure that all my hon. Friends will recognise the ways in which competition as a result of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill will enhance supply opportunities.
    Mr. Douglas: How can the Minister justify certain tentative proposals to export gas when some consumers in the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland, cannot be supplied?
    Mr. Moore: Questions relating to Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I am aware of the point and shall bring it to my right hon. Friend's attention.
    Mr. Dover: Is my hon. Friend aware that constituents in Chorley and in North-West England generally will find his answer most unsatisfactory? On the other point, will he confirm that potential consumers can now look to subcontractors to make a link with existing gas mains?
    Mr. Moore: I am aware of my hon. Friend's persistent activities on behalf of his constituents in this respect. I suggest that it might be proper to await the completion of proceedings on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, but certainly that Bill seeks to offer competitive alternative supply choices to consumers in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Rowlands: Does the Minister agree that as the buying rights of British Gas are an important part of conservation and depletion policy for North Sea gas, if those rights are destroyed depletion policy will also be destroyed? Does he agree that if the Bill is passed without safeguards British Gas may find itself with insufficient supplies of gas even to supply its own 15 million customers?
    Mr. Moore: The Government are responsible for depletion policies for oil and gas, and our powers in that area are unchanged. It is hard to conceive that competition, as in all other area, will not increase rather than diminish opportunities for supply.

    Domestic Heating (Rebate Scheme)
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will initiate a feasibility study for the purpose of introducing an income-related rebate scheme for domestic heating.
    Mr. Mellor: The Government are already spending some £250 million this year in assisting those in most need.
    Mr. Atkinson: I acknowledge that the Government are spending that amount this year, but does the Minister agree that that excludes many low-income families who receive rebates because they cannot afford to pay economic rents or rates for the houses in which they live? Is it not logical for the Government now to consider extending those rebate schemes to include energy, which is quite as important as rents or rates in terms of essential payments?
    Mr. Mellor: That is essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Nevertheless, the Government are currently helping 2·25 million people who are in receipt of supplementary
    590
    benefit. Of course, there may be others who consider themselves to be in need, but it has proved remarkably difficult to find ways in which to assist them and the funds with which to do so. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Labour Government's scheme gave people in receipt of rebates only a one-off payment averaging £7·50, which was scarcely more than a sop and illustrates the difficulties experienced by successive Governments in widening the assistance available.
    Mr. John H. Osborn: In his talks with the Secretary of State for Social Services will my hon. Friend bear in mind that people who in their working days used to obtain their wages on Friday and be spent up by Monday are now finding it very difficult to pay their fuel bills? Could some form of assistance be given to provide meters for both electricity and gas in such cases?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. The Policy Studies Institute review currently being considered by the industries advocated an extension in the use of prepayment meters. I am happy to say that the number of such meters installed by both supply industries has materially increased in the past 12 months.

    Alternative Energy Sources
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tony Speller.
    Mr. Speller: Question No. 11, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is question No. 10.
    Mr. Spellerasked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he expects to make on research into and development of alternative energy sources.
    Mr. Mellor: The answer is the same, Mr. Speaker, whatever the number. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps I have said more than I intended. I shall stick to my brief in future.
    The purpose of the Government's renewable energy source research and development programme is to establish the scale of each source and to develop the various technologies sufficiently to establish to what extent they could be exploited economically under United Kingdom conditions.
    Progress has been good and I expect this to continue.
    Mr. Speller: I apologise for my lack of numeracy and my misreading, Mr. Speaker. Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Government genuinely believe in and support alternative forms of energy such as wind, wave and geothermal heat, which I believe can be advanced for the benefit of our community. Has he any information about progress in that direction?
    Mr. Mellor: The Government have a wide-ranging programme of research and development into a number of renewable sources—solar, wind, biomass, small scale hydro, tidal wave and geothermal projects. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the amount of money being spent this year—more than £13 million—is materially greater than in previous years.
    Mr. Eadie: Will the Minister be a little more specific in order to help his hon. Friend and the House? What specific requests has he received for more funding of alternative energy sources?
    Mr. Mellor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of requests are received and evaluated by the Department,

    591
    with assistance from our energy technology support unit at Harwell, and with advice from our advisory committee on research and development, which will report next month on the present state of the "renewables" programme. I should tell him, however, that the Government are able to meet more of the demands placed on the renewables programme because, compared with the £2·8 million spent on research and development in the hon. Gentleman's last year at the Department, we are spending some £13·1 million this year, which is an increase materially greater than the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Forman: May I urge my hon. Friend not to overlook the fact that the cheapest, safest and most readily available alternative energy source is energy conservation? What response does his Department propose to make to the recent good report of the advisory council on energy conservation, which said that with a few more incentives much more could be achieved on that front?
    Mr. Mellor: We take seriously the advisory council's views. The House knows that the council is being reconstituted to bring in some new blood to continue its good work. We are studying the report, which made some useful suggestions as well as a number of supportive observations about the Government's policies, particularly on the importance of economic pricing in relation to energy conservation.
    Mr. Park: Having examined the wave energy project at the Lanchester polytechnic in Coventry, can the Minister say whether his Department is prepared to support a larger project to take the scheme a step forward?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to Lanchester and was much impressed by what I was shown and by the obvious signs of a highly effective partnership between the polytechnic and private industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I told those at Lanchester, the whole wave programme, which has been going on for six years and has cost about £12 million in public money, is being looked at by the advisory council on research and development. It would be premature for me to say more until I receive its report. However, I was impressed by what I saw and I shall consider the ACORD report with considerable sympathy towards what is being done on wave energy.

    Energy Prices
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current price per therm to industrial users of oil, gas, electricity and coal; and how these will be affected by increases already announced.
    Mr. Lawson: Prices based on my Department's survey of 900 large industrial consumers are published quarterly in "Energy Trends". I have asked for the latest available figures to be published in the Official Report.
    Looking ahead, current coal prices will run until November. I hope that we can look forward to some stability in gas prices and I would expect electricity prices to rise broadly in line with inflation. Falling crude oil prices and weak demand mean that there is scope for buyers to seek lower oil product prices through aggressive purchasing.
    Mr. Miller: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I note was different from the answer to question No. 10, may I ask him to tell the House—as he referred in an earlier reply to market prices—what part of the elements that make up the price is represented by the external financing limit set by the Government, including the contributions required of electricity and gas, and what part is represented by the management and cost structure, and how those are being looked at with a view to reduction?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend knows that gas is, if anything, below what would be the free market price. That is clearly the case, because the demand for gas for industry exceeds the available supply. The electricity industry follows a policy of long-run, marginal-cost pricing. That brings us to the important question that my hon. Friend rightly raised concerning the structure of the industries' costs. It is a major objective of the Government to do everything that they can to bear down on the costs of nationalised industries in general and the monopoly industries in particular. My hon. Friend knows of the recently announced list of Monopolies and Mergers Commission references, which is addressed to precisely that objective.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in relation to electricity the position is extremely serious in certain industries? Will he reflect on the fact that at previous Question Times he has compared our position with that of France and has suggested that the French gain enormous benefit from cheaper nuclear electricity? Will he accept that those previous answers have igored the fact that the £1·4 billion write-off of capital expenditure to assist French nuclear generation is yet another example of how other Governments do not leave their industries with one hand tied behind their backs?
    Mr. Lawson: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman trying to bury his head in the sand. The French industry has a substantial advantage as a result of the large proportion of relatively cheap nuclear power that is available in France. Had we made the same sort of progress under the Labour Government we would have a different structure of electricity prices today.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend tell me, with his usual candour, whether domestic consumers of oil will share the benefits that industry will gain from lower oil prices?
    Mr. Lawson: This is a free market, but my hon. Friend knows that there are already considerable signs at the petrol pumps of falling prices, from which the domestic consumer is able to draw full benefit.
    Mr. Eadie: When the right hon. Gentleman replies to letters and communications does he, as I hope, make it clear that Government policy is responsible for the substantial increase in energy and gas prices?
    Mr. Lawson: The Government have had the courage to stop the policy of the previous Government of holding gas prices to the domestic consumer artificially low, as a result of which industry had to pay substantially more. By getting a better balance between the price of gas to the home and the price to industry we have addressed ourselves to what is undoubtedly the major problem in energy pricing.
    Following are the figures:

    Prices Based on Survey of 900 Large Industrial Consumers Provisional fourth quarter, 1981

    £—tonne

    p/kwh

    p/therm*

    Heavy Fuel Oil

    115·51

    —

    28·5

    Gas Oil

    189·51

    —

    44·0

    Gas

    —

    —

    22·57

    Electricity

    —

    2·889

    84·7

    Coal

    41·93

    —

    16·3

    Source: Department of Energy.

    * Prices are not directly comparable as the costs to the consumer depend on the efficiency with which the fuel is used.

    Amersham International Ltd.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the advice of Messrs Rothschild's, merchant bankers, in relation to the fixing of share prices in relation to the privatisation of Amersham International.
    Mr. Lawson: I am satisfied that Rothschild's gave the Government their best advice.
    Mr. Dalyell: Since, before the event, the Investors Chronicle solemnly told its readers to expect a premium of 30p over the existing share price of 142p, why was neither the Secretary of State nor Rothschild's as wise?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is characteristically wrong. The Investors Chronicle said at the time the issue was announced, the price was announced and the prospectus came out—
    Mr. Dalyell: 26 February.
    Mr. Lawson: I am talking about the 14 or 15 February.
    Mr. Dalyell: 26 February.
    Mr. Lawson: That has nothing to do with it. The Investors Chronicle said that the issue was ambitiously priced.
    Mr. Dalyell: 26 February.
    Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend tell the commentators who, with the benefit of hindsight, have become instant experts, that if the issue had been carried out by way of tender or even at a higher price, bearing in mind the amount of interest that was retained in the issue, the net amount received by the Government may have been less and that the issue at least had the benefit of being spread very well among smaller investors?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a highly successful act of denationalisation. The taxpayer got a very fair price—19 times prospective price earnings, compared with 10½ times price earnings for the average share in the FT index and considerably less than 19 even for companies such as GEC and Marks and Spencer. The reason why the Opposition do not like it is that it was a successful piece of denationalisation.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Secretary of State consider that his decision on the method of sale—and it was his decision—was the right one for the community?
    Mr. Lawson: I accepted the advice given by my advisers and I take full responsibility for that. I am satisfied that there was a very successful result. I have never known so much nonsense written or spoken about anything as there has been about the flotation. The idea
    594
    that the price at which shares are being traded was the price that could have been secured for the offer as a whole at the first instance is a view shared by no one who knows anything about the stock market.

    Gas Prices
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many letters or other communications have been received by his Department in regard to the incereases in gas prices that are to be made during 1982.
    Mr. John Moore: In recent weeks my Department has received about 300 letters and other communications about the increases in domestic gas prices announced by BGC on 25 February.
    Mr. Hardy: As Ministers seem unaware of the position, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the replies to those representations will make it clear that price increases result from Government decisions rather than any decisions of British Gas?
    Mr. Moore: The replies sent by the Government will make it clear that the Government have had the courage to face the appalling mess that they inherited in the imbalance and lack of relationship to the real cost of supply that still gives rise—as the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) has noted—to a tremendous and potentially more useful relatively cheap source of supply to many people.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Will my hon. Friend also make it clear in his replies that the price has been kept so artificially low that demand had outstripped supplies of gas and that many industries have been unable to obtain supplies? Is he aware that the balance had for too long been tipped against industry and in favour of the domestic consumer?
    Mr. Moore: I could not agree more with what my hon. Friend says. The 15-month effective industrial gas price freeze to 1 March was the beginning of an attempt to ensure long-term job opportunities through recognising the needs of industry as well as the price of domestic gas.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: If the policy is so self-evident, why was the first action of the Government to freeze gas prices?
    Mr. Moore: It is increasingly extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman's only argument seems to be that previous policies of the Government were so wrong that we should have acted even more quickly to correct them.

    Gas Tanker (Solent)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will decline to deal with the Mobil Oil Company, pending the outcome of its negotiations to locate a liquid petroleum gas tanker in the Solent.
    Mr. Gray: No. In any case, Mobil is not negotiating to locate a tanker in the Solent.
    Mr. Adley: Now that Mobil has backed off in the face of unanimous hostile opposition to this proposal, will my hon. Friend give the assurance that his Department, in its dealings with oil companies, takes note of their social activities? Will he say that he considers this proposal thoroughly anti-social?
    Will my hon. Friend give a personal assurance that he will have talks with the Secretary of State for Transport,

    595
    who has been given responsibility for co-ordinating Government activity, to make sure that environmentally monstrous proposals such as this cannot proceed? Will he agree that the only course is to legislate quickly to enable authorities and others to have powers to deal with the situation?
    Mr. Gray: I can give my hon. Friend both assurances. It is the policy of the Department of Energy to scrutinise carefully any proposals put to it by oil companies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already set up a working party of officials to review urgently the existing arrangements and to recommend any changes that are felt necessary. Possible controls exist in legislation falling to the Health and Safety Executive and the Departments of Trade and Transport. I shall ensure that the views of the Department of Energy are always made available to my right hon. Friends.
    Mr. Viggers: Will my hon. Friend agree that while there may be powers to cover proposals such as the gas tanker, there is a need for legislation to ensure that the broader environmental input is considered?
    Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will, I think, agree that we would be wise to await the findings of the group set up by the Secretary of State for Transport.

    North Sea and English Channel (Oil Exploration)
    Mr. Eggarasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the date of the eighth round of licensing blocks for exploration in the North Sea and English Channel.
    Mr. Gray: No decisions have yet been taken on the timing for an eighth round of offshore licensing.
    Mr. Eggar: When my hon. Friend is making his decision, will he consider whether it would be appropriate for at least some of the blocks to be allocated by auction to the highest bidding group?
    Mr. Gray: As is normally the case, before each round of licensing all possibilities will be examined. I assure my hon. Friend that this will continue to be the case.
    Mr. Rowlands: When the hon. Gentleman makes his allocations for the eighth round, will he give an assurance that they will not be used as a large handout to the new creation, Britoil, and thereby enhance the price and value of this new company? Does he agree that this would be an abuse of the licensing powers of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Gray: Britoil will be in exactly the same position as any other oil company. It will have the same opportunities to apply.
    Mr. Adley: Aligning this matter to the previous question, will my hon. Friend ensure that the oil companies are made aware of their obligations to the fishing community before starting any exploration in the English Channel?
    Mr. Gray: Yes. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, in successive rounds of licences, progress has been made with the fishing industry. There has been considerable discussion at every level.

    British Gas Corporation (Monopoly Powers)
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to discuss the abolition of the corporation's monopoly buying powers.
    Mr. Lawson: I am in constant discussion with the chairman on this matter.
    Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend explain the justification of the British Gas argument against Government legislation that the breaking of the monopoly on the purchasing of gas, thus providing more competition, will increase prices? Does not the logic of this argument cast doubts on the whole credibility of British Gas?
    Mr. Lawson: I must confess that I have never been able to understand the logic of the British Gas Corporation's position on this matter. It seems clear that the introduction of competition will mean greater choke for industry and, in fact, choice where none exists at present, and that prices will tend to be lower rather than higher, as would have been the case.

    Energy Reserves
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest estimated reserves of coal, natural gas and oil in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John Moore: The NCB estimates that 45 billion tonnes will be ultimately recoverable. The latest estimates published in the 1981 Brown Book, less production to 31 December 1981 for remaining gas and oil reserves, are 1·8 billion to 4·0 billion tonnes for oil and 700 billion to 2,100 billion cubic metres for gas.
    Mr. Evans: As our energy reserves are one of our greatest assets that give us advantages over our Western industrial competitors will the Government think c f withdrawing the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, which will be guillotined later today, and which seeks to dispose of our national assets in the oil and gas industries? Is it not better that we should husband these resources for the advantage of the people rather than for private speculation?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. It is not the assets themselves, but the wise, efficient and competitive use of the assets that produces wealth for the nation. That is what the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill will do, by ensuring more competitive use of those rare assets.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that much of our great reserves of coal should be used as soon as possible to the benefit of the country? Does he agree that he should get in touch with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see that no further local authority houses are built without chimneys to burn coal? Could he also ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to form his opinion more quickly arid to advertise his allowances and loans to industry to change over to solid fuel?
    Mr. Moore: I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman in forwarding his legitimate coal interest. However, coal can best serve the domestic and the industrial user if it can be supplied at competitive prices with security of supply. These are the two key things that coal needs to get itself back into these markets.

    Boiler Conversion Scheme
    Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the operation of the boiler conversion scheme.
    Mr. John Moore: The scheme has resulted in a great deal of interest in coal conversion, although the rate of take-up of grants has been slower than expected. The scheme is currently under review and an announcement will be made shortly.
    Mr. Hannam: Does the Minister accept that most people consider this an extremely worthwhile scheme and are rather disappointed that it has not gone as well as was hoped? Will the Minister consider extending the scheme to include boilers using fuels other than oil?
    Mr. Moore: I drew my hon. Friend's attention to the announcement that will be made shortly, but I am sure that he and other hon. Members interested in the scheme will remember what has already been reported in today's Financial Times about the massive and welcome increase of coal boilers planned by ICI.
    Mr. Rowlands: It is regrettable that this scheme has been a gigantic flop in the past 12 months. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, out of the recommendations or changes that will be proposed, will be able to help it along. Will the scheme be further hindered by the possible use of natural gas for steam raising, as could well happen under the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, since this could affect the conversion to coal by many industrialists?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman spends so much time revelling in misery that he ignores the realities around him and the welcome news by ICI today for all interested in coal, as opposed to the politics of trying to make coal look unsuccessful.
    Mr. Watson: If the take-up of grant under the scheme has been lower than expected, can my hon. Friend tell the House exactly what he did expect and what the take-up has been?
    Mr. Moore: I did not say lower. I think I suggested that the commencement of the scheme was slower than those of us seeking rapid conversion expected. I also said that a further announcement would be made in the near future. In a recent debate I said that the figure was £71 million and that the initial applications numbered 61.

    Gas Prices
    Mr. Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for Energy what disussions he has had with the chairman of British Gas concerning increases in the price of domestic gas in 1982.
    Mr. Lawson: I have had no discussions with the chairman of the British Gas Corporation about the increases in the price of domestic gas announced by the corporation on 25 February. These increases are consistent with the three-year financial target agreed by my predecessor with British Gas in January 1980. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this matter was debated in the House last week and approved by a large majority.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is most regrettable that he did not have conversations with the chairman of British Gas about the 22 per cent.
    598
    increase that has been imposed on gas consumers this year? Had he done so he would have discovered that the chairman very much resents the fact that the Gas Corporation is being made a scapegoat for the Government's disgraceful policy of putting a 10 per cent. tax on gas.
    Mr. Lawson: There is no question of a 10 per cent. tax. What is more, had it not been for Government policy on domestic gas prices—a policy with which the Gas Corporation was in a large measure of agreement—it would not have been possible to hold prices for industrial consumers of gas.
    Mr. Waller: Will not the Government's policy ensure that gas is used more efficiently in the future and that we are less likely to see the British Gas Corporation obliged to supply gas to domestic consumers at a relatively low price when it is unable to provide gas, even at a higher price, to those industrial consumers who need it?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right, and that is the position that the Government inherited and the position that we have changed substantially by the measures we have taken—unpopular though they are. There are other measures that we are looking into now. We have, for example, asked the British Gas Corporation to review its policy on combined heat and power.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Low Cholesterol Meals
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for the Refreshment Sub-Committee of the Services Committee to consider the question of encouraging the provisions of low cholesterol meals in the House.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Chairman.
    I can give the hon. Lady an undertaking that we shall look into the question.
    Mrs. Short: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply. Will he agree that while many people are aware of the dangers of the consumption of large quantities of butter, they are not so much aware of the problems associated with full fat milk? Will he suggest to the Refreshment Sub-Committee that it may care to invite the advice of the coronary unit at University College hospital, which has undertaken a good deal of work on the matter?
    Mr. Dean: I can give an undertaking that we shall examine the widest aspects of the problem. I must, however, say that the outcome may have to be decided by the economics of the situation.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman raise with the Refreshment Sub-Committee the subject of early-day motion 311, which, apart from serving the incontrovertible purpose of congratulating the Sub-Committee on the cold buffet in the Members' Dining Room, allies with this the somewhat revolutionary concept that hon. Members' spouses should be admitted to the Members' Dining Room for lunch? Should the Refreshment Sub-Committee consider so radical a change to our existing arrangements, does the hon. Gentleman think it proper that the persons so invited should simply help themselves at the buffet and

    599
    then proceed quietly and quickly into the corridor to consume their food rather than disturb our traditional and congenial arrangements?
    Mr. Dean: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's question forms part of the original question. I would, however, view with disdain taking any action on the early-day motion. The next thing that would happen is that hon. Members' wives would wish to bring in children, and I can see no end of trouble arising.

    Big Ben Clock Tower
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Lord President of the Council if he will raise in the Services Committee the matter of the cleaning of the clock tower that houses Big Ben.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): Work on the clock tower is part of the programme of restoration of the stonework of the Palace of Westminster, which is being funded by the Department of the Environment. It is not possible to say when that particular part of the programme will be undertaken.
    Mr. Janner: What part of the programme will deal with that area of the Palace of Westminster that is most visible? Is it correct that work is now to move to an area that is almost invisible? When will this resounding symbol of democracy be encased in clean and safe surroundings?
    Mr. Pym: It will obviously take some time to complete the whole work. I informed the House on 8 February that the next phase of the programme in 1982–83 will consist of work on the western elevation of the Palace. In due course, we shall come to the clock tower.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: When the great symbol of democracy comes up for cleaning, will my right hon. Friend remind his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that modern technology does not require the whole of Big Ben to be surrounded by scaffolding for that purpose?
    Mr. Pym: We shall be glad to take technical advice from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that work on the symbol of democracy—the Big Ben tower—should be brought forward and that it should betackled next before anything else is done?
    Mr. Pym: I thought that this Chamber rather than Big Ben was the symbol of democracy, but I shall convey those views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know that he has considered the programme carefully and I doubt whether he will wish or think it appropriate to alter what he has decided after consideration.

    Universal Suffrage (Statues)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Lord President of the Council if he will ask the Services Committee to consider the matter of placing within the precincts of the House statues commemorating champions of universal suffrage in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Pym: The erection of commemorative statues within the precincts of the House is not normally a matter for the Services Committee.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more appropriate than the question whether there should be a statue of Stanley Baldwin in the Member's Lobby 3 the question of honouring in this building those such as the Chartists and the suffragette leaders who fought to establish universal suffrage in Britain?
    Mr. Pym: That is a matter of opinion and the hon. Gentleman must seek wider support in the House if he wishes ultimate success for that design.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Having regard to the Conservative Party resolution of 1887 on this matter, Mrs. Pankhurst's Tory connections and the work of the Conservative and Unionist Women's Franchise Association, should we not have bipartisan agreement on a suitable commemoration, although not necessarily this one?
    Mr. Pym: That is a matter that could be pursued. It seems to me that there are many candidates but few pedestals.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: As one of the consequences o universal suffrage, however regrettable, has been the appearance in strength of the Labour Party, would it not be appropriate to honour the two Prime Ministers who did most to enable the Labour Party to enter this Chamber, Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald?
    Mr. Pym: They, too, are candidates and there is a certain amount of support for a statue of one of those late Prime Ministers. We shall, in due course, have to see whether the House will, at some stage, wish to erect it statue of Baldwin and, conceivably, MacDonald, although I doubt whether it will be in the immediate future.

    Television Crews (Access)
    Mr. Crowtherasked the Lord President of the Council if he will ask the Services Committee to consider the matter of access to the precincts of the House of television crews wishing to conduct interviews with hon. Members, in view of the obstruction and security risks which the present arrangements may cause.
    Mr. Pym: I shall ask the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to look into the matter that the hon. Member has raised.
    Mr. Crowther: Can the Lord President confirm the information that I was given by an inspector of the House of Commons police, following an incident in which the T3 Corridor had been completely blocked for a long time by a television crew and their equipment, that all they needed to get into the House was a letter signed by a Member? Is it not obvious that the ease with which a signature could be forged presents the risk of imposters coming in through the security check concealing something much more lethal than television equipment?
    Mr. Pym: That aspect can also be examined by the authorities of the House concerned with security. I am sorry about the inconvenience to which the hon. Gentleman was put. There are rules about what it is possible to do in the House without further permission, and I shall have the matter investigated.

    Research Assistants
    Mr. Murphyasked the Lord President of the Council if he is satisfied with the arrangements within the precincts of the House relating to research assistants.
    Mr. Pym: As I explained to the House on Thursday, I have arranged for inquiries to be made into all aspects of the matter.
    Mr. Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend consider in that inquiry examining the desirability of foreign students acting as research assistants to obtain credits in overseas degree courses, in effect at the taxpayers' expense?
    Mr. Pym: Yes, I shall go into this matter carefully in the inquiry, which will take a few weeks. I do not have the facts and particulars at the moment but I shall consider them when I have all the information that I need.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is it not scandalous, with 3 million unemployed, that hon. Members should be using the free
    602
    services of foreign nationals as research assistants? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it rings a bit hollow for some hon. Members to criticise the Government's youth opportunities scheme—which at least pays those young people some money—while they are using the services of these foreign nationals free?
    Mr. Pym: That is one opinion, and I have no doubt that there are many others, but I think that it would be better to establish the facts first.
    Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever may be the value of these young people they should not be described as research assistants, as I am not aware that any of them make any contribution to known knowledge.
    Mr. Pym: A number of allegations of that kind have been made and have led me to take an interest in this matter. As a result, inquiries will be made.

Poly-cholorinated Biphenyl
3.30 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the grave health threat posed to thousands of people in the country by poly-cholorinated biphenyl, a poisonous, cancer-causing chemical, the use of which is widespread throughout the country and which now, it seems, is leaking from several large installations around the countryside."
I am buttressed in my argument for this Adjournment debate by my reading of this morning's Yorkshire Post, whose environment correspondent, Mr. Robert Schofield, brings further fresh disturbing evidence of the dangers of this chemical and hazards that most British people are unaware of.
The chemical is known to cause cancer, in addition to a range of other detrimental health effects, including chronic bronchitis, liver and central nervous system disorders and the retardation of children's growth.
The manufacture of PCB ceased voluntarily in this country in 1977, but by that time thousands of tons had already been manufactured in the United Kingdom. The chemical can be destroyed only by burning at high temperatures—at 1,000°C—and all that has not been disposed of in this way remains a permanent health hazard. In an accident recently in Japan, 1,000 people suffered the severe health effects that I have described, and the average amount of PCB that they consumed was only 2 grams. PCB persists not only in the environment but in the human body. It cannot be excreted, and minute amounts build up until disastrous medical effects occur.
A debate is urgent, because evidence has now come to light that an estimated 20,000 electrical transformers filled with PCB are in service in the United Kingdom. Each contains up to 300 gallons of this noxious chemical. They have been placed in hospitals, colleges, schools, factories and offices, amongst other places. Evidence has now come to light that 90 per cent. of these transformers are leaking. The effects when leaks occur can be gauged by the fact that whole streets have to be torn up, because the sewerage system has to be renewed. All the earth and anything else that has come into contact 'with the chemical has to be burnt at the only place in Europe where it can be destroyed under certain conditions at very high temperatures. The evidence has only just come to light that 20,000 installations around the country are leaking.
604
I urge that we have the opportunity immediately to debate the matter so that we can bring to the attention of the public the dangers of this hazard. Apparently there is widespread ignorance about how to deal with this product. When the emergency services are called in, very often they sluice it down the nearest drain. In view of the threat to health and to the environment, it is vital that the House discusses this matter and the measures that are necessary to forestall an imminent disaster.
The matter is specific in that it relates to a particular chemical. It is important to the lives of perhaps thousands of Britons who are at risk. It is urgent in that PCB has already been discharged into the environment and is likely to threaten many thousands of lives.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
"the grave health threat posed to thousands of people in the country by poly-chlorinated biphenyl, a poisonous, cancer-causing chemical, the use of which is widespread throughout the country and which now, it seems, is leaking from several large installations around the countryside."
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a very important matter, but he knows that my powers are limited when it comes to altering the business tonight or tomorrow if I were to grant such an emergency debate.
The House has also instructed me to give no reasons for my decision. I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission doe s not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Poly-cholorinated Biphenyl

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, I shall put one Question on all five motions.
  Ordered,
  That the Valuation (Scotland) Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Export Guarantees (Extension of Period) (No. 4) Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Gummer.]

President Reagan (Address to Parliament)
3.37 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise the matter with you in your role as protector of the reputation of the House. There are a considerable number of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who would like to know whether you were consulted about the suggestion, which has been given publicity in the United States of America, that the President of the United States of America has been invited to address a joint meeting of the Members of both Houses of Parliament.
There are a considerable number of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who feel that whereas there are a number of distinguished American past Presidents and existing Heads of other States who might reasonably receive such an invitation, they do not believe that there are a substantial number of the British people who would welcome such an invitation being extended to the present President of the United States of America—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can save the hon. Gentleman time, because I know that the Opposition are very anxious to have their full time for the debate that is to follow.
I have been here long enough not to believe all that I read in the newspapers. That is the only reply that I can give the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could assist us, simply as a matter of information.
Some of us would be surprised if the Head of a foreign State or anyone else could be invited, apparently by Parliament—that is by the House of Commons and the House of Lords—without the two Houses actually taking a decision to do so.
I understand—and this may have been the position in the past—that it is in fact the Government who extend an invitation to Mr. X to appear in the Princes' Chamber or Westminster Hall and that then, in effect, they invite us
606
to the party, too. That is one situation, which the Government have it entirely in their own hands to arrange, I suppose. But if the invitation is from the House of Commons and the House of Lords, I hope that that needs the approval of the two Houses.
When such occasions have occurred in the past, can you, Mr. Speaker, say whether, technically, they have been invitations from the two Houses, or have they been invitations from the Government to which they have also invited hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter. There has not been such a visit during my six years in the Chair—at any rate, not that I recall offhand. I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not reasonable to assume that if such an invitation is to be extended, it will be extended by you as Speaker of our House and by the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the House of Lords? Will you ascertain whether that is the position?
Mr. Speaker: I have just undertaken to look into the matter. If the rights of the House are concerned, I am concerned.
Like everyone else, I read the morning papers, and always on a Monday morning there is a little more news than usual.
I have nothing to add. I cannot help the House.
Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you write to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), may I please have a copy of the letter?
Mr. Speaker: I see no difficulty in that. If it will help the House I shall make a simple statement, if there is any interest in that, but I cannot say when it will be. I take time to consider these matters.

President Reagan (Address to Parliament)

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the matter of Ports in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.40 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
Committee
1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before the 23rd March 1982.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 23rd March may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 24th March 1982.
Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3.— (1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceeidings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and New Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on first allotted days
7.— (1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands
608
over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (hut 110 others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

609

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

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

Re-committal
12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
Timetable motions are never welcome to the House, but, unfortunately, they are sometimes necessary. I admit that it is with some regret, and only after the most careful consideration, that the Government feel obliged to table this motion, although I am sure that it comes as no surprise to Labour Members, particularly those who are members of Standing Committee E.
Naturally we had hoped to secure the passage of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill without such a motion, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State made our attitude clear during the Second Reading debate when he said:
"Provided that we make reasonable progress, the last thing that the Government want is a guillotine"—[Official Report, 19 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 240.]
Hon. Members will interpret "reasonable progress" differently, but, in the Government's view, progress has been slow—to the extent that if we did not take action the passage of the Bill through both Houses could be put in jeopardy.
Throughout the proceedings of the Bill so far the Opposition have made their objections to it very clear and they have used every legitimate means, as is their right, to seek to frustrate its passage. We were never in doubt about the degree of opposition that the Bill would receive from the Labour Party.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Is it not strange, in the light of the vehement opposition of which my right hon. Friend is speaking, that only one Opposition Back Bencher is present?
Mr. Pym: That may be so.
The debate in Committee on the sittings motion lasted nearly three hours. That was perhaps an indicative beginning. Clause 1 occupied eight sittings and over 25 hours of debate, during which time only eight groups of amendments were considered. Clause 2 occupied three sittings and 14 hours of debate, which were spent on six
610
groups of amendments. The Committee then moved to four sittings a week from 16 February, but even that did not have a commensurate impact on the pace of progress.
I shall not go through the full details of the time that was spent on clauses. One debate on one amendment, which the Committee must have found enjoyable, took nearly six hours, and the discussion ranged from Tudor history, through the rival merits of hill and valley sheep, to the film career of President Reagan. No doubt it was very enjoyable stuff, but it did not enable the Committee to make much progress.
Mr. Edward Rowlands: That was not out of order.
Mr. Pym: Of course it was not out of order. I never suggested that it was. I said that it was very enjoyable, but that it was not very helpful to progress.
By the end of last Thurday's sitting—the seventeenth sitting—after nearly 70 hours of debate, the Committee had dealt with only 11 clauses. Twenty-five clauses and four schedules remain to be considered. It was against that background that the Government reluctantly concluded that a guillotine was needed.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The Leader of the House has forgotten to tell us one thing in this chapter of the story. One fundamental piece of information is missing. I am referring to the absence of the articles of association, without which it was not possible to make progress on the first eight clauses.
Mr. Pym: I shall come to that matter during my remarks. The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue.
The Bill raises many issues that are important to the gas and oil industries, including those affecting the safety of North Sea operations. We are anxious that all the Bill's provisions are adequately discussed, but at the present rate of progress the Bill could still be in Committee as we approach the Summer Recess. Clearly that is not acceptable. It is, of course, the right and responsibility of the Opposition to oppose measures in which they do not believe, but it is also right and proper for the Government to promote their legislative programme and to see their measures on to the statute book within a reasonable time.
The purpose of this motion is to ensure that the passage of the Bill can be expedited with all the remaining issues sensibly debated. The motion provides for 10 further sittings which, if approved by the House, means that the Committee will have had over 110 hours in which to debate the Bill. We believe that to be a reasonable allocation of time. The motion instructs the Standing Committee to report the Bill to the House by 23 March and provides that if the Committee is sitting on that day, after the House has adjourned, it should report the Bill on 24 March.
Under paragraph 3 of the motion it will be for the Business Sub-Committee to determine the number of sittings between now and the time fixed for Report. The Government hope that the present four sittings a week will be retained until that time, when the motion will lead us to complete the Committee stage after the afternoon sitting. As I say, it is for the Business Sub-Committee to decide. The motion will enable another 10 sittings to take place before Report to deal with the remaining clauses and schedules. As is usual on these occasions, it is left to the

611
Business Sub-Committee to determine the compartments into which the Bill should be divided and the times at which debate should close.
Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading have been allocated a day and a half, with consideration on the first day coming to a conclusion at midnight. The Business Sub-Comittee will be able to decide how the time on Report is to be apportioned. I am sure that in deciding the allocation of time it will take account of the desire of hon. Members on both sides to have enough time to deal with the safety provisions in part IV.
Throughout the proceedings of the Committee, Ministers have done everything that they can to be as helpful as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made available a commentary on clauses. He has arranged for briefing on many aspects to be provided to the Committee by BNOC and the BGC. It is proposed to circulate notes on safety matters to hon. Members on both sides.
I know the importance of the matter that was raised by the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) about the articles of association. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told the Committee that he plans to make the articles available in draft, together with the memorandum of association, by the end of this week. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate the trouble that my right hon. Friend has taken to bring this material forward, given the complex technical work that is involved. There are precedents for the timing in this case and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, they are complex. The articles of association, in draft form, will be forthcoming shortly.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: The fact that the articles are now to be made available does not affect the argument that the debates would have been shortened if those articles had been available as from clause 1. The fact remains that we shall not have an opportunity, except for a short period on Report, to debate the implications of the articles of association.
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to hold that view, but, to say the least, it is challengeable to say that time would have been saved. We do not accept that the work of the Committee has been held up because the articles were not available before. My right hon. Friend made clear the Government's policy on safeguards against changes in control in his speech on Second Reading.
More generally, Ministers have dealt fully with the many questions and points raised in Committee. I note, in particular, from the Official Report that on one occasion the Minister of State answered each of 16 questions asked by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). In this and in other respects they have done their best to assist hon. Members in their understanding of the various provisions and to answer their questions in that connection. They have also made every effort to accommodate the wishes of Opposition Members in the proceedings of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister of State offered to take part IV out of sequence in order to meet the wishes of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). Ultimately, the right hon. Gentleman decided not to take up that offer, and that is fair enough. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State withdrew a Government proposal to take schedule 1 after
612
clause 10—to which it relates—when Opposition Members made it clear that they were not yet ready to consider that schedule.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State arranged for the Committee to delay its sitting on 2 March until 7.30 pm, so that hon. Members could take part in a debate on gas prices. Therefore, the Government team did their best and went to every length to help the Committee's smooth running. However, at the end of the day there must be a limit to the length of time spent debating a Bill and, in the case of this Bill, that limit should now be set by means of the motion.
As I have said, however regrettable it may be, timetable motions are sometimes necessary. It may be fair to refer to a similar motion that was moved in 1975 and which referred to a similar Bill, the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill. That motion was moved after 60 hours in Committee. The right hon. Member for Lanark, North (Mr. Smith) then made various remarks about timetable motions and their occasional necessity. I cannot improve on those remarks.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am not insinuating that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that my 16 questions were irrelevant, but will he confirm that they were all relevant and legitimate?
Mr. Pym: I understand that they were relevant, legitimate and serious. Indeed, they received the serious answer that was called for. I have merely given ore example of the way in which Ministers tried to help all Committee Members.
Mr. W. E. Garrett: Although it may be fair for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the number of questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), should he not have struck a balance and referred to the number of questions asked by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet)?
Mr. Pym: Many questions were asked, but a "bank" of 16 was unusual and, therefore, worthy of comment.
The right hon. Member for Lanark, North said in 1975:
"It would not be possible for any party that has held office in this country to object to timetable motions in principle, because it would have behind it a record of its own activities when in office. That applies to my own party as well as to the Conservative Party. There is a growing conviction that to make too much fuss about a timetable is indulging in a certain amount of hypocrisy."—[Official Report, 7 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 162.]
I am bound to say that that is a very fair assessment. Although the motion is to be regretted, I have explained why, after the most careful consideration, the Government came to the conclusion that it was necessary to move it now, so that the Bill can reach the statute book in time and so that the remaining 25 clauses can be properly and fully debated. That is why I have moved the motion, and I ask the House to approve it.
3.53 pm
Mr. John Silkin: In spring, the Lord President of the Council's fancy lightly turns to timetable motions. He has been remarkably consistent. Spring always comes rather early for him—on the second Monday in March. Last year, on the second Monday in March, he introduced a guillotine motion and he has done so again this year.
However, the two Bills involved are extraordinarily different. Last year's measure was the Transport Bill. The right hon. Gentleman told us that hon. Members should

613
not cite precedents from other timetable motions because every timetable motion referred to a different Bill and was, therefore, a separate issue. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has cited precedents today, I am entitled to refer to that Transport Bill. The Leader of the House referred to that important Bill and said that a timetable motion was needed because only one-fourteenth of the Bill had been studied. I think that five groups of amendments out of 70 have been debated. He said that, as only one-fourteenth of the Bill had been debated so late in the Session, a guillotine motion was necessary. What is the position today? Let us forget momentarily the rights and wrongs of the Bill. The Committee has reached clause 12, or has debated one-third of the Bill. There are 36 clauses and schedules, but many of the clauses still to be debated are nominal.
However, there has been an interesting development. Ten clauses have been dealt with in three weeks. Therefore, I cannot imagine why the Leader of the House should say that the Bill will not be completed until the Summer Recess. There seems to be a fault in his arithmetic. Given the present pace, the Bill will have left this House by the Whitsun Recess. Of course, no one can say what will happen to the Bill in the other place. Therefore, I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's indignation. He has said that the Opposition have legitimate objections to the Bill. Of course, we have legitimate objections to any controversial Bill. However, timetable motions are applied to only a few Bills. Although we argue and fight about Bills, the Government generally get their legislation. Therefore, we seem to be dealing with a question of, as the right hon. Gentleman said, reasonable progress. For such a controversial and difficult Bill, we have not made unreasonable progress.
What are the right hon. Gentleman's arguments? He cited a rather interesting debate that seemed to go on for a long time and to touch on topics that some of us might wrongly have thought to be on the borderlines of order. The Committee Chairman did not think such debate out of order, and he is undoubtedly always right. The right hon. Gentleman said that that debate took six hours, but he is not a child and neither am I. We have both been Chief Whips and know that there is a little thing called a closure meeting. Why on earth were the Government so incompetent as not to employ it? That would have shortened the argument then and there. Given that the argument ranged over so many topics, I cannot imagine that the Chair would not have accepted a closure motion three or four hours earlier. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument about that debate is not very good.
The right hon. Gentleman referred—by implication—to the Government's competence, or lack of it. That did not altogether surprise us. The Bill received its Second Reading on 19 January 1982. It is one of the most important, controversial and complex Bills to be introduced this Session, yet it received its Second Reading late in the day. Of course, our debates would take time. However, the pace in Committee has not been particularly slow. [Interruption.] There must have been a bit of incompetence as well as courtesy. Most of the courtesy was extended—as the right hon. Gentleman accepted—to perfectly legitimate questions, such as those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The Government gave most of the answers courteously
614
and at some length. If anybody was taking the time, it sounds to me as though it was the Government Front Bench—
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The right hon. Gentleman was not there.
Mr. Silkin: Of course, I was not there. The Secretary of State, who was not there, must know that the Leader of the House was not there either. The Leader of the House and I can only judge by reading the Official Report of the proceedings of the various Committees and by talking to our colleagues. If the Secretary of State for Energy believes that every Leader of the House and every Shadow Leader of the House is present at every single Committee sitting, he knows very little about the workings of the House. Of course we were not there.
Mr. Peter Rost: The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not take part in the proceedings as I did, otherwise he would not try to mislead the House about the length of time taken by the Conservative Front Bench, or, indeed, by Conservative members of the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman had attended that Committee, he would have been thoroughly bored and frustrated by the tedious repetition and length of contributions from some Labour Members on that Committee—I am not referring to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) —and he would not have made such remarks to the House.
Mr. Silkin: I hold the view that interventions should be short to be effective. The longer they are, the less effective they are. I was not talking about Government Back Benchers. The poor devils are always in the difficulty that they must keep quiet because the Whips, want the Bill to go through. I know, because I have been a Chief Whip. The Government want their legislation, so the Conservative Back Benchers are bored and frustrated, particularly when all the good points are being made by Labour Members. What does one expect?
From what the Leader of the House said, it would appear that the detail with which the Government Front Bench dealt courteously with the Opposition's points inevitably took a great deal of time. That is all that I was saying; I was agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The point that my right hon. Friend makes about the Conservative Back Benchers is accurate, except in one respect. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was responsible for one of the longest speeches in Committee, on an amendment that occupied a considerable amount of the Committee's time.
Mr. Silkin: My natural courtesy prevented me from pointing that out.
The Government will get this timetable motion. Governments always do. We know that. However, what is its real effect? It is that we shall not have fully debated part II before the guillotine falls. The Committee has reached clause 12 and there are a further four or five important clauses to be dealt with.
The Leader of the House made an astonishing remark concerning the articles of association of Britoil. He said that they will be available at the end of the week. That is only two weeks after the whole of the first part, dealing with oil, has been dealt with and disposed of ruthlessly by

615
the Government. That is absolute nonsense. How can one possibly deal with that in Committee when the clauses in question have already gone past?
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: If the motion goes through—and I hope that it does not—we shall have had 27 sittings, during only six of which will the Committee have seen the articles of association.
Mr. Silkin: I did say that there was a considerable amount of incompetence on the Conservative Benches. There is no doubt that that is true. The right hon. Gentleman is merely reaffirming the case. The Leader of the House rather slurred over the question of safety with regard to offshore activities. I think that he felt a little difficulty in putting the point across. That matter was dealt with on Second Reading by the Secretary of State in four throw-away words. All those matters would be destroyed by a timetable motion. Proper discussion would disappear.
Why do the Government want to rush the Bill through? There is no shortage of legislative time. This is the Session of all Sessions when the Leader of the House has shown more competence and ability with regard to the allocation of time than I have ever seen. He knows that I believe that. I have always paid tribute to his ability to do it. He has managed for the first time to cut the amount of time spent on legislation, so that we can spend a little more time on other matters. Such legislative time as there is should be made available for the most important, the most party controversial legislation.
Can anyone imagine anything more controversial than the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill? Incidentally, it is amazing that the BNOC rip-off is being discussed at the very time when North Sea oil prices are falling and destroying the current value of the assets, which may well fall to 50 or 60 per cent. below face value. It is amazing at such a time to be told that we have to sell the assets quickly. This is the moment of all moments that has been chosen for the destruction of our assets.
I suppose the answer is that ideology, particularly on the Government Front Bench, will always come to the fore. Privatisation is the Government's particular ideology at the moment. I suggest that there is a better word than "privatisation". The new verb for what is being done ought to be "to Amersham"—to sell off publicly owned assets at bargain basement prices, regardless of the public interest. We know how strong the Government's ideology is in this respect. We have seen it with British Telecom, Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace, and Amersham International. We know that the biggest "Amersham" of all is the Secretary of State for Energy, so that we are not surprised that this measure should be before us today.
All the parties on the Opposition Benches oppose the timetable motion. It is not just the usual procedural opposition to a timetable motion; it is an opposition based upon substance. We believe that it is an evil Bill, a bad Bill and a wicked Bill from the point of view of the nation's prospects and chances. We also believe that there has been a deliberate attempt to prevent its being properly discussed and to prevent the people from understanding what is being done in their name. I call upon my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the timetable motion in the Lobby.
4.7 pm
Mr. Tony Speller: This is apparently a simple, straightforward procedural matter in the sense
616
that, whichever Government are in power, they make the same comments, and whichever party is in Opposition it makes the same comments. On the Front Benches there are right hon. and hon. Members who have done it before and who doubtless expect to do it again. On behalf of the Back Benchers, I express the hope that the system will Abe changed, so that it will not be done again as a matter of ritual.
In Committee we have spent 17 days signing letters, sealing envelopes, attempting to make quick telephone calls and to do some of our work as Members of Parliament, simply because we do not have a timetable motion at the beginning of the Committee stage. I hope that sooner or later some change will be made in that respect.
I am in favour of the motion today—we must have a timetable—but how sad it is to those of us who are relatively new in this place and who are still keen on seeking to assist the passage of legislation. We have enjoyed good fellowship in Committee. Some of our sittings were more like good Rotary meetings than anything else. We have been good friends on each side of the Committee, and extremely good humoured most of the time—there have been one or two excellent witticisms that we have been able to use afterwards in other places—but, alas, there has been virtually no progress, so that inevitably we have come to the need for a timetable motion, with the usual ritual speeches.
It is not easy for a relatively new Member of Parliament to speak in complete support of the Government and of the Bill while knowing that, apart from saying the ritual "Aye" and even an occasional "No", one is contributing nothing to the work of the House. I feel a deep sense of sorrow, almost of shame, that we have spent so much time and achieved so little.
I have enjoyed every moment of the Committee, and I now believe my children when they say that they can do their homework and watch television at the same time, because that is what most of us were doing, although without the television. Of course, it depended on the programme. When the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) spoke, we were riveted and all sounds of writing ceased. However, when one or two other hon. Members wished to speak, the rustling became quite remarkable.
I can see no alternative to this timetable motion. It was strange that the Opposition spokesman spent almost 12 minutes in Committee reading out the previous jobs of Government members of the Committee. As a shopkeeper, I was greatly honoured to be called, I believe, a company director. That is how we are normally referred to in court, should any of us ever reach court. Of course, most of us do not wish to reach court. My late father said that only a pauper can afford to plead not guilty and that one should avoid the courts as much as one can. That comment is, I hope, an example of the entertaining chit-chat that we have had across the Committee room. However, we must try to get the timetable motion through and, in the remaining time, try to discuss the Bill and make useful comments. I have heard many useful comments from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, but there is no doubt that the preponderance of time was spent taking up the time. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee felt that we could have done slightly better than that as the time passed.

617
When talking about a motion such as this, it is not unfair to say that every newer Member of the House who has served in Committee on such a major issue has similar feelings to mine. We wish only that this ritual debate had taken place a little sooner in the proceedings. The Bill is perhaps the most important one of this Parliament. It is certainly crucial to those hon. Members who are interested in energy. It is a great shame that we may discuss it more today in this Chamber than in Committee.
This system is an unacceptable waste of parliamentary time. It does us no good in the eyes and thoughts of the public who come to listen to us in Committee and who may share our good humour and friendship, but who will not admire the way in which we conduct our business. We have sat through mornings, afternoons and one extremely pleasant late evening which went through to the early hours of the morning. At the end of those sessions I knew five excellent jokes told to us by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands). I have used four of them and raised laughs, but I raised groans with the other. However, as the night wore through, I felt that I must pay attention.
There were also occasions, because of the preponderance of hon. Members from north of the border—who have some form of Thursday exeat, which those of us who come from Devonshire with a five-and-a-half-hour journey home would wish to share—when I needed simultaneous translation. That applied especially to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who is not with us now, and was not present at all the Committee sessions, because there were occasions when the exchanges across the table were such that the ordinary Sassenach was at some disadvantage.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Where is the ordinary Sassenach?
Mr. Speller: The minority of us from England have enjoyed ourselves tremendously and we feel that we can now take our holidays across the border with a greater sense of security.
This is a short debate, and I suspect that other hon. Members will wish to voice similar thoughts to mine, or, if they are old hands, similar thoughts to those of my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). I support the motion. We must have the guillotine. I pray only that on the next long Committee on which I serve—we will consider that sometimes the great British public do not think as highly of the House as I, and may believe that we waste our time a little. Sometimes they are right.
4.15 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: The major point of substance about the apparent delay in progress has been that admitted by the Leader of the House—the appalling lack of basic material about the articles and memorandum of association. The first part of the Bill cannot be discussed in the absence of those documents. The Secretary of State, during a Committee session last week, told us that those important documents might be made available in draft form by the end of this week. I have no idea of the exact nature and scope of the documents, but I imagine that there will be many pages and details for us to plough through. The part of the Bill to which they relate has been dealt
618
with, so we must return to these important aspects on Report. The Secretary of State must know in his heart of hearts that the reason for some of the delay and difficulty is the non-receipt of these important documents.
The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) has some experience of the House, but I have a little more. Oppositions fight for time. Time is the safety valve here. If the Government deny time to the Opposition, they deny the safety valve in the democratic process. One argument of the Leader of the House is that he wishes to get the Bill through the House before the Easter Recess. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is an extremely intelligent and charitable gentleman: what is the haste? If world oil prices had remained stable there might have been an argument for putting this important national asset into the hands of the Secretary of State so that he could put it on the market at the end of this year, as he originally intended. That would certainly have helped the public sector borrowing requirement. That is part of the strategy of the Government. We all know that the reason for the original haste was that the Government were searching for public assets that they could flog off and therefore reduce the PSBR.
The Secretary of State is not a complete fool in such matters. We have said in Committee that he used to write the Lex column in the Financial Times. He knows that this is probably the worst possible time to put an asset such as Britoil on the market. There is instability, OPEC is having an emergency meeting and Saudi Arabia is debating whether to reduce its output of oil by more than half our production from the North Sea. Saudi Arabia argues that it will maintain oil at $34 a barrel because it can turn the tap back. At the same time the Secretary of State congratulates BNOC because it proposes to cut the price of oil from the North Sea by $4 a barrel and thereby use our resources to cause a reduction in world oil prices.
If the Secretary of State is right in his forecasts, I cannot see how he can argue that there is stability in the world oil market. Whoever the Government's merchant bank advisers are, they cannot argue that this is a good year to put our national assets on to the market. There is no need for haste.
There is no reason for haste in relation to the gas market. The Secretary of State said in Committee that 5 trillion cubic feet of gas are awaiting exploitation and that British Gas has been obdurate. The total reserves of gas are about 40 trillion cubic feet. There is no haste to loosen the gas market so that further exploitation and exploration can take place.
Safety is an important part of the Bill. As a palliative, the Secretary of State has said that British Gas and BNOC will submit their views on safety. I have no doubt that their views will be useful, but what about the trade unions and the people who do the job? What opportunity will they have to give evidence? That evidence should be given. It is important in the light of the recent Norwegian and Canadian experiences. We have already had a full report and a debate on safety aspects in the North Sea, but we shall not have an adequate opportunity to examine fully the safety aspects.
Safety is a non-party matter. To play party politics with safety would be shocking, but the Leader of the House is in danger of doing so, because that is what the guillotine means. He intends to drive the Bill through the Committee to satisfy some peculiar Government timetable. If there is a delay in passing the Bill, it will not necessarily be by this

619
House. Delay could happen in another place, because there can be no guillotine there. I am not willing to allow the Bill to be rushed through because of the Government's fears that it might be held up by excessive debate in another place.
The Leader of the House has offered no evidence of filibustering. He said that the debates had been good-natured and relevant. We had some good replies from the Minister of State, some passable replies from the Secretary of State and some middling to passable replies from the Under-Secretary of State.
We need more detailed information about the Government's policy generally and in relation to safety in particular. The safety provisions should not be at the beginning of the Bill. They should have been left out and submitted for consideration under the new Select Committee procedure. The vital safety aspects should be dealt with in a non-political way. We have had a report and massive experience in the North Sea and internationally. We need to know the views not only of BNOC and British Gas, but of the host of other participating organisations.
I deplore the timetable motion. When the Leader of the House reflects, he will realise that, in relation to safety, he is playing politics with people's lives. That should not happen.
4.26 pm
Mr. David Myles: A tremendous amount of humbug is connected with a motion such as this. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas). In his speech against the timetable motion I did not detect any argument against imposing a discipline so that we can debate the Bill sensibly and discuss the two sides to the arguments.
I entered the House on 3 May 1979. This is the third time that I have been a member of a Committee on a Bill that has been guillotined. It is the second time that I have taken part in a debate on a timetable motion.
The Committees on which I sat previously were different from this Committee. They were much more antagonistic and much less friendly. I give credit to the Opposition Front Bench and to all hon. Members, including even the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who took up most of the time in our debates. The hon. Member uses invective, but has a smile on his face when he sits down. He knows that nobody really believes him and that nobody will take offence at what he says. It is a pity that the hon. Member, who has an almost delicious sense of humour, comes across badly in the media because when the awful things that he says appear in cold print the spirit of his remarks are lost.
Mr. W. E. Garrett: It is unfair to speak about my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), because he is using his invective in Cuba against President Castro. My hon. Friend is a member of the foreign affairs group.
Mr. Myles: I am grateful to the hon. Member because I was about to say that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire is in central America, or somewhere. I am not sure what line he will be taking.
If the Committee had been conducted under the rules of the radio parlour game "Just a Minute" in which there
620
can be no repetition, no deviation and no hesitation, the Bill would have completed more of its Committee stage. Seriously, up to now there has not been too much serious debate in the Committee, but the Bill is important and serious. It deserves serious and balanced argument from both sides.
This is part of my objection to what has been called a ritual by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, Non h. Everyone knew that there would be a timetable motion. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said in Committee that there was likely to be a guillotine. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said that he wished that all Bills were guillotined, possibly so that the Scottish Nationalists could have a better chance of having their names printed on the front page of the Dundee Courier and Advertiser. He said that there should be a guillotine. I think so, too.
I admit that I was not present at the late-night sitting. I was slightly insulted when the Whip said that it had been decided that the two elder members of the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) and I—should be excused on account of our age. I thought that I had far greater stamina than many of the younger members of the Committee. However, although I was slightly insulted. I did not argue, because I knew that I could read the whole debate in the record. I also knew that I need not waste my time reading the record because nearly all the debate was a time-wasting exercise.
I realise why Opposition Members take up the time of such Committees and try to delay measures of which they thoroughly disapprove. If we were in Opposition, we would try to use that weapon as well. I believe that we should find a more civilised—although the Committee is civilised—and business-like way of conducting our affairs so that we do not need to take up time in Committee arid on the Floor of the House in debating a timetable motion. That seems to be a contradiction in terms.
The debate reflects the way in which the House is supposed to work in a number of other spheres. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North and I are talking entirely as a result of what we think and not as a result of some research assistant's notes or from Whips Office notes. We are talking as practical people who became Members of Parliament recently. We are disturbed at the complicated ways in which the business of the House is carried out.
There are two types of hon. Members on both sides of the House. One is the intelligent, highly educated and sophisicated person who sees the problems of politics in a complicated way, such as the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas). The hon. Gentleman left me aghast at the vast knowledge that he was always so willing to display in the debate without looking at a note. He could reel off figures and the names of the oil rigs that he had visited. I was greatly impressed, but then I thought that he was telling us only the little that he knew. He did not reveal the vast amount that he did not know, but he revealed almost all that he knew about the oil industry.
I am interested in the Bill. However, I feel a little inhibited in that one of the only things that I was able to do in Committee was to intervene on a point of order at one stage to ask whether speaking about the Hillhead by-election had anything to do with the Bill. I was a little annoyed for the simple reason that the gas comes ashore at St. Fergus in the constituency of my hon. Friend the

621
Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). It is not far away from Banff. On three separate occasions I have been out on oil rigs—I have visited the Forties, Ninian and Murchison fields. In the North-East of Scotland we have a close interest in energy. I felt inhibited because it was frowned upon that Conservative Members should speak in the run-up to what everyone knew would be a timetable motion.
I realise that it is cutting the ground from under our feet, but if ever we happen to land on the Opposition Benches again—as things are going that will not be likely for a long time, certainly in my parliamentary career—I shall understand the fixation of Opposition Members. However, they could make logical and sensible points that could be printed in the Dundee Courier and Advertiser with merit to the hon. Member for Dundee, East if that were possible.
I wholeheartedly support the timetable motion. I wish to goodness that we had had a reasonable timetable on the Bill right from the start so that we could have got down to the business in the Bill and debated it throughly, knowing that the articles of association were to come. I feel slightly guilty on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the articles of association were not available in Committee. Opposition Members have a point about that. However, there was no need to labour it time and again. There was no need to take up the Committee's time and to be so repetitive.
I support the timetable motion. I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who said that he would support timetable motions for every Bill, will also support it.
4.38 pm
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and for Banff (Mr. Myles) have argued that there is no alternative but to support the timetable motion. There is an alternative. The hon. Member for Banff hinted at it towards the end of his speech.
Mr. W. E. Garrett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not wish to intervene so early in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that three Scottish Members have been called and so far as I am aware not one English Member has been called.
Mr. Speller: May I say that I resent that remark?
Dr. Mabon: I do not want to interrupt this debate between the nationalities, but so far as I am aware the Lord President of the Council is an Englishman, and the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) is an Englishman, which is not bad going as the debate must finish at twenty minutes to seven o'clock. I had better get on.
There is an alternative to the timetable motion. Every Government know that. At the commencement of the Committee stage the Government and the Opposition could have tried to agree a programme. We shall now be compelled to do so. The Bill is vital, not only because of the public aspects of safety and so on, but politically, as it is concerned with the Government's views and prejudices. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and I are certainly not aware of a suggestion that we should have had a voluntary timetable.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Government did not approach anyone.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: It was extremely difficult to negotiate any form of timetable. The hon. Member for Devon, North mentioned a set timetable, but the basic documentation, such as the articles of association, has still not come from the Government. It was near impossible to reach an agreement between the parties on a sensible and methodical timetable without the documents.
Dr. Mabon: That confirms what I believed.
The alternative to the Opposition weapon of time is rational argument in a decent compass of time. Anyone who has held a ministerial post knows that Bills are not always perfect or as effective as one would like. They need to be discussed and changed. Even within the guillotine timetable there will be batches of Government amendments, as they will have changed their mind or been advised by their officials of defects.
The Government are merely continuing the bad habit of successive Parliaments. They are disregarding the idea of voluntary timetables and allowing, as they see it, the Opposition to waste time before bringing in a guillotine. That is a waste of rational debate. If the Government were really fair they would agree that too much time has been wasted because they did not show the Opposition the articles of association and give them help to understand the Bill so as to agree a voluntary timetable.
The Government, of course, in that case would not get the Bill by Easter. It is farcial to believe that we can rationally debate the remaining clauses in 10 sittings. I have seen many timetable motions in my 25 years in Parliament. This is one of the cruellest that I have witnessed. Both sides play a bad game with timetable motions. Here, for example, on Report and Third Reading we are to be limited to two days. Hon. Members on the Government Benches cannot reasonably support the motion.
We have had two good-natured speeches from Conservative Members. I am becoming sick of hearing how good natured the Committee is. We are dealing with a matter that is fundamental to the British people. It is serious, not only for those who work in the North Sea, but in the disposition of our assets. I do not like inordinate friendliness now that we have come to a guillotine.
The hon. Member for Banff said that we had always been under the threat of a guillotine. If so, it is even more shameful that the Government did not ask for a voluntary timetable.
Mr. Myles: As the right hon. Gentleman says, the Bill is important. It is important to the Government's strategy for breaking up the centralised control of our assets.
Dr. Mabon: Whichever Government are in power, they are entitled to get their business. In the last analysis the House is not entitled to deny them that.
Debate on the Bill is not being used to impede other business. We have all seen an innocent Bill filibustered to hold up another Bill, but this Bill is being argued on its merits or demerits.
In the 17 sittings so far we have not had inordinately long speeches. We did sit all night once. Like the hon. Member for Banff, I took advantage of my years to go home. Talking nonsense until 6 am or 7 am is a waste of intelligence and rational time, of which we are all short. We are, the good book says, allotted a certain span. It is silly to waste time on nonsense. I salute hon. Members

623
who had to stay or who decided to stay. It was a feat of endurance. I have done it many times, but it is no less foolish. It advances argument not one whit.
Apart from that sitting, it has been a good Committee. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) may have been over-generous, but I believe that we had ministerial replies which were full of substance, because we had no substance to begin with. These ghostlike creatures, the articles of association, are to make their spectral appearance only at the end of this week, I believe.
Mr. Cunliffe: The Dead Sea scrolls.
Dr. Mabon: We pleaded for the articles of association even in draft or in part rather than not at all. Tooth by tooth we extracted from the Minister of State and the Secretary of State what they would mean.
The Social Democrats and the Liberals do not want the old system to continue of one side doing equally bad things to the other. I remember on one occasion when, through the night, the House discussed the cheese ration. I remember in 1950 when Adam McKinlay was denied a pair for a vote at 7 am, even though his wife was dying.
The late Lady Tweedsmuir told him to go home, as she would refuse to vote. She had guts. Those silly days were ended when the Labour Government said that prayers would last for only one and a half hours. At a stroke we stopped one of the most farcical post-war parliamentary nonsenses. One side or other must say that it will lay down the weapon. I should like the Government to say today that it really is wrong, on reflection, to pass the motion.
I believe that it is right for the Government to negotiate with the Opposition parties about when they will get their Bill, if it is not at Easter, as is here proposed, then at Whitsun. Even then there will be plenty of time to get it through the House of Lords and to bring it back here for discussion so that by the end of the Session the Secretary of State has his Bill if he insists on having it in the way in which it is now packaged.
That is essentially the case that the Government must answer tonight. It is not the yah-boo of past quotations and present intentions, but a rational argument. This is an important Bill. Parts of it need to be debated properly and fully both here and in the other place. The Government ought seriously to consider withdrawing the motion and negotiating a voluntary timetable that will satisfy the Opposition and all the members of the Committee as well as other hon. Members on the Government Benches.
4.50 pm
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am not a member of the Standing Committee on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, so I have not experienced the hours of ennui on its Back Benches updating my joke book so I cannot begin to match the good humour and wit of my hon. Friends the Members for Banff (Mr. Myles) and for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). That will probably satisfy the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), who found my hon. Friends' remarks rather too good-tempered. My speech will be less so.
The Bill is extremely important. Both sides of the House agree about that. Anything to do with the price and availablity of oil, gas and energy supplies, on which industry depends, is of immense importance. The general principles of the Bill were debated on Second Reading and the principle of privatisation and competition approved by the House.
624
As I am not a member of the Committee I have riot heard the hours of debate there, but it is clear from comments that I have heard over the weeks from my hon. Friends, from what has been said today and from the reactions of Opposition Members that the efforts of the Opposition have been directed against acceptance of the principle of the Bill as approved by the House and not to trying to improve or modify the Bill as their experience and views dictate.
It is clear that the Opposition have sought to emasculate and to destroy the Bill. I am not in the least surprised to hear that. That is the Pavlovian reaction of the Labour Party when it is suggested that the public sector should be anything but expanded—their ears close and their minds stop working, but their tongues go on freewheel.
There are two reasons why I want to see the Bill passed quickly, apart from the fact that I support its general principles. First, oil exploration and search have been proved to be much healthier in private hands. That is how North Sea oil resources were developed in the first place—without a State company and without Government cash. Private investment and private ingenuity started that development wih a speed and effectiveness far greater than the public sector could ever have matched. As a result, the community has benefited faster from the production of oil and gas and extra revenues have accrued to the Exchequer. Those benefits and revenues are much more likely to increase as a result of the greater privatisation of initiative and control which the Bill proposes.
There is a further consequence which is especially desirable at a time of recession. The capital sums raised by the sale can release funds for job-creating purposes. I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome those objectives and results. Alternatively, the funds could be used to reduce the public sector borrowing and improve the outlook for interest rates, upon which future employment also depands.
It is a great shame that Opposition Members seek to delay a Bill for general dogmatic reasons when its effects would be of so much assistance in solving the problems of the recession, the economy and the high levels of unemployment, which are the subject of constant complaint by Opposition Members. Nevertheless, I realise that, because of their ideological attitudes, Opposition Members will discount those views. I remind them, however, that in 1977–78, under the general supervision of the IMF, the Labour Government sold off a large section—17 per cent. —of their North Sea holding in the shape of British Petroleum. That was part and parcel of temporarily greatly improved economic management and the economy moved much closer to an even keel as a result, although if Opposition Members are honest with themselves they will admit that those benefits were thrown away in the run-up to the General Election.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: When the Burmah Oil Company got into trouble, its shares fell to the Treasury. The Labour Government subsequently decided to reduce their holding to 51 per cent. That does not represent the selling off of 17 per cent. of North Sea oil assets.
Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall not pursue the details, which I suspect he knows better than I do, but is he suggesting that no BP shares found their way into private hands as a result of that Government decision?
Dr. Mabon: No.
Mr. Lloyd: That is exactly the point that I am making, and it is the point of the Bill, that North Sea oil assets that are at present owned by the Government should be transferred to private hands. I see no difference of principle. The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it does not seem to affect the one I am making.
The Bill has another beneficial effect which leads me to hope to see it on the statute book in a reasonable time. Great benefit will flow from allowing gas producers freedom to find their own larger commercial customers. That is a much-needed change. The director-general of the Chemical Industries Association has said:
"In recent months a number of chemical firms have requested and have been refused additional or new supplies of gas even in cases where greatly improved energy efficiency would have been achieved. Thus we have a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation where additional or new industrial gas supplies are not available to companies despite a 10 per cent. fall in industrial gas sales due to the recession. We are told that new supplies will not be available until 1984–85. There is no doubt that the best way forward is to permit wider freedom of access to gas supplies. It is misleading to argue that a monopoly to purchase supplies ensures the best price and availability to the final industrial gas user, even though the position may be comfortable for the operation of the monopoly. World evidence does not support such an opinion. We need the fresh breeze of competition to keep the supply industry on its toes and to ensure that energy is available to industry at an internationally competitve price as the world market for our products recovers."
That is absolutely right. There should be no delay in creating the conditions for which the director-general calls. That is why I strongly support the motion. It will put the Bill on the statute book at reasonable speed.
Finally, safety has been mentioned. This is an important consideration if these arrangements are made for piping gas ashore and producers to supply customers direct. It is appalling that so much time seems to have been spent in Committee on general principles that were settled on Second Reading, when there are important practical questions relating to such dangerous matters as these later in the Bill.
I hope that the House will adopt the timetable programme so that a proper amount of time can be allocated to these extremely important questions on which I believe that Opposition Members, especially those who have connections with trade unions and people working in industry, would be well placed to make practical and helpful suggestions.
I commend the motion to the House.
5 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not wish to pursue the points of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) very far, except to hope that he will find time to read the Official Report of some of the Committee debates. He will then appreciate that a considerable part of the Committee's time has been spent pursuing one of the items that attracted his attention—the fact that funds will flow from privatisation. The Opposition sought to ensure that those funds would be more wisely spent than the Government's record so far would lead one to expect.
I found the speeches of the hon. Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and Banff (Mr. Myles) quite delightful. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Devon, North. I believe that all Bills should be timetabled. I take a revolutionary view of Standing Committees. I do not see why experts should not be called to give relevant
626
evidence. Indeed, I suggested that Rothschild and Morgan Grenfell might properly be called to give evidence on the highly relevant question of Amersham International. Timetables are desirable. There must be safeguards, of course, because the Opposition's only weapon is time. Nevertheless, I trust that the next Labour Government will be prepared to introduce timetable motions.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may appreciate that it is not my experience of the Committee on this Bill that has led me to that conclusion. I have always said that I should be reluctant to serve on demanding Standing Committees after the one that you chaired with dedication such that we found it extremely hard to stray from the path of relevance, just as it was impossible for us to do so in Committee on this Bill. I was delighted that the Lord President of the Council acknowledged that references to the poem that I quoted, which was entirely relevant, and to Tudor history were not out of order. I should have hated to have incurred that criticism.
The points that we have sought to make in Committee are important, as I hope that the hon. Member for Fareham will recognise, not from the point of view of any dogma of ours, but to ensure that the application of the Government's dogma does not inflict too great a disadvantage on the national interest.
The Minister of State, whom we regard with some cordiality, claimed in the Committee to be meticulous in his provision of replies, and there were periods when he dedicated himself to that purpose. On one occasion, he answered with care 16 questions from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Nevertheless, I, too, asked him a large number of questions and the aswers were not entirely satisfactory.
My questions to the Minister were basic and fundamental. I believe for example, that it was entirely relevant to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that between 1973 and 1980, year by year, the share of the United Kingdom continental shelf orders accruing to British industry had increased. When the Labour Government took office, only about one-third of the orders arising from offshore contracts were fulfulled by British industry. By the end of Labour's term of office, that had increased to 79 per cent. —a very commendable rate of progress. In the first year of the Conservative Government, however, for the first time since 1973, the share of orders fell fairly substantially from 79 per cent. to 71 per cent. Representing an area of special steels, which is a highly relevant industry, I felt it right to press that point and to suggest to the Minister that steps should be taken to guarantee that that fall would not continue, and that British industrial interests would be protected. I have received no satisfactory assurance that this privatisation, which will take the Government further away from the role of influence and involvement in decision making, will have any advantage for British industry, so the assumption about the Minister's meticulous approach scarcely extends to that important matter.
I also asked a number of related questions. I referred to a number of oilfields in which BNOC is involved—in some cases the involvement is substantial—and asked for an absolute assurance that investment in industrial plant relating to those fields would not lead to a diminution of their contribution to the economy. Again, no adequate response was forthcoming.
I illustrated my point by reference to the Piper and Claymore fields of Occidental. The House will recall that

627
a couple of years ago great public attention was given to the mutual admiration of Dr. Hammer and the Prime Minister. The television companies projected and presented the image of a massive mutual confidence which would be of enormous advantage to Britain. When it was later discovered, in October or November last year, that Occidental's plans had been substantially cut, the media unfortunately did not give that the attention that they had given to the original announcements. It is right that the Committee should consider the implications of matters of that kind, as British industry cannot afford to take the blows that may result from these changes.
It is also right that the instability of the Government's policy should be considered in detail by the Committee. We pointed out that since they came to office the Government have changed the offshore tax regime on seven occasions. No doubt changes in one direction or another will make tomorrow the eighth occasion. The pace of offshore development is not helped by rapid changes in tax arrangements or legislation. Unfortunately, we have still not received adequate assurances about that.
The application of a timetable may be against the national interest in respect of serious safety problems which may arise with regard to gas. Only last week, I produced for the Committee evidence of the impressive safety record of British Gas in the installation of appliances of all kinds. It is clear that people wishing to have gas appliances installed in their homes stand a far better chance of the work being carried out with complete safety by British Gas than by some cowboy operator. I provided all the figures, so I shall not labour the point now, but we have received no satisfactory assurances about safety.
We have also not received a satisfactory response to the evidence of the weeks following the original announcement by the then Minister of State for Consumer Affairs about the disposal of gas showrooms. It is clear that, within days of that announcement, companies began to arrange for and to initiate the import of gas appliances. I believe that one of the responsibilities of this or any Government is to ensure that British industrial interests are properly protected. I see no advantage or virtue whatever in the Government embarking on a policy that will bring comfort to our industrial competitors and lead to further contraction and redundancy in Britain. Undoubtedly, if the gas showrooms close, foreign manufacturers will gain considerable benefit.
Mr. Garel-Jones: Why?
Mr. Hardy: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to add to that, I will give way. It seems that he does not.
Within a week of the announcement that the gas showrooms were to be closed, The Daily Telegraph reported that shiploads and lorryloads of gas appliances were on their way to this country. There are a number of reasons for it. One of the reasons, which was the subject of questions earlier today, is that foreign Governments are eager to assist their industries, while our Government stand aloof and rather distant. That has been the case with energy prices.
The most important aspect of energy, which has already been touched on with reference to the articles of association, is price. We have been given little guidance, and the Committee, in the view of one or two Conservative Members, was expected to rubber-stamp the
628
Government's proposals, albeit without having seen the articles of association, and in the face of the appalling experience of the Amersham disposal.
I hope that the House and the country will note the relevant suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). The Secretary of State would like to go down as the man who was responsible for the biggest programme of privatisation in our history. He would welcome that. He would not welcome that if a long view is taken, but he ought to accept responsibility for the implementation of my right hon. Friend's suggestion, and for the word "Amersham" to go down as an appropriate new word that could be used as an alternative to "profligacy" to describe someone acting culpably and in opposition to the national interest.
Mr. Myles: I noticed in Committee that Labour Members were always anxious to give way in order to take up more time. I wish to refer to Amersham and to the selling of BNOC shares. If the shares go on to the market and are bought by employees or others—private small investors—and the price goes down, will the hon. Gentleman complain, or will he say that that serves the purchasers right?
Mr. Hardy: In the first debate on Amersham I suggested, and was subjected to a certain amount of ridicule from Conservative Members, that if they were to dispose of the company, given the tributes that they had paid to the work force, the least that they could do was to establish a co-operative.
My second point, which aroused even more anger and opposition from Conservative Members, was that before the Bill became law, the Government should say specifically by how much the nation should benefit, and that the House should not approve the proposition until there was more information about the economic consequences of the disposal. It may be that, had the Government displayed more responsibility and caution over Amersham last week, the national interest and the Government's reputation might be better.
Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House of the price at which the Labour Government launched the shares of BP, and the price at which the shares were quoted when they finally appeared on the market? Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this sale of public assets to the private sector represented a sale of about 9 per cent. of North Sea oil production?
Mr. Hardy: I always think that it is a pity that hon. Members who have not been members of the Committees should take part in a timetable debate— [HON. MEMBERS): "Why?"] I am trying to explain, and I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) if he wishes to speak.
We are all extremely busy. Those outside do not understand how much work hon. Members have to do. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) has read even one of the many volumes of reports of the Committee's proceedings. He may have started to read one. I hope that he finds entertainment and enlightment there, but if he goes through them all he will see that the Committee devoted considerable attention to the matter to which he referred, and I do not propose to be excessively repetitive.
Mr. Garel-Jones: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have read the reports of the Committee's proceedings, and

629
I read with care many of his speeches. On one occasion he spoke for 20 minutes without mentioning oil, gas or enterprise. He preferred to talk about Sir Arthur Bryant and J. K. Galbraith. He should withdraw what he said about me.
Mr. Hardy: I am astonished. The hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that we have to be extremely careful about amendments that may not include the words "oil and gas", but are, nevertheless, relevant. The House may find it boring, but I should explain to the hon. Gentleman the relevance of my reference to the Tudor period, to which the Leader of the House referred. I described how Queen Elizabeth I saw the error of her ways and did an economic U-turn and decided to change her economic policies. I suggested that what was good for Queen Elizabeth I was good for the Prime Minister. It seemed to me that the model of Queen Elizabeth in the sixteenth century had some relevance to our current economic position.
Viscount Cranborne: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a strong academic background and he will, therefore, recall that one of the evils of our economic situation in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was that there was far too much granting of monopoly by the Crown. Will the hon. Gentleman draw the same conclusion that my hon. Friends and I have drawn on that subject?
Mr. Hardy: I doubt whether any of my ancestors enjoyed the benefit of a sale of a monopoly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. No doubt the hon. Gentleman could enlighten us about such sales. The fact remains that in a relatively similar period of our history there was a dramatic U-turn that should be repeated by the Government.
I hope that in the wretchedly meagre time provided for further consideration of the details of the Bill we shall get answers to the questions that have already been asked.
I particularly ask the Secretary of State to ensure that more attention is paid to the last matter that exercised the Committee's mind on Thursday. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) moved an amendment to provide funds for general conservation. I suggested—I hope in a non-partisan manner; Conservative Members will know whether I was partisan—that the removal of State influence offshore, which was inevitable, given the Government's proposals, and the need for greater provision for conservation made the amendment entirely appropriate.
I do not think that Conservative Members spoke in favour of the amendment, but I felt that some of them could see merit in our argument. Unfortunately, the Under-Secretary who wound up briefly referred only to energy conservation and a visit to Newcastle. The whole argument that I advanced in, I hope, a non-partisan manner, and on behalf, I believe, of all the conservation bodies in these islands, received no response. I hope that sooner or later a more generous attitude will be displayed. I regret that the answer given on that occasion was grossly unsatisfactory.
There has already been reference to the Tudor period and the economic policies of Elizabeth I. The most distinguished citizen from the Rother Valley constituency was Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Stratford. He was
630
impeached. His offence was far less serious than that being perpetrated by the Secretary of State in the Bill. I only hope that, as my party proceeds to prepare itself for the next general election, maintaining its commitment entirely to the cause of parliamentary democracy, it will during that period of preparation—
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Without bloodshed.
Mr. Hardy: —and without bloodshed, at this stage anyway, look up the references and study the precedents to see how we can reintroduce the principle and practice of impeachment. It has never been more justified than it is in relation to the Bill.
5.21 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: I always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) on almost any subject. I enjoyed the visit to Sir Arthur Bryant and J. K. Galbraith. I should have enjoyed listening to the hon. Gentleman speak about badgers, on which he is an expert, or on moles, a subject on which I once consulted him. I shall, however, pursue only his remarks in relation to Amersham International Ltd.
It would be wrong not to make it clear that the benefit of hindsight has been applied by many sudden experts to this issue. They do not perhaps realise that if the issue had been pitched in a different way—for instance, by way of tender—or if the price had been slightly higher, the net amount received by the Government at the end of the day might have been lower because of the substantial amount that they received by way of interest on the large number of applications for shares. The large number of applications also enabled those sponsoring the issue to make sure that the smaller applicants were granted a higher proportion of the shares than larger applicants, including the pension funds of the mineworkers and others. It would be wrong if the record were not put straight on that point.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman talks of the benefit of hindsight. Some hon. Members serving on the Committee not only found that Amersham was predictable, but that it was predicted, foreseeable and actually foreseen.
Mr. Viggers: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) quoted an example of a commentator who, he reported, was able to show that the price was not as high as it might have been. I put it to the hon. Member that the press comment at the time of the issue was by no means unanimous. An issue needs to be pitched in such a way that it is attractive to those who might participate. If there is a good response, that is a success and not a failure. It is wrong to say that the price was incorrectly pitched and that everyone knew this beforehand. That is not the situation.
Mr. Garel-Jones: Does my hon. Friend recall that about a year ago when this matter was first discussed the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), speaking for the Opposition, was insistent that when this launch took place the Government should not go down the route of seeking to get what he called the highest price available but should go down a route that would ensure that as many small shareholders and members of the British public as possible would be able to participate?
Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend reminds me of a point that I had overlooked. I am grateful to him for making an important point.

631
Debates on timetable motions tend to be as formalised as a Petrarchan sonnet. There are complaints from one side and justification from the other. I should like to examine what is happening under the timetable motion. I should declare interests in the oil and gas industry. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) would be present. The hon. Gentleman always rushes into the Chamber to ask whether I have declared my interest. I have always done so. I am not, in fact, declaring an interest. I am declaring two interests.
The purpose of the Bill is to allow a sale of some of BNOC's oil-producing business. This is an excellent idea, for three major reasons. As seen recently in the price of oil, large risks are involved in oil and gas exploration and production. There is no need for the Government to speculate on oil and gas futures. The Government are sufficiently committed and capable to reap the benefit that they require and to which they are entitled from the North Sea by way of taxation. Even taxation can produce amounts less than had been originally expected if the price goes down, as can happen, as well as if it goes up.
There is no reason why the Government should be directly involved as an owner of oil and gas futures, which would be the case if they ran the operation themselves. The risks are best taken by private enterprise. It has already been stated that, overwhelmingly, the achievements in the North Sea have been those of private industry.
A second major reason for the sale of some of BNOC's oil-producing business is to enable the British people directly to participate in oil and gas development to the extent that they wish. Taking up a point that has been made about Amersham, I suspect that when the time comes to sell shares in Britoil, it will be necessary to pitch the sale by way of part tender and part public offer. I suspect that there will need to be more than one way of selling the shares to the British people. It should be remembered that the largest numbers of shares are held by institutions and that these are overwhelmingly insurance companies and pension funds. In saying that the British people will participate in oil and gas development, I mean that they are precisely the people who will benefit and participate. It is those who participate through insurance companies and pension funds.
The third major reason for a sale of some of BNOC's oil-producing business is that a sale of 51 per cent. Of, Britoil will enable the company to proceed to invest private capital as it wishes in oil and gas development. This explains, no doubt, why the chairman of BNOC has welcomed the Bill.
The Bill is needed because it will allow the disposal of certain assets of the British Gas Corporation. There is to be a sale one day of Wytch Farm. I say "one day" because the Secretary of State has exercised his power and right to require the British Gas Corporation to dispose of Wytch Farm, but there seems no alacrity so far on the part of the corporation to do so. There will also be the introduction of competition, thus changing the British Gas Corporation's monopsony position. I am sure that this will also benefit the consumer in the long run.
I come now to the case for a timetable motion. The only weapon of the Opposition is, of course, time. It is right that the Opposition's major weapon should be time. It is also important that the weapon should not be abused. The fact that a timetable motion is needed is similar to a divorce
632
in marriage. It shows that there has been a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line. It shows that there has been an abuse of the position—
Mr. Cunliffe: As the Opposition Whip dealing with the Bill in Committee, I have had maximum consultation and the fullest co-operation with the Government Whip. We have discussed over a long period ways of accelerating the progress of the Bill. This has been extremely difficult. It is misleading to give the impression that hon. Members have been able to debate in detail all the technicalities of what is the most wide-ranging Bill presented to the House for many years. Some fundamental documents—the articles of association—were missing and are still missing. Hon. Members have tried, by probing, argument and persuasion in Committee, to obtain the articles of association. It was therefore inconceivable that any agreement could be reached on a practical timetable that would allow rational debate on the issues concerned.
Mr. Viggers: The articles of association of Britoil have become the most famous piece of paper since Chamberlain returned from Munich. I do not know how many hon. Members have read articles of association from cover to cover. I suspect that they will not amount to a large number. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy explained in column 171 of Hansard of 19 January effectively what the articles of association would contain. He made the point that the articles of association would protect the position of the company, should there be an attempt to take it over. He went on to give further details of the articles of association and said hat there would be two Government directors of the board of Britoil as long as the size of the Government holding warranted it.
The outline of the articles of association have been made clear, and I do not think that a long debate on the articles, which amount to a technical legal document, can justify a long delay in Committee. I refute that.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Member may have seen the articles of association but the Opposition have not. One of the fundamental questions that has not been answered and which must appeal to the hon. Gentleman is: how can a temporary majority be exercised by somebody who owns 0 per cent. of the shares, which is theoretically possible under the Bill?
Mr. Viggers: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to make a point of substance, but the way in which the articles of association will tackle this problem has been spelt out by my right hon. Friend. The detail of the wording may not be produced. I have not seen the articles of association and do not know the technical reason why they have not been produced. I have no doubt that the detail of the drafting is causing considerable work to lawyers. But it is a technical legal point. The absence of a technical legal document should not cause the Committee a great deal of distress.
Mr. W. E. Garrett: The technical legal problem is precisely why we were seeking information. It is important for the hon. Member to realise that we who are not lawyers are blessed with common sense. One of the reasons why we look at these documents is that we distrust so many of the lawyers who present them.
Mr. Viggers: I respect the hon. Gentleman's view, but I do not think that the absence of one document, which is by nature a technical document, ought to delay discussions on the other issues in Committee.
We heard the "sound and fury" from the Opposition Benches on the subject of safety and how concerned they were about that issue, but they have failed to debate the important issues involved in safety, which I accept as important. I do not believe that the absence of the articles of association ought to postpone or delay that important debate.
Mr. Robert Atkins: I am not a member of the Committee and I have come to the debate to hear the discussion. From all that I have heard and from what my hon. Friend has been saying about the "sound and fury" generated on the Opposition Benches, I assumed that there would be a few more Opposition Members here. Has my hon. Friend noticed that there is only one Opposition Back Bencher here? Is that not an indictment of the synthetic nature of this attack against Government policy?
Mr. Viggers: I can only agree. I should like any descendent of mine to read in Hansard that the House is empty not because I am speaking, but because Opposition Members are not interested in the debate.
The right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), for whom I have the highest regard—I enjoy telling him that I may not be a doctor from Greenock, but I married one—put forward the proposal that a timetable motion should be introduced at an early stage in Committee. Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple, and I am sure the right hon. Member will realise that when he considers the facts.
Until the timetable motion is taken in Committee it tends to be the Opposition who make the speeches, with the Government staying fairly quiet. Once a timetable motion has been tabled and the Committee knows where it is going and how much time is available, the Trappist Benches of the Government suddenly reel out long urbane speeches with hidden depths not thought of before. Therefore, it is not good enough to say that a timetable motion is needed from the beginning. What is needed is a greater understanding between the usual channels on both sides and an attempt to ration time more sensibly, as I am sure everyone will wish to be the case.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: A voluntary timetable does not necessarily call for a motion to be put forward in Committee. It is agreed between the Whips or between the two Front Benches. I have dealt with many Bills, from both the Opposition and Government Front Benches, on which we have agreed voluntary timetable systems. That is what we are talking about, and that is what we should have done here.
Mr. Viggers: I am not a member of this Committee and I am not sure how it is operating, but I am a member of a Standing Committee. The right hon. Gentleman no longer represents the Labour Party for Greenock and Port Glasgow, but he will understand that one of the complications about the usual channels is that it is not possible for the Government side of the usual channels to know how the minority parties will be voting or attending. One waits to see them turn up in Committee, which requires a compromise, and then we hear their usual
634
speeches about on the one hand or on the other, which rather complicates the issue, because we do not know how they will make a stand.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: Is it not true that on almost every significant Division that we have had since the SDP was formed it has supported the Opposition? Perhaps it can be counted in with the official Opposition and is almost indistinguishable from them.
Mr. Viggers: To demonstrate how the minority parties are lining up on one side or the other, I can tell my hon. Friend that in the Employment Bill Standing Committee we have the support of the Liberal Member. They are remaining all things to all men.
The world has changed in the eight years that I have been privileged to be a Member of the House. Life cannot have been the same after 20 July 1976 and 8 November 1976, when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), who is now the Leader of the Opposition, introduced, respectively, motions relating to five and four timetables. Before that timetables were matters of "sound and fury". I shall not continue that quotation too far, because I see that
"it is a tale told by an idiot".
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale used to make good speeches, so that would be inappropriate.
Is a timetable motion needed? I do not accept that the Committee should have been delayed by the absence of the articles of association of Britoil. Secondly, the British Gas Corporation is showing no inclination to sell its Wytch Farm interest or to hurry the process of widening the gas supply system. The voters voted for the measures in the Bill and the motion is needed to put this into effect.
My last question is: do we really need to debate timetable motions such as this? It is open to the Government to produce a timetable motion and it is up to the Opposition to debate the motion if there is intense public interest in the issue. On the basis of the Opposition attendance today, that interest is a disgrace.
5.37 pm
Mr. Gordon Wilson: If Conservative Members once again go into Opposition they have shown their ability to procrastinate. We may see future guillotine motions in which they will hold the opposite view. The interesting thing about these debates is that whenever there is a change of Government it does not seem to change the speeches. Both Government and Opposition speeches are always the same.
I have held the view since my first faltering days in the House that it would be desirable for all Bills to be timetabled from the beginning. I have gone further than that since then, having heard a number of timetable debates, and having come to the conclusion that they, too, ought to be guillotined at the outset. Taking up the point of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), I should have thought that a vote on guillotine motions woud have been sufficient.
With regard to this timetable motion I enter a few caveats. To begin with, we are considering a timetable motion, as we normally do, when we are only about a third of the way through the Bill, with only about 20 per cent. of the time left for debating it. So if there had been a timetable motion at the start, there would have been a possibility of dividing the time available for debate between its different parts. The problem is how to fix the

635
time for such a motion. I would think that, depending on the complexity of the Bill, and its length, it could be safely left to the Clerks, on the basis of precedents, to fix a suitable time. I think that all parties would accept that. In one way or another, debates on timetable motions turn out to be parliamentary scandals. They are a complete waste of time.
The question is whether the Bill should be guillotined at this stage. I take the view that, because of the unbalanced nature of debate that it would cause, it would be wrong, though if an overall timetable had been laid down in advance, with the right of sub-division of the time available, I should have voted for it.
I oppose a guillotine in this instance because I do not believe that the Government can get round the absence of the articles of association. They may argue that they have set out the main terms of ownership in speeches, but Oppositions are entitled to see the text that is likely to be subject to eventual construction or adoption. It should be stressed that we did not demand the final glistening text, which is to be produced by the team of lawyers who are alleged to be crawling over it. We would have been prepared to accept a broad draft, especially as it affected the main clauses of the Bill. There is no doubt that the absence of the articles of association caused a protraction of the Committee's debates on clauses 1, 2 and 3.
Then we have to consider the nature of the Bill. Whereas the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 dealt with the oil industry, this measure deals with two industries—the oil industry and the gas industry.
In a way, the privatisation of the British National Oil Corporation is relatively simple, though highly controversial. But for the British Gas Corporation we have a proposal for privatisation that has side effects on the supply of gas. The breaking of the monopoly of the BGC is again a complex and controversial aspect. The use of pipelines is a matter that should be discussed in detail, bearing in mind that members of the Committee have received representations from the National Farmers Union about it. It is worried that a proposal of this kind could lead to a duplication or replication of pipelines. There are interests other than those of oil and gas consumers who are concerned about that.
Petroleum production licences form a relatively minor part of the Bill, but offshore activities and safety matters are subjects on which we could have spent a considerable and useful amount of time.
If the Government's proposal were only to limit the Committee stage of the Bill, that would have conditioned my attitude to the guillotine motion. I should have wanted to make sure that we had a great deal of time available to discuss the important aspects of safety, in view especially of the serious accidents that have occurred during the past two years. We want to make sure that the incidence of accidents is lessened by having the opportunity to discuss the safety considerations more fully. I am sure that Government supporters share my worry about what might happen if we did not make sure that our safety regulations were adequate to deal with the problem, especally in the very exceptional weather conditions that can be encountered.
I do not wish to say a great deal more, because I have said that my opposition to the motion is based on the fact that the time available for discussion will be unbalanced and that we have a great many more important matters to discuss.
636
In my view, at least one representative of the smaller parties should be included on the Business Committee, so that there is a degree of consultation at that level about what is discussed in the Bill. There are precedents for that. The Standing Committee has two minority party representatives on it. In my view, at least one of those should be included on the Business Committee.
I do not intend to rehearse that controversial nature of the Bill or to go through its text. We have done that in Committee and we hope that on Report and during what remains to us of the Committee stage we shall do so again. However, the Bill—the earlier part of it especially—represents a very important measure to hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. It puts at risk a great many jobs in Scotland. As a Scottish Member, I should have felt that I had not done my duty in the Standing Committee if we had not tested the Government's intentions about the protection of the jobs at present made available through BNOC.
5.45 pm
Mr. Archie Hamilton: It is a matter of great sadness to me that I am not a member of the Standing Committee that is considering the Bill. I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the present Secretary of State for Transport, who, at the Department of Energy, played a leading role in producing the Bill. It would have been a great pleasure for me to play a role in steering the Bill through its Committee stage.
We have heard that the Committee has had 70 hours of debate and 17 sittings and is still only a short way through the Bill, having considered only the provisions that deal with the British National Oil Corporation. That being so, the discussion has been extensive, to put it mildly, and I feel that perhaps there is a degree of hypocrisy on the part of Opposition Members when they talk about the measure not being properly discussed. By all accounts it is good-natured hypocrisy, but it is hypocrisy all the same.
I support the motion. It is vital that the Government get the Bill through the House. It is probably one of the most important Bills that will be passed in this Parliament. The Government were elected on a manifesto that spoke of "rolling back" the State, and the Bill is one of the most significant pieces of denationalisation to be carried out by the Government and it is one of which we shall be very proud in the future.
When we come to consider the British National Oil Corporation, we have to remind ourselves that the development of the North Sea and its oil resources was a triumph of private industry. In practice, the early work done on it owed almost nothing to the then Government other than that the Secretary of State at the time farmed out certain blocks and told people that they could explore them. From there, all that the British National Oil Corporation did was climb on the backs of the private oil companies, leech them and build up its influence purely on the success of the private oil industry.
Mr. Cunliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman be congratulating and paying tribute to the private developers in the North Sea and at the same time commending the British Gas Corporation for its skill, enterprise, initiative and ingenuity? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a poor reward for the BGC's success to hive off all the hard and dedicated work that it has put in and to sell off an asset that it produced through its own initiative, backing and flair for that kind of work?
Mr. Hamilton: We are discussing two separate organizations—BNOC, which commands a very small amount of North Sea oil reserves, and the British Gas Corporation, which is a monopoly, which has monopoly rights to sell to everyone in the country, and which has also managed to organise matters so that it has complete monopoly rights over all the gas that it buys. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) cannot compare the one organisation with the other. We have to ensure that both of them end up in the private sector, where they are subjected to competition, which is the only way in which we can guarantee that the British taxpayer will not at some stage be asked to fork out because, for some mysterious reason, or because of political interference, they start making losses. I am delighted that the corporation will be returned to the private sector and that we shall have another independent company operating in the North Sea.
Mr. Myles: My hon. Friend spoke of the possibility of the corporation becoming unprofitable. We hear a great deal from the Opposition about the Government selling off profitable companies to private industry. I have put the question to Opposition Members in Committee, but so far no one has answered it. What was the criterion for nationalising an industry? Was it to provide a service to the public which was not being done profitably in private hands, or was it to get a profit, which the Opposition seemed to think that it was?
Mr. Hamilton: My knowledge of Socialist politics and history is relatively limited, but the initial idea always seems to be that somehow it is possible to give this great service to the public and make a profit at the same time. Of course, the chances to make a profit were soon thrown away, and the taxpayer, basically, had to carry the burden. Then the service to the public bit the dust, as the monopoly unions which invariably control these industries started taking their grip of the situation. In the end, the taxpayer was having to find vast sums of money to bail out monopoly unions, which had none of the controls of the market place and thus no incentives to become more efficient. The taxpayer was always there to pay the bill. There is no better example of that today than the mining industry, which has great powers. The taxpayer invariably ends up paying for the inefficiencies of that industry, and about £1,000 million a year seems to be more than enough.
It will be possible for the British National Oil Corporation to expand in a way that was not possible in the past, once it is back in the private sector. There were people in the corporation who initially may have thought that a cosy relationship could be had by being under Government control. That all changed dramatically at the time of the development of the Clyde oilfield, which BNOC wanted to bring on stream as a natural extension of its trading activities. The corporation had to go to the Treasury, which said "We are sorry, your commercial and trading interests take second place to the Government's cash flow and the public sector borrowing requirement. So you cannot have the money that you need to develop the oilfield. The money will come on stream two years later than you have asked for it."
It was at that moment in the life of BNOC that it realised that it did not make any difference whether it was making money or whether it was not making money—ultimately, the Treasury was there controlling every investment that it made. How could a major
638
international oil company—which I sincerely hope that BNOC will become and is now on the way to becoming—have to go back to the Government all the time and ask whether it could invest in new fields and build new rigs? It is encouraging that BNOC is making incursions into overseas markets and other areas, but it does so in the confidence that it will be in a position to go to the private sector for finance. If it has to come hobbling back to the Treasury, with all the ups and downs of public sector spending, and so on, its growth will be inhibited, as will its chances of employment, about which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) expressed such concern.
Viscount Cranborne: While my hon. Friend is on that subject, would he care to speculate about whether it would be any easier for BNOC to explore for oil in foreign countries if it were an independent company rather than a creature of the British Government?
Mr. Hamilton: There is definite evidence that it would be much easier for BNOC to operate in those circumstances. Also, of course, it would be much easier to co-operate and become part of consortia, with other oil companies. I gather that BNOC is now doing that.
I have no great faith in politicians. I say that in a nonpartisan way. I do not believe in the capacity of politicians of any colour to run industries. I have yet to meet any political party which does not believe that it is in the national interest to win the next election. In profitable industries under public control there is a great tendency or temptation to invest in certain areas—where there are marginal seats, for instance—which may have no commercial benefit but which may swing a marginal seat. I could see future Governments seriously considering whether BNOC should invest in refineries, ignoring the enormous over-capacity of refineries in this country. That would be unlikely to worry politicians. I could even see them starting to sell petrol in filling stations if it were thought that that would fulfil some short-term political ambition. It is, therefore, a healthy trend to remove the companies from the influence of Government interference.
Then there is the past record of BNOC. It was used by the Labour Government as a tool to interfere and play a tiresome role in the North Sea with other companies on the operating committees, and so on. that was bitterly resented at the time. That will not happen again if we privatise the company, and it is something for which we should all be grateful.
There was a great cry about us losing control of oil from the United Kingdom continental shelf. That is nonsense, because for our landing rights—all our North Sea oil has to be landed in the United Kingdom—the 51 per cent. participation options exercised by BNOC will come under Government control. That gives us control of about 1·3 million barrels per day. On top of that, there has always been reserve emergency legislation to enable the Government to take complete control of all oil produced anywhere around these shores in the event of war or anything of that nature. So it is nonsense to pretend that the Government are losing control of North Sea oil reserves. There is nothing whatsoever to support that contention.
We have a good precedent to go on, in that the Labour Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) reminded us, sold shares in British Petroleum. That Government had good reasons for doing

639
so at the time. The International Monetary Fund was on their backs, and the Government had to raise money because the country was in severe debt. Indeed, I hope that the remaining 49 per cent. of BNOC may come under he same pressure at a later stage. It is rather nice that Governments of the future will have cushions of shares in oil companies which they can sell in times of stress. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State for Energy at the time when the BP shares were sold. It is interesting to see how Opposition has changed a man who was capable of moderate deeds such as that but who is capable of such thoroughly immoderate words and actions today.
Then there are the oil interests of the British Gas Corporation. In my view, it was a great tragedy that the chairman of the British Gas Corporation was given the opportunity to create a separate subsidiary of those oil interests which the British Gas Corporation employees could have continued to manage, thus keeping control. It would have been possible to float a separate oil company worth about £500 million, including, of course, the Wytch Farm interests and other BGC interests. It would have preserved employment in the BGC, which did not seem to matter very much to the chairman of the BGC, and it would have created a new independent British oil company.
I am sure that all hon. Members would see that as a good objective because, by comparison with the United States, we in this country still have few oil companies. It would have given us another oil company, opened up the market place and introduced a healthy element of competition. However, for some reason, the BGC considered that that was not desirable or possible. The chance was missed. The oil interests of the BGC will probably now be sold off piecemeal, and the great opportunity to give the managers and employees of the BGC a continuing role in the oil industry and create a new, separate oil company has been missed. It only goes to show the shortsighted attitude of the BGC, which is most regrettable.
We shall see the breaking of the gas monopsony, a matter of great importance. At present, the BGC has the sole buying rights of all gas supplies from the North Sea. It has many effects on production, not the least of which is that people have been discouraged from producing further reserves of gas. Indeed, by now we should probably have had a private gas-gathering line which would have been financed by international oil companies. I am sure that that would have happened if the BGC had paid a slightly higher price for its gas. As a result of its monopsony powers the production of gas has been depressed and many international oil companies have chosen to leave their gas reserves in the ground because of the poor price paid by the BGC after extraction.
The most exciting aspect of the legislation is the breaking of BGC's monopoly on selling gas to the public. We must all look forward to that because, if one of our major energy enterprises is denationalised, that will represent a great breakthrough. The Opposition accuse the Government of creaming off the profits or of guaranteeing that prices will increase. However, they cannot have it both ways. Either enormous profits will be creamed off by private industry, or competition will lead to a reduction in prices. We should all welcome that and, in addition, British industry would benefit.
6 pm
Mr. W. E. Garrett: The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) implied that he would have liked to have been a member of the Committee. However, having listened to his dull and boring speech, I am glad that he was not a member. He does not match up to the humour and knowledge of other Conservative Members and should have made his points in a less dogmatic and more humanitarian manner.
The Leader of the House did not show much enthusiasm for the motion and his approach was low key. I think that he felt that justice was not being done. In the three or four minutes allocated to me, I hope to show that the guillotine motion has been introduced too early. The Bill has 36 clauses. The first nine clauses on the oil industry and related forms of energy have been dealt with. Indeed, I concede that far too much time was spent on those clauses. At one time, Committee members felt that they were members of the Scottish Grand Committee because those representing Scottish constituencies made such long interventions.
However, two-thirds of the Bill remains to be discussed and those provisions relate to the gas industry. There is tremendous meat in the remaining clauses. The Secretary of State should consult his colleagues about precedents. En terms of political philosophy a parallel can be drawn with the Labour Government's decision to nationalise British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace. The two companies were covered by one Bill. On that occasion, the guillotine was not imposed until the Committee had sat for many more than 17 sittings. Indeed, I believe that it took 56 sittings to complete discussion of the Bill. Almost to the end, we were allowed to debate fully the most controversial matters. In Opposition, Conservative Members used their time wisely and fought as they thought right, according to their political principles.
There are still 24 or 25 clauses of this Bill to be debated. Much more time could have been allocated to some of the very serious issues. As the Minister knows, some of the remaining clauses are more technical than political. It might have been better for us all if we had been able to debate the political content of some of the remaining clauses. It may well be that some of my hon. Friends' tactics were unwise and that we made an error of judgment in concentrating too much on the energy and oil provisions. However, that is in the past. Given that we have discussed 10 clauses in three weeks, we should have been allowed at least another three weeks—or another 12 sittings—before the imposition of a guillotine.
We must think ahead. The threat of a guillotine hangs over two other Committees. It would be bad to curtail political debate too much. The Secretary of State is a man of strong political feelings. Before he became a member of the Cabinet, he expressed them fairly, honestly, vigorously and determinedly. Other hon. Members would also like the opportunity to express their views similarly. It is not always possible to put across views on the Floor of the House. Some hon. Members are not very good at debating on the Floor of the House, but are brilliant in Committee. It is a shame to deny their expertise and knowledge by imposing a guillotine. Ultimately, we must try—across the political spectrum—to reach a fair solution to political problems.
The guillotine motion is a very unsatisfactory device and I deplore it. Sooner or later—perhaps not in my

641
time—the House must find an alternative. If we do not do so, we shall continue to deny the principles of democracy to which we are all pledged. The Leader of the House should be made fully aware that, despite the lack of fury and vigour in the debate, there is a feeling that the system is unsatisfactory. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman would do both himself and the Government credit if he were to initiate a procedure—through the usual channels—to eliminate the present method of cutting democratic discussion. I know that that is difficult and has been tried before, but I appeal to the Minister to convey my feelings to the Leader of the House at the end of the debate.
6.6 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I certainly sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett). I also sympathise with the hon. Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and Banff (Mr. Myles)—who are both new to the House—who questioned the way in which we deal with Bills. The Committee was good natured and, at times, amusing. We learnt a great deal. Today, no one is listening and nobody cares, and sometimes we clap ourselves to death. Standing Committees are useless for discussing industries, whether publicly or privately owned. The public do not listen to our debates, although they are reported in Hansard. Many of my constituents are miners and steel workers and when I tell them that I have been up all night they say "You must be daft." We are daft, but we will not do anything about it.
The hon. Member for Banff asked a perfectly proper question about the reasons for public ownership. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) asked a question, had a knock at the coal industry and cleared off. That is about it. Before the war, Imperial Airways was a publicly owned body. It was publicly owned—as I knew from my six years' service with the Royal Air Force—for a very good reason. There was a strategic link with the Gulf. Gas and electricity were nationalised for great technical rather than political reasons. The coal industry was a dead loss. Anyone who believes that it was a thriving industry should ask those who worked in it. The Germans nationalised their railways 100 years before us and Gladstone had a shot at nationalisation at least 140 years ago. The Conservative Party took Rolls-Royce into public ownership. It has not been nationalised and I do not know how it is run. It is never discussed in the House. No one should expect me to say that British Leyland is a great success and to genuflect towards it simply because it is 100 per cent. publicly owned.
There needs to be discussion about the public sector borrowing requirement, and so on. Now that the Government are following a policy of privatisation, we need to ask ourselves what is to happen if Britoil remains 49 per cent. publicly owned. It is useful to have 49 per cent. of the profits coming into the Treasury. There are various definitions of PSBR. I could put forward an argument for 51 per cent. public ownership. There will not be any real discussion as to how the firm will be run. We have argued that the pension funds should be used in industry. There will be a great deal of argument about that in the years to come, because that is where the capital comes from. It does not come from the little chaps who
642
are running around buying shares. There are 50,000 or 60,000 small shareholders in the country. If I hold shares, I suppose that I do so through insurance funds.
The idea of a voluntary timetable is a very good one. I remember what happened the last time we had minority Government. If the press is right—usually it is wrong—swe might well be moving into a period of minority Government. In those circumstances, it is perfectly respectable to argue about the use of time, but it is not respectable in relation to a Bill of this nature.
We cannot ignore the policy of privatisation, which is part of the general policy of the Government. The Government have had approval of the Bill on Second Reading and they have every right to protect the legislative programme. Right from the beginning, the assumption was that at a certain time we would move to a guillotine. That is what we have all said when we have had a cup of tea outside the Committee Room.
The Minister of State answered questions very fully. If I had answered questions at that length when I was a junior Minister, senior Ministers would have told me to shut up. They would have said "It is not your job to open up every aspect of every question." I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he answered questions. Only once did he get involved in trumpeting about what he thought the Opposition really believed in, and that took only about two minutes. He joined my hon. Friends in debating Scottish matters, such as the smelter at Invergordon. That was perfectly proper, because they were important issues. Never once did the Government try to curtail discussion. Never once did they move the closure. If I had been leading in the Committee I would have moved the closure—and moved it quickly. When the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) moved the closure, the Government voted against it. The best thing that could have happened would have been to have a closure.
The nature of the Bill was revealed on Second Reading, when I suggested that there would be a long Committee stage. I asked for information on BNOC and British Gas. I believe that last Wednesday several hon. Members had a useful briefing from British Gas, and that BNOC also provided information. The Minister of State promised that he would give us a bundle of information about safety factors in the North Sea, but we have not had it. [Interruption.] Apparently, it is on its way, now that we have the guillotine. It was not available previously. We require a great deal of information on safety. I talked about a safety charter. It is a very important question, especially in view of the nasty Canadian accident. We have to find a means of giving the question a great deal of time.
We have emphasised the lack of satisfactory parliamentary procedure. Where there is accountability, it is done by negative resolution. I have argued that point in Committee, so I shall not go through it again.
We were given no information about the sale of the oil interests of British Gas. We were told that the Government do not yet have the information. If the British Gas Corporation or BNOC act in such a way that the Secretary of State does not have to intervene, there will be no further procedure in any shape or form. [Interruption.] It is suggested that the articles of association do not matter, but when industries are taken into public ownership there are provisions in the relevant Bills for the way in which the industries are to be organised.
With regard to the splitting up of BNOC, we were informed that there was near unanimity in the advice to

643
keep an integrated firm. We were told that the merchant banks advised it. We were told about the crucial need for the effectiveness of the trading arm. We have not had any real explanation of these matters. We were told that the Government had changed their mind on the membership of the trading arm during the passage of the Bill.
We made a meal of the articles of association, and well we might have, because they should have been supplied earlier. We have got them now that we have finished the discussion of the part of the Bill dealing with oil. We have one and a half days for discussion on the Floor of the House.
How is the firm to be controlled? I have not the faintest idea of the role of the Government directors. I have not the faintest idea what the two chaps do on BP. If they are there with their fiduciary responsibility, what are they supposed to do? They are appointed by the Government. There were special aspects of the De Lorean venture, in which I am interested, in view of my past knowledge of Belfast. There are things that I would have done in a different way, but it has to be remembered that at one end of Belfast there were people who had never worked in their lives.
The Secretary of State says that he wants to keep Britoil British. We have not heard very much about how that is to be done. His words on Second Reading could mean one thing or another, but apparently the problem relates to the law and to the EEC.
The Secretary of State has said that he is not sorry about the way in which he sold Amersham International. Incidentally, I think that it is a good idea to let the people employed in the firm have shares. In the case of British Aerospace, there was a speculative gain of 10 per cent. , with Cable and Wireless there was a gain of 20 per cent. With Amersham it was a 30 per cent. gain. With Britoil, a 10 per cent. error could be worth £150 million. Therefore, it is perfectly proper for this House to discuss the method of selling.
If the Government want to have privatisation, it is not something to be discussed simply on the back pages of the Financial Times. It is not sufficient to give vague supplementary figures. What on earth is the use of that sort of information? As I said in Committee, there are people on my side of the divide in politics who say "We can nationalise with a one-clause Bill. We do not need parliamentary procedure."
We have no information as to the date of sale. I suppose that the Secretary of State has to box clever on that, but if the Government are to proceed with privatisation the Bank of England—which is the national bank, in a curious sense of the term—should have a small merchant bank attached to it. It would be very much better if such a bank were to handle the matter. I am not particularly interested in arguing about who gets money from whom. We know that the City puts a lot of money into the Conservative Party. We know that centrally the Labour Party gets money from the trade unions. But it would be better for the body politic if the people who pay money into the Conservative Party were not involved in this Bill. The Conservative Party would be the first to jump in if the trade unions were involved. The matter is picked up by people outside the House who build it up into something that it is not. We should also examine that matter.
I would have been quite happy, as would my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), who has played a leading part in running the Bill, to discuss from the beginning how we would sort it out. I believed
644
that it needed a Select Committee procedure. The guillotine motion or the discussion today should not be just another party game. The Government are selling off a successful oil company which in its integrated form can, as the Canadian company, talk to foreign Governments. I accept fully that the major role in North Sea oil extraction has been played by foreign oil companies which have brought their expertise to Britain. They have trained people in Scotland. In the few times that I have been to Aberdeen, I have seen that those companies play a major part. However, the Government are funding the training at BNOC in a different way from that envisaged in the original Bill.
The gas corporation has been a successful monopoly. It is an integrated company which is the envy of the world. The chairman of another nationalised industry—I use the word "nationalised" advisedly—said that the Government have a vendetta against nationalised industry. If I have said that before it is because the matter is on my mind. I lunched recently with a French banker and a German banker who have come to live in Britain. They are astonished that the national sport is knocking the public sector. I understand that when trains are late people say "It is a nationalised industry". However, unless we put our minds to the running of the nationalised industries, the way that capital is injected into them and the management training, they will not add to anyone's comfort.
The large private monopolies are similar internally to the nationalised undertakings. As I said in the debate a few months ago, I do not genuflect as I pass Hobart House or the headquarters of the CEGB, and I do not regard those companies as "Socialism" in the modern sense of the word. They are State monopolies which we should examine and question in exactly the same way as private monopolies.
Mr. Garel-Jones: What about your reselection?
Mr. Rees: I have been reselected with no other nominations. I have said these things up hill and down dale. The people who work in those industries know that I am talking sense and vote accordingly.
We have spent three hours on the guillotine motion. We could have done it in a different way. There is much expertise on the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline has great knowledge of the oil industry and adds stature to the Committee. I am against the motion because what the Government seek could have been achieved in another way, but I shall not join in the ritual game of saying that guillotine motions are always wrong. They are sometimes right. We could have had a sensible discussion on the matters. However, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion, for what good it will do them.
6.23 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has addressed the House in the thoughtful and moderate tones to which we have become accustomed in Committee. It was a welcome contrast to the synthetic indignation to which we were treated at the beginning of the debate by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). One point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South corrected a totally false impression given by the right hon. Member for Deptford when he accused the

645
Government Front Bench—my hon. Friend the Minister of State has carried most of the heavy burden in Committee—of taking up too much time. That is nonsense. Time was taken because careful answers were being given to genuine points put by the Opposition Front Bench and Opposition Back Benchers. Not to do that would make a farce of the Committee stage. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw any charge—
Mr. John Silkin: If the Secretary of State reads Hansard to morrow he will find that that is exactly what I said.
Mr. Lawson: I am aware of the charge that the right hon. Gentleman made, but it has been answered by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South also referred, perhaps in a musing or philosophical way, to the difficulty that the House always has when debating commercial and financial matters. There is a difficulty. Even if industries remain wholly State owned, we cannot run them in Parliament. It would be absurd to try to do so, yet we have genuine concerns about the way in which they are run and their effect upon the national economy. One reason behind our preference to have as many industries in the private sector as possible, and exposed to competition wherever possible, is the acute difficulty, even with the best will in the world, of achieving some sort of political framework for the essential commercial, industrial and financial decisions.
That the Bill is of the first importance has been agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on many occasions, not least today. The Opposition have made it clear that they intend to oppose the Bill by every means within their power. One may recall what was said by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) when he spoke from the Dispatch Box for the official Opposition on the one occasion that I can remember during this parliamentary Session.
He said:
"The Government's proposals … will be bitterly resisted by the Labour Party and the trade union movement, both inside and outside Parliament." — [Official Report, 10 November 1981; Vol. 12, c. 494.]
The means available include delay, which, given its head, could prevent the Bill from coming on to the statute book. No Government could possibly accept that.
The right hon. Member for Deptford said that we were incompetent because we did not have the Second Reading until 19 January. The equivalent measure, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said—the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975—did not have its Second Reading until 30 April. That was guillotined. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had introduced the guillotine on this Bill when the progress made was far too rapid to justify a guillotine. I have considered what we are doing. In 70 hours of discussion we have discussed only 11 of the 36 clauses, which is about 30 per cent. For the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines measure a guillotine was introduced after only 60 hours of debate during which 19 clauses had been completed—40 per cent. of the Bill—which was much greater progress. By the yardstick of what the right hon. Gentleman did when in office and the guillotine on the 1975 Bill, we have allowed much more time and waited longer before deciding that it was inevitable, sadly, that a guillotine should be introduced.
646
The guillotine motion on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill was proposed not by the then Leader of the House but by the Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. He said that
"the case for timetable motions on the part of whatever Government happen to be in power is that, where a major Bill in the main programme is likely to be lost through undue delay … for whatever reason, the Government are bound to turn their mind to means by which the Bill can be brought back to the Floor of the House to have its Report and Third Reading." — [Official Report, 7 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 112–13.]
That is the argument that always applies. It was a fair argument then, as it is now. It is sheer hypocrisy to chop and change and to say that we cannot possibly have a guillotine because it is a defiance of all that this Parliament stands for.
Opposition Members have sought to inject a new element into the debate. Among those who have done so is the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) who made great play of the fact that, somehow or other, debate is rendered impossible because Britoil's articles of association will not be available to the Committee until later this week. That does not begin to stand up to a moment's examination. Most of the issues in the amendments tabled by the Opposition have nothing to do with the contents of the articles of association. The amendments deal with the way in which the scheme-making powers will be used, the valuation of Britoil and BNOC assets, the way in which parliamentary accountability can be satisfied, BNOC's capital structure after privatisation, and wider matters such as the implications for employment in Scotland and the merits of participation agreements.
Those and other matters have been the subjects of Opposition amendments. I make no complaint, but Britoil's articles of association have no bearing whatever on such matters. I explained clearly on Second Reading the provisions on control, so that objection does not stand up to examination.
A number of Opposition Members have suggested that it would be better to have a voluntary timetable from the beginning or from an early stage. I hope that hon. Members who are in favour of timetable motions will behave logically and support the timetable motion in the Lobby.
In view of one or two exchanges earlier on the question of a voluntary timetable, I remind hon. Members of the Committee's all-night sitting on 23 February. We began at 4.30 in the afternoon and did not finish until 7.20 the following morning. It was a long and arduous all-night sitting. We tried to make progress but we made very little and got through only two-and-a half clauses. During the night the right hon. Member for Leeds, South came to me in the Corridor and said "Is this not a lot of nonsense? Can we not do without an all-night sitting?" I said "We can do without an all-night sitting provided that you can give me a date for the ending of the Committee stage." He said that he could not do that. That was fair. I made him the offer, and the opportunity for a voluntary timetable was there.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: But then I said "Is this not a daft way of discussing the Bill? Can we not finish at 2 am or 3 am?" I could not, in the middle of the night, give the right hon. Gentleman a finishing date. If he had made a suggestion I could have contacted my hon. Friends and discussed it the following day. We were not discussing a

647
voluntary timetable. I was asking whether it was possible to finish at 2 am or 3 am instead of sitting all night. We could have done that with the same results.
Mr. Lawson: The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman did not respond to the offer. I know that it was difficult for him because of his difficulty in controlling his hon. Friends. That was evident in the Committee. I understand why he did not respond, but the offer was made.
The Committee has been good humoured. Hon. Members on both sides have testified to that. It is wholly satisfactory and I am happy that that is how it has been, but all good things must come to an end—even Standing Committee E. The Bill must be put on the statute book. In the motion we offer a fair and reasonable timetable. It allows reasonable time not just for a continuation of the discussion on the gas provisions, but for discussion on the important safety provisions for operations in the North Sea. It is important that they should be discussed, and the timetable arrangement will enable that.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) knows how I hate to omit to mention him, because he plays such a large part in our counsels upstairs. He suggest that the Bill is not needed at present because falling oil prices mean that we shall no longer want to go ahead with the privatisation of Britoil. I disagree. It is essential to be able to sell the shares in Britoil whenever the market conditions are right. We must achieve fair value for the taxpayer. There is no case for delay, nor is there a case for going slow on the breaking up of the monopoly and monopoly of the British Gas Corporation, because they are contrary to the interest of the British economy, British industry and the British people.
We are talking about value to the taxpayer. Some of my hon. Friends mentioned the sale of a large shareholding in British Petroleum by the last Government. The value of that company moved up substantially from what the Government received. In 1977, when that happened, the difference was £50 million—or £90 million at today's prices. Silence on that matter by Opposition Members might be sensible.
I am sure that Opposition Members do not wish to delay the implementation of the vital safety provisions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given details of the slow progress in Standing Committee E, in spite of the good spirit and good humoured nature of our debates and some of the good points made by Opposition Members. We had high hopes of making satisfactory progress without a guillotine, but our hopes were disappointed, as anybody who attended the Committee will appreciate.
Anybody who heard the engaging speech today by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), a member of the Committee, will understand even more vividly why we need a guillotine if we are to conclude proceedings on the Bill.
I do not complain for a moment that the Opposition are not doing their job properly. They are in favour of monopoly and the State ownership of industry. They believe it right to put their views forward. They believe that they should oppose private enterprise, private initiative and competition. However, there must be a limit in time to the expression of their opposition. They have made it clear that they would prefer the Bill to be lost. We should have liked to complete the Committee stage by now, but we accept that we cannot have everything our own way. We must strike a balance between the two
648
views. We have already debated the Bill in Committee for the best part of 70 hours. The further time allocated in the motion brings the time to about 110 hours. That is a reasonable compromise by any standards. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the motion.
We have heard a great deal of synthetic indignation from the Shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Deptford. He was conspicuously deserted by his Back Benchers. Indeed, the Opposition Benches have been pretty well empty throughout the debate. That tells its own story far more clearly than any words of mine, or of anybody else. I commend the motion to the House. I hope and believe that from now on we shall be able to scrutinise the Bill's remaining provisions properly arid fully, as we were elected to do.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 226.

Division No. 84]

[6.40 pm

AYES

Adley,Robert

Dickens,Geoffrey

Aitken,Jonathan

Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.

Alexander, Richard

Dover,Denshore

Alison, RtHon Michael

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Amery, RtHon Julian

Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

Aspinwall,Jack

Durant,Tony

Atkins,Robert(PrestonN)

Dykes, Hugh

Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Banks, Robert

Eggar, Tim

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Elliott,SirWilliam

Bendall,Vivian

Eyre,Reginald

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Fairbairn,Nicholas

Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

Fairgrieve, SirRussell

Benyon.W. (Buckingham)

Faith, MrsSheila

Berry, HonAnthony

Farr,John

Best, Keith

Fell,SirAnthony

Biffen, RtHon John

Finsberg,Geoffrey

Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

Fisher,SirNigel

Blackburn,John

Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

Body, Richard

Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles

Bonsor,SirNicholas

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bottomley, Peter(W'wichW)

Forman,Nigel

Boyson,DrRhodes

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Braine,SirBernard

Fox, Marcus

Bright,Graham

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Brinton,Tim

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon

Fry, Peter

Brooke, Hon Peter

Gardiner,George(Reigate)

Brotherton,Michael

Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

Garel-Jones,Tristan

Bruoe-Gardyne, John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bryan, Sir Paul

Goodhart,SirPhilip

Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

Goodhew,SirVictor

Buck,Antony

Goodlad,Alastair

Budgen,Nick

Gow, Ian

Bulmer,Esmond

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Burden,SirFrederick

Gray, Hamish

Butcher,John

Greenway, Harry

Cadbury,Jocelyn

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'thN)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Grist, Ian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Grylls,Michael

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Qummer,JohnSelwyn

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Hamilton, HonA.

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

Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

Hannam,John

Clegg, SirWalter

Haselhurst,Alan

Cockeram,Eric

Hastings,Stephen

Cope,John

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Cormack, Patrick

Hawkins,Paul

Corrie,John

Hawksley,Warren

Costain,SirAlbert

Hayhoe, Barney

Cranborne,Viscount

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Critchley,Julian

Heddle,John

Crouch,David

Henderson, Barry

Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)

Heseltine, RtHon Michael

649

Higgins, RtHon Terence L.

Parkinson, RtHon Cecil

Hill,James

Parris, Matthew

Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

Patten,Christopher(Bath)

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Patten,John (Oxford)

Hooson, Tom

Pattie,Geoffrey

Hordern,Peter

Pawsey, James

Howell, RtHonD.(G'ldf'd)

Percival,Sir Ian

Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Pollock,Alexander

Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)

Porter,Barry

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Proctor, K. Harvey

JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Raison,Rt Hon Timothy

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rathbone, Tim

Kaberry,SirDonald

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Kellett-Bowman,MrsElaine

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Kimball,SirMarcus

Renton,Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom

RhodesJames, Robert

Kitson,SirTimothy

RhysWilliams,SirBrandon

Knight,MrsJill

Ridley,HonNicholas

Knox, David

Ridsdale,SirJulian

Lamont,Norman

Rifkind, Malcolm

Lang, Ian

Rippon,Rt Hon Geoffrey

Langford-Holt,SirJohn

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Latham,Michael

Rossi,Hugh

Lawrence, Ivan

Rost, Peter

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Royle, SirAnthony

Lee, John

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

LeMarchant,Spencer

Scott,Nicholas

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shepherd,Richard

Loveridge,John

Shersby,Michael

Luce,Richard

Silvester,Fred

Lyell, Nicholas

Sims, Roger

Macfarlane,Neil

Skeet, T. H. H.

MacGregor,John

Speed, Keith

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Speller, Tony

McNair-Wilson.M(N'bury)

Spence,John

McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)

McQuarrie,Albert

Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)

Madel, David

Sproat,Iain

Major,John

Squire,Robin

Marland,Paul

Stainton,Keith

Marlow,Antony

Stanbrook,Ivor

Marshall,Michael(Arundel)

Stanley,John

Mates,Michael

Steen,Anthony

Mawby, Ray

Stevens,Martin

Mawhinney,DrBrian

Stewart,A.(ERenfrewshire)

Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Mayhew,Patrick

Stokes,John

Mellor,David

Tapsell, Peter

Meyer, SirAnthony

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Miller,Hal(B'grove)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mills,Iain(Meriden)

Temple-Morris,Peter

Miscampbell,Norman

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Mitchell,David (Basingstoke)

Thompson,Donald

Moate, Roger

Thorne,Neil(IlfordSouth)

Montgomery, Fergus

Thornton,Malcolm

Moore,John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Morgan,Geraint

Townsend, CyrilD, (B'heath)

Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)

Trippier,David

Morrison, Hon P, (Chester)

Trotter, Neville

Mudd, David

van Straubenzee, SirW.

Murphy,Christopher

Vaughan, DrGerard

Myies, David

Viggers, Peter

Neale, Gerrard

Waddington,David

Needham,Richard

Waldegrave,HonWilliam

Nelson,Anthony

Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

Neubert,Michael

Walker, B. (Perth)

Newton, Tony

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Normanton, Tom

Wall,SirPatrick

Onslow,Cranley

Waller, Gary

Osborn,John

Walters, Dennis

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Ward,John

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Warren,Kenneth

650

Watson,John

Young, SirGeorge (Acton)

Wells,John (Maidstone)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Wheeler,John

Whitney,Raymond

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wickenden, Keith

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Wiggin,Jerry

Mr. Carol Mather.

Wolfson,Mark

NOES

Allaun,Frank

Foster, Derek

Alton,David

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

Anderson,Donald

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Freud,Clement

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Garrett, John (NorwichS)

Ashton,Joe

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)

George, Bruce

Bagier,Gordon A.T.

Golding,John

Barnett,Guy(Greenwich)

Graham, Ted

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Grant,George(Morpeth)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hamilton,James(Bothwell)

Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)

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

Bidwell,Sydney

Hardy, Peter

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Boothroyd, MissBetty

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Bottomley,RtHonA(M'b'ro)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bradley,Tom

Haynes, Frank

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Heffer,Eric S.

Brocklebank-Fowler.C.

Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

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

Brown, Ron (E 'burgh, Leith)

HomeRobertson, John

Callaghan, RtHonJ.

Homewood,William

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

Horam,John

Campbell,Ian

Howell, RtHon D.

Campbell-Savours,Dale

Hoyle, Douglas

Carmichael,Neil

Huckfield,Les

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hughes, Mark(Durham)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

Hughes, Hoy (Newport)

Cohen,Stanley

Janner, HonGreville

Coleman,Donald

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Conlan, Bernard

John,Brynmor

Cook, Robin F.

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Cowans, Harry

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

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

Johnston, Russell(Inverness)

Crowther,Stan

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

Cryer,Bob

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

Kerr, Russell

Dalyell,Tam

Kilroy-Silk,Robert

Davidson,Arthur

Lamborn, Harry

Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)

Lamond,James

Davis, Terry (8 'ham, Stechf'd)

Leadbitter,Ted

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Leighton,Ronald

Dixon,Donald

Lestor, Miss Joan

Dobson,Frank

Lewis, Arthur (N'hamNW)

Dormand,Jack

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Douglas,Dick

Litherland,Robert

Douglas-Mann,Bruce

Lofthouse,Geoffrey

Dubs,Alfred

Lyon, Alexander(York)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

Dunlop,John

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Dunn, James A.

McCartney,Hugh

Dunnett,Jack

McDonald,DrOonagh

Dunwoody, Hon MrsG.

McElhone,Frank

Eadie,Alex

McKay,Allen(Penistone)

Eastham, Ken

McKelvey,William

Ellis, R.(NED'bysh're)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Maclennan, Robert

English,Michael

McMahon,Andrew

Ennals, Rt Hon David

McNamara, Kevin

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

McTaggart, Robert

Evans, John (Newton)

McWilliam,John

Ewing,Harry

Marks,Kenneth

Faulds,Andrew

Marshall,D(G'gowS'ton)

Field, Frank

Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

Flannery,Martin

Mart'mM(G'gowS'burn)

Fletcher, Ted(Dartington)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Maxton, John

Ford, Ben

May nard, Miss Joan

Forrester,John

Meacher,Michael

651

Mellish,RtHon Robert

Short, Mrs Renée

Mikardo, Ian

Silkin, RtHon J. (Deptford)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Silverman, Julius

Mitchell,Austin (Grimsby)

Skinner.Dennis

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Smith, RtHonJ. (N Lanark)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Snape, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Soley, Clive

Mulley, RtHonFrederick

Spriggs, Leslie

Newens,Stanley

Stallard.A.W.

O'Halloran,Michael

Stoddart, David

O'Neill,Martin

Stott, Roger

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Straw,Jack

Palmer,Arthur

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Park, George

Thomas,Dafydd(Merioneth)

Parker,John

Thomas,Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Parry, Robert

Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)

Pavitt,Laurie

Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

Pendry,Tom

Tilley, John

Penhaligon, David

Tinn,James

Pitt,WilliamHenry

Torney,Tom

Powell, RtHon J.E. (SDown)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Wainwright, E .(DearneV)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Wainwright,RtHon H.(ColneV)

Race, Reg

Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

Radice, Giles

Weetch, Ken

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Wellbeloved,James

Richardson,Jo

Welsh,Michael

Roberts,Albert(Normanton)

Whitlock,William

Roberts,Allan (Bootle)

Wigley,Dafydd

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Willey, RtHon Frederick

Roberts,Gwilym (Cannock)

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

Robertson,George

Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

Robinson, G. (CoventryNW)

Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

Rodgers, RtHon William

Wilson, RtHon Sir H.(H'ton)

Rooker, J.W.

Wilson, William (C'trySE)

Roper,John

Winnick,David

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Woodall, Alec

Rowlands,Ted

Woolmer,Kenneth

Ryman,John

Wright,Sheila

Sandelson,Neville

Young, David (BoltonE)

Sever, John

Sheerman,Barry

Tellers for the Noes:

Sheldon, RtHon R.

Mr. George Morton and

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Dr. Edmund Marshall.

Question accordingly agreed to
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
Committee
1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 23rd March 1982.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 23rd March may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned befor that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 24th March 1982.
Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at seven o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3)The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3. — (1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceeidings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and New Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on first allotted days
7. — (1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If the firstallotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall he added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homeless Persons (Report)
6.50 pm
Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for guidance more than anything. In The Guardian today there is an article on the first major national report by a Government for 10 years on the problems of homelessness. I am the chairman of the all-party group for the homeless and rootless. We are concerned about the issues in the report.
Since I arrived at the House early today I have been trying to obtain a copy of the report. It is on sale in Her Majesty's Stationery Office, it has been reviewed in the press and people on the street have copies, but no hon. Member has one. There is not a copy in the House. I have been to the Vote Office, the Library, the general office and your office, Mr. Speaker. I filled in a green card. I could wait perhaps two weeks for the result. I have tried to explore every conceivable channel.
How can we do our job if we have to rely on secondhand reports in newspapers?
Mr. David Ennals: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was the first chairman of the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless. I followed the same route as my hon. Friend, and I, too, have been unable to obtain the report.
I understand that the report has been heavily edited and many of the recommendations have been excluded, so it is even more important to see what has finally been published.
Mr. David Stoddart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, too, am interested in the subject. I recently had an Adjournment debate on it.
This is not the first time that we have had a problem with reports. Hon. Members are being treated as second-class citizens. We are sick and tired of being the last to see Government publications. You are the guardian of Back-Bench rights, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will put the Government in their place and tell them to do their job properly.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened with concern to the right hon. and two hon. Members. I shall look into the matter to see whether the papers can be made available. I believe that they will be. I do not know why they are not available already.
The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the House is in the Chamber, perhaps it would be helpful if he could explain why the report has not been made available.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

  Canada Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  6.56 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  We are nearing the end of the process of considering the Bill in this House. We can all agree that it has a unique nature.
  The purpose of the legislation is to give effect to a request for the amendment of the Canadian constitution, which amendment was laid before Parliament last December on the basis of a Solemn Address to Her Majesty from both Houses of the Canadian Parliament. The procedure follows a constitutional precedent stretching back for well over a century, during which the Parliament in Westminster has passed on no fewer than 14 occasions Acts amending the Canadian constitution.
  This occasion is, however, a special one. The Bill will be the last of the line, because it will transfer the responsibility for amendments to the Canadian constitution to the Canadians. I do not believe that there is an hon. Member present who questions the fact that Canada is the right place for legislative authority over the Canadian constitution to reside. This is, therefore, an historic moment and one that we should welcome.
  The Government have taken the view—shared, I believe, by the majority of hon. Members, as well as by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee—that, since this proposal for legislation has been put to us at the request and with the consent of the Canadian Parliament, and with the support of the majority of the provinces, it is our responsibility to enact the legislation in the form in which it has been requested. In this sense, the Bill has unique and unusual characteristics, which have imposed certain restraints on the degree of ministerial involvement in the substance.
  In the process of examining the legislation many parts of the Bill have had a thorough airing in the House. Several hon. Members have subjected the Bill to the scrutiny that they customarily bring to bear on legislation in respect of territories—unlike Canada—for which the Government of the United Kingdom have administrative responsibility. That has followed naturally from the fact that the Bill includes detailed provisions touching on many political and social matters of concern to hon. Members.
  Although the Government would not endorse some of the opinions that have been expressed, we believe that hon. Members had every right to express the views that they held strongly. As I said in Committee last week, I believe that what has been said has been noted by our Canadian friends. Indeed, I know that to be the case. Paradoxically, it is perhaps a comment on the close and easy relations that exist between the United Kingdom and Canada at so many levels that hon. Members have felt so much concern and have been able to bring to bear the knowledge and experience that have animated our debate.
  For those of us on both sides of the Atlantic who have been closely involved in the complexities of the process
  656
  of patriation of the Canadian constitution which stretch back over a number of years, this has been an absorbing political and constitutional question.
  This is an important Bill, because it marks the formal removal of an anomalous qualification to the exercise by Canada of its independence—an independence which de facto stretches back for many decades.
  It is important because, with the removal of this unnatural anachronism, we may expect that the energies of many on both sides of the Atlantic, which have been preoccupied with the resolution of the constitutional question, may now be channelled into the further development of relations between this country and Canada.
  In considering the Third Reading of the Bill—I should say to the House in passing that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to wind up the debate—I should like to reflect for a moment on the significance of the wider relationship between our two countries.
  Canada is a key member of the Commonwealth, linked with the United Kingdom through several centuries of common history, including the comradeship of two World Wars. Apart from these undoubted ties of kinship and sentiment, there are further links in the form of common membership of the NATO Alliance, of the OECD group of industrialised countries and of many other international organisations. Canada is of course a highly valued member of the international community.
  There is between our two countries a profound friendship, which I do not believe any hon. Member would wish to see diminished, and we look forward to a further expansion of the political, commercial and social activities in which Britain and Canada are jointly engaged.
  This afternoon, I attended the service in Westminster Abbey to mark Commonwealth Day. I can think of few more appropriate days for the House to complete its consideration of a Bill that will open a new phase in the relations of our two countries within the Commonwealth.
  I therefore call upon my hon. Friends and hon. Members to support the passage of the Bill.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I think that the whole House will join the Minister in his expressions of friendship towards Canada on behalf of the people of this country. It has been a long friendship, and I am sure that it will be a continuing one. I am equally sure that it will survive some of the criticism that I and other hon. Members have made about the constitution itself and the way in which it has been advanced by the Government in this House.
  From time to time, we have expressed, some very fervently, misgivings about the timing of the Bill, the vagueness of some of its contents and some significant omissions. Underlying all that, however, is a genuine desire on the part of all of us that the patriation of Canada's constitution and the outcome of the constitutional conference that will follow will be attended with great success and will be a matter for rejoicing by all the peoples of Canada.
  As the Minister has said, this is an historic Bill, and a very unusual one as it severs a bond that few people even knew existed—the bond whereby Britain alone has exclusive power to amend fundamental parts of the Canadian constitution. To sever that bond required the

  657
  request and consent of Canada. That request has now been forthcoming, endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the provinces—a situation that did not obtain a year ago.
  Because of the change in the circumstances—and a remarkable change it has been in just over 12 months—it is imperative that the House of Commons should now signify its assent to the request. That has been the recommendation that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in leading for the Opposition have made throughout the debates, despite the qualifications that we have expressed in respect of a number of particulars.
  I have no doubt that patriation will be a complete success if all Canadian people can feel that they have been and will continue to be at the centre of decision making, involved in all its complexities and actively influencing the formation of decisions that affect their lives. The Opposition have been trying to promote that objective. I am well aware that sometimes we have been criticised by people in Canada for adopting that posture, as some of them believe that we should simply have rubber stamped the Bill. To some extent, the Minister has endorsed our stand. He has commended the criticisms as being properly made in this forum, although I fully appreciate that he does not go along with our criticisms.
  It has been the Opposition's judgment that success is more likely if, as friends, we voice our anxieties and, more importantly, the anxieties of important groups in Canada who feel that their pleas for justice have not been satisfactorily acknowledged hitherto. It is for that reason that we have focused attention on some of the main features of the case presented to us by the aboriginal peoples. We have run the risk of criticism, and I have been accused of interfering in the affairs of Canada. That is a mistaken impression. Happily, however, that has not been the view of wide sections of the Canadian press.
  I shall emphasise the principal points that we have raised on Second Reading and in Committee. The Minister has said that the points that have been made in debate have been noted in Canada, and he says that he knows that well. I am sure that no one would doubt his word on that.
  Before emphasising some of the points, I join the Minister in paying tribute to those who have made such prodigous efforts to keep hon. Members informed about events in Canada. They have briefed us about the Bill and have gone out of their way to meet hon. Members to discuss problems affecting the legislation. Like the Minister, I acknowledge the efforts made by the representatives of the federal Government, who have listened to our debates for many long, and, perhaps, tedious hours, and to the representatives of the Indian peoples, many of whom have travelled thousands of miles to be present to help us in our deliberations. I also acknowledge the efforts of the representatives of the provinces—not least, Quebec.
  When the debates began, the Opposition voiced concern that the Government were trying to stampede the House into completing all the stages of the Bill before the current litigation could be decisively determined in the House of Lords. Now that we have reached the final stage, I still believe that that criticism was valid. If the Government had waited until 15 March, or a few days longer, for the conclusion of the case, I do not believe for one moment that the case for patriation would have been
  658
  imperilled in any way. Indeed, I believe that the opposite would have been the case. The Government would have emerged with far cleaner hands than is now possible. Justice would have been done and would have been seen to be done, and much resentment, which I fear will still be felt, would have been obviated. Instead, the Government will be charged with having colluded with the federal Government in presenting the Bill and pushing it through with unnecessary haste—the first of the Committee days coming just three parliamentary days after Second Reading. That may not be unprecedented, but it is still not helpful to the reputation of this House.
  It would have been infinitely more helpful to the cause of the federal and provincial Governments if they had responded to the highly relevant matters about Quebec and the aboriginal peoples to which hon. Members have drawn attention. Unfortunately, that reluctance to respond may have reinforced the doubts and anxieties of those people about what they consider to be the motives of the Governments.
  Many of those anxieties may be misplaced, but they exist and it is still not too late for a positive response to be forthcoming before Parliament has concluded its consideration of the Bill. I hope that between now and the concluding stages of the Bill in another place, or at least before the first constitutional conference takes place, the Canadian federal Government will make abundantly plain their views on some of those difficult matters.
  That brings me to the value and importance of consultation. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that it is a matter for regret that the Indian peoples were not joined in the consultations that led to the formulation of the proposals before us. They have frequently not been consulted over many matters that affect their rights, their way of life and their cultural and educational programmes. They have not been involved, sufficiently or at all, in managing and regulating their own fisheries and other rights. They have not been sufficiently consulted about the reasons for, and the methods needed to combat, the high drop-out from schools, the enormously high level of unemployment on the reserves, alcohol abuse and a host of other problems that beset them. They have also not been consulted sufficiently when their lands and way of life have been threatened by development projects or when environmental damage and a disregard for their rights have been found necessary in the interests of modern technology and industry, from the benefits of which they have, all too often, been excluded.
  It was made clear to me when I visited Canada recently that the expansion of the needs of modern industry has collided head on with the aboriginal peoples. Perhaps there is a lack of understanding by both the Indian peoples and the modern sections of society. Perhaps sufficient acknowledgment is not given to the fact that Indians regard their land and treaty rights as more than just a piece of commercial property.
  The Indians claim that recent events have underlined the need for increased consultation and participation at band, provincial and national levels. That has not happened in the past and they sense that they do not effectively influence decisions that have a direct impact on them, their culture and their way of life.
  Let me illustrate that with one example that I came across at first hand when visiting the Sakani tribe north of Mackenzie. I was told that lands had been confiscated for hydro-electric purposes 10 years ago and that no

  659
  compensation had yet been paid. Lakes have been dammed, valuable fishing rights lost and trapping lines extinguished, thereby depriving Indians of one of their links to survival. If that is true, it is no wonder that they do not have great confidence in promises of consultation on the constitutional conferences.
  It is a sad fact, which cannot be altered now, that the advice of the aboriginal peoples was not sought before the constitutional proposals were drafted. They regard that as a failure which represents a breach of their treaty rights, but all the damage to confidence could be redressed if the Canadian federal Government were to declare that the Indian peoples will be involved as profoundly as the provincial Governments in the task of identifying and defining their rights, which is on the agenda for the first conference, and that they will have a major role in settling the agenda of that conference, determining who are to be their representatives and settling those matters that are essential to the lives of their people.
  I understand that the Indians are asking for an assurance that the constitutional conference will not be cut off before satisfactory decisions are made to allay their doubts. They ask for assurances that there is no intention to impose on them decisions that could impair any reasonable chance of their making a worthwhile contribution to the future of Canada, which I am sure all hon. Members want.
  The Indian people are looking for a watertight undertaking that there will be no collusion between the federal and provincial Governments to manipulate the constitution to deprive the Indians of their treaty rights and their land. In the light of the debates that have taken place here and in Canada, I do not believe that that situation will emerge, but the Indians still have doubts about that and I hope that they will be allayed.
  The Indians seek a binding undertaking that the word "existing" which has been imported into clause 35 and has been the subject of much comment in the Houses of Commons here and in Canada has not been imported in order to deprive them of, or to adulterate, their treaty and aboriginal rights. I know that Canada's Minister of Justice, Mr. Chrétien, has said that the word is "meaningless", but many of us, here and in Canada, and in our sister party in the Canadian Parliament, have found his explanation unconvincing. The trouble is that imprecision about basic rights is obviously unsatisfactory.
  The Indians are concerned that the constitution will be construed by the courts as meaning that their rights, which may not yet have been adjudicated upon, may be ignored and that rights that have been trespassed upon in the past and allegedly extinguished by prescription, will be deemed to have been forfeited.
  The Indian peoples seek assurances that the constitutional talks will not end after one year and that they will not be shut out of any succeeding conference, as appears to be possible under clause 49. They would interpret such an act as a savage repudiation of their basic rights. Many misgivings have been expressed about that in the House.
  Is it conceivable that all those outstanding problems can be resolved in a year? What if they are not? Who will then decide on the interpretation and definition of the Indian people's rights and how will that be done? What right of appeal exists against any injustice that may occur? I do not suggest that miracles can be worked overnight or that problems that have beset the Indian peoples can vanish overnight, but surely it is not too much to expect that
  660
  before patriation, or at least before the first constitutional conference is held, glaring ambiguities in the federal and provincial Governments' attitudes and policies towards treaty and aboriginal rights will be cleared up.
  I am reinforced in making those points by the Minister's comments that our deliberations have been listened to with care in Canada. I also believe that to be the case. Having reiterated the doubts, I repeat that some of the doubts have been exaggerated. In a battle of ideas where people are seeking to advance a cause it is not unknown that exaggerated statements may be made.
  We have embarked on a course about which the House, with a few exceptions, will be delighted. We are about to abandon what many of us regard as an unnecessary task. We wish Canada and all its peoples the success that they deserve. In their dealings in international affairs over the years they have a record on human rights which is second to none. They have shown in their recent observations and policies about delicate matters affecting central America that they are capable and, indeed, desirous of taking a line that is independent of their neighbours in the United States.
  My wish, as I have said before, is that the Canadian people will be able to rejoice in the patriation of their constitution and that the friendship between our two peoples will be reinforced and made ever stronger by the step that this Parliament is about to take.
  7.20 pm
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I explained on the Second Reading why I could not vote in favour of the passage of the Bill at this time. I took the decision on the high ground of constitutional propriety and legal principle. I am bound to say that nothing I have heard or read either on Second Reading or in subsequent proceedings in the House, or in the spirited correspondence in The Times newspaper, has caused me to doubt the validity and correctness of the submission that I made to the House. I rise now to say, simply and shortly, that this is still my position, and that I also know it to be that of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  To legislate while these constitutional matters are still awaiting consideration and decision by the courts in Canada is to incur the risk of a conflict between, on the one hand, an Act of Parliament valid in English law according to the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament, which is appropriate to us here as a unitary State without a written constitution and, on the other hand, if the Quebec appeal ultimately succeeds—it is not for us in the House or in this country to anticipate the result of these legal proceedings—a decision by those courts that there has been a breach of the constitutional convention at the heart of the federal-provincial relationship. It is a conflict, if we proceed to legislate now, that we cannot be certain to avoid.
  That would be an outcome as unwelcome as it would be dangerous. It is a risk that we neither need nor should incur. It is a risk that a short delay can effectively remove. Surely a short delay is but a small price to pay for so great a gain.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. James Callaghan: I rise to support the Third Reading of the Bill and to congratulate the Canadian Government, and especially the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, on having secured the assent of

  661
  most of those concerned, certainly the majority of the provinces and the people of Canada. Last week, I was invited to Canada—and I went. It is said of those who come from Cardiganshire that they cast their bread upon the waters when they know the tide is coming in. I was glad to go.
  An old friend of many hon. Members, Mr. Paul Martin, a former Canadian High Commissioner, former Leader of the Government in the Senate, and former Secretary of State for External Affairs—a very distinguished statesman—was having the honour of a chair of international affairs named after him at the University of Windsor, Ontario. I had the good fortune to be asked to speak before a large assembly at which the Prime Minister and a number of members of the Canadian Cabinet were present.
  I took the opportunity—I know that the House will agree that this was right—to say that, whatever may have been stated in debates in this House by those who had more reservations than myself about the Bill, there was nothing obstructive or frivolous in the case that was made, that these were genuine concerns and that all hon. Members felt that if a Bill was placed in front of us any hon. Member should have the opportunity of speaking to it, although it was my hope that they would not vote on it. However, there were some votes.
  I might add, in view of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), that I left behind a couple of copies of Hansard. Provided that these are read, hon. Members can be certain that whatever the High Commissioner or anyone else may have done, there is a full awareness of what took place here. Nor should we overlook the fact that the debates have been fully reported in the Canadian press. Hon. Members' speeches have been dissected, some flatteringly and some not so flatteringly. Comparisons have been made between hon. Members and Members of the Canadian House of Commons, not always to our advantage. Generally, hon. Members can be sure that the full value of everything stated in this House has been noted.
  I wish therefore to utter one word of warning. It is this. These affairs must be affairs between the Canadian Parliament, the Canadian courts and the people of Canada whether they live in Quebec or whether they be Indians. Nothing that we say should detract from that. There is, on the part of some people, a last-minute discovery of Indians for whom we have had responsibility that we have not exercised for 100 years. We must not treat the people of Canada, the Government of Canada or the courts of Canada with any less respect than would be found in our approach to these matters with regard to our responsibilities to our own citizens. There is a full awareness of them.
  It is not for us to act in a grandmotherly way and to try to teach the Canadian Parliament or the Canadian courts what to do or how they should handle these matters that will now fall to them. I say that only to try to redress the balance. If so much emphasis is to be put on the rights and the grievances—I concede the grievances—of these groups, it should be stated, on the other hand, that it is the responsibility, which I have no doubt will be carried out, of those in authority in Canada, to ensure that the grievances are remedied.
  662
  I think during my visit that I removed some doubts. I had the opportunity to defend the position of some of my hon. Friends before the Prime Minister and most of the members of his Cabinet. It was a large audience. I did my best for my colleagues. There seems, however, to be a general feeling among Canadian politicians that we in this House are awfully slow in getting on with the process.
  There is no doubt that when this act takes place it will be treated with great solemnity and great formality in Canada. I should therefore like to put to the Government the suggestion that the Parliament at Westminster might be associated with the formal handing over of the Act of independence. It would be less than the occasion merits if we were not to do so.
  I should like finally to echo what has been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central and by the Minister. If there is one thing that those who visit Canada from time to time know—it was emphasised to me last week—it is that, although Canada wishes to live on the best of terms with its great southern neighbour, it does not wish to be swamped by the United States. It wants to hear an independent voice. It likes to hear even a British voice, on occasion, that is not putting forward an American point of view.
  Canada has a big task in continuing to build up a nation out of the numerous ethnic groups that make up that great country. I believe that this measure, treated solemnly and formally by Canada, will be yet another opportunity for Canada to assist in building the nation that it seeks to build. It has a very great future. I should like humbly to wish Canada every success in the task it is undertaking in preserving its own separate voice and in feeling that it has close connections with this country and to urge, as did my hon. Friend, that we should do all we can to build up our relations with that great country, which I have no doubt has a considerable future ahead of it.
  7.30 pm
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: The House hopes that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had a pleasant and useful visit to Canada. We are grateful to him for putting in a word for us with the Canadian Government and for trying to put this unruly Assembly in a better light.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister said, this is a unique and unusual Bill. It has been educational—educational for us—because by it a number of us have learnt a great deal about Canada. It has brought us closer to our counterparts, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, in the other House of Commons and the Senate, many of whom are joined with us in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
  As part of this educational process we have all received hundreds of letters from Canadians of all parties and none. I am most grateful to them for acquainting me with their opinions, which have been varied. Some objected to the Charter of Rights as diminishing the parliamentary system that they cherish, as we do. The charter, for understandable reasons, differs from the late John Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights, which is a statute of Canada 1960 and preserves the supremacy of the Canadian Parliament. Some of my letters, notably from Quebec, have told me that they do not want patriation of the constitution.
  During the weekend I turned the pages of a book written by Professor George Glazebrook entitled "A Short History

  663
  of Canada". It was published in 1954—some time ago. Professor Glazebrook remarked on the retention, after the Statute of Westminster, of an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, long since gone, and to
  "the process of amendment of the British North America Act by the United Kingdom Parliament. These however represented Canadian wishes, however confusing they might be to a logician, were not to be regarded as compromising equality of status."
  It is worth remembering that the continuance of the British North America Act was not the sole derogation in the Statute of Westminster from the sovereignty of Commonwealth realms. The Statute of Westminster bound signatories to accept the veto of partners on any
  "alteration to the law touching the Succession to the Throne or Royal Style and Titles."
  Therefore, Canada limits the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in respect to the Head of State, a position about which the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) had something to say in earlier debates.
  I doubt whether, until recently, reliance on a statute of this Parliament as the basis of Canadian confederation has exercised the minds of many in Canada or in this country. Anomalies can have utility as well as old world charm. Conservatives can warm to them and it is part of the liberal ethos to remove them. As long ago as 1922 another professor, Professor Kennedy of Trinity college, Dublin, published a book called "The Constitution of Canada", in which he said that
  "suggestions are abroad for change and the imperial government will be brought sooner or later face to face with a position of extreme delicacy."
  I wish that all speeches in our debate had reckoned with the extreme delicacy of our position. Not even the imperious impatience of Mr. Trudeau, or his somewhat lavatorial imagery, justify the assaults that have been made in debate upon Canadian conduct of Canadian affairs, of the kind, for example, made from the Opposition Front Bench on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), who gave the impression, although perhaps he did not intend to, that he equated what he deemed our right to exercise criticism of Canadian policy towards aboriginal peoples with the right to criticise the absence of certain human rights in South Africa or El Salvador. That would seem to be a most unfortunate way of talking.
  If, as the hon. Gentleman has said, King George's or Queen Victoria's treaty obligations were not long since for implementation by the Crown in Canada and Her Majesty's Canadian Minister, we, on this side of the Atlantic and in this House, have been criminally remiss in only awakening now to the existence of those obligations. My main concern is to ensure that in the Bill the request, which it is the purpose of the Bill to satisfy, came in due form and that, in the words of the third report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, it
  "in all the circumstances conveys the clearly expressed wishes of Canada as a federally structured whole."
  However, Quebec still dissents and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who knows so much more than I do about constitutional law, and all law, has made the point again tonight. Quebec has had its veto through the generations. I have spoken of the unique position of that province, both on Second Reading and in Committee, and I shall not repeat myself now.
  The Government will have their Bill tonight. I voted for it on Second Reading out of deference to the dignity and
  664
  sovereignty of Canada, but it would be misunderstood if I were to vote for the Bill on Third Reading. I hope that there will not be a Division. If there is, I shall abstain.
  The Bill will now go to the other place. It is not for us to tell their Lordships how to deal with the Bill in their turn. However, if the matter of the Quebec veto were to be settled by the courts before it was finally disposed of in this Parliament—the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that we should have respect for the courts as well as the Parliament of Canada—no one would be worse off.
  It may not appear so to Her Majesty's present Government in Canada, but many have asked the obvious question why there is such haste in changing the constitution of 115 years, given the recognition of all parties in this place that in future Canadians should have a constitution made for Canadians in Canada. Be all that as it may, on this Commonwealth day I join all hon. Members in this debate in wishing all that is good to what that great Canadian Tory, Sir John A. Macdonald, called not the dominion but the kingdom of Canada. May Canada flourish with all her provinces and peoples.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: If I strike a note of dissent from this Anglo-Canadian "love-in" it is not out of any disrespect for Canada. Quite the reverse. One of the reasons why I have been opposing patriation on principle, the timing of it and the process under which it has been undertaken is that I hold Canada in such high esteem. Canada is not just made up of the two so-called founding nations, the English and the French. There have been other founding nations whose interests have undoubtedly been neglected in the proceedings in Canada, although not neglected here. No native person or representative could say that the British Parliament had not espoused their cause with considerable vigour. I shall be opposing the Third Reading, and I ask other hon. Members to join me Those hon. Members who cannot oppose it will, I hope, like the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), abstain.
  I am saddened to learn that on Wednesday a petition that was launched by the Indian Association of Alberta will be examined by the Law Lords. It is tragic that we should be proceeding today, two days before an important decision may be made by the House of Lords, and, shortly before Second Reading in the House of Lords the Court of Appeal in Quebec will be beginning its investigation. It is sad that we are proceeding before that is concluded.
  One of the most important remarks in our proceedings was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). He said that if we proceeded and neglected the Quebec case there were those in Quebec who would see the "Anglos" ganging up on both sides of the Atlantic against the French in Canada. If that occurs, we shall have to accept some responsibility for it.
  I do not see why we should be moving quite so quickly. I do not agree with those who, in the atmosphere of self-congratulation—justifiable in some case—argue that it is all over bar the shouting. It may be that those hon. Members who vote against Third Reading will not be successful. But the Bill will go to another place, and the House of Lords knows a great deal about what it is to be an ancient institution under threat of extinction. There are those in the House of Lords who will be prepared to devote the same concern that many hon. Members have in this

  665
  House to the rights of indigenous peoples. We are talking about the rights of the fullblooded Indians, the Métis and the non-status Indians, and the Inuit—people who have expressed their views by corning over here and by writing to us.
  There are those who think that the Indian nations in Canada can give very little to the Canada of the future and that their contribution is one that has passed. We ought to pause and say that there is a vibrant culture within the Indian nations of Canada. They have given a great deal to Canada. After all, it was very important that there was assistance given to the settlers in developing Canada. Indeed, in the whole of America it was Indian gold that helped finance the economic boom of Europe. We must also remember that half the world's food supply has been grown from crops domesticated by Indians. That is often almost forgotten. We must realise the importance of Indian philosophy and Indian culture and the respect that the Indians have for the environment. We must remember, too, that it was the Americans who looked very closely at government amongst the Iroquois in devising their own system of checks and balances. There are people who have contributed a great deal to Canada from among the native peoples in both peace and war.
  The native peoples in Canada argue that their culture should not be swamped. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), himself a former Prime Minister, talked about the fear of Canada being swamped by America. That is true, but the Indian nations in Canada fear being swamped by a dominant white culture. The Indians have been subjected to the process of civilising—"teaching the savages, saving them from themselves", and "remaking the Indian in the white man's mould." That has been Government policy from the beginning. It has been a process of assimilating the native peoples into the dominant culture.
  The Indian peoples are reacting against that. In their contact with the native peoples, the whites offered treaties, the Bible, bottles of whisky and the bludgeon. It is not surprising that people reject this forced "civilising" process.
  The native peoples have demands that we obviously have not been able to realise, although we have been prepared to put their case and although there are differences within the organisations based on whether they are full-blooded Indians, mixed bloods or Inuit. Nevertheless, there are certain common characteristics in their cause, including the right to have greater control over their destiny.
  We talk a lot about self-determination. Why should not nations within major countries such as Canada have the right to a greater control over their own destinies? After all, prior to contact with the British and the French, they governed themselves. Ultimately, there has to be a greater recognition of the desire for more control, political and economic, over their own destiny.
  It is also important that the Indian view that the treaties that they sign and that they hold sacred is accepted by those who sign the treaties with them and that there should be a recognition of the concept of aboriginal rights, which is being chipped away by the courts.
  It is important for the Indians to recognise a secure land base upon their reserves, to have control over what is on the soil and under the soil, and not to have that resource
  666
  taken from them. It is important that their language and culture are preserved and that they are not subject to assimilation. In short, it is vital that there is a positive assertion on the part of the Canadian Government that aboriginal and treaty rights have existed in the past, still exist and should be confirmed and upheld in the future—a reaffirmation of the special status of aboriginal peoples.
  There is still time, in the period before the House of Lords deliberates, for the Canadian Government to come to this Parliament and make a positive gesture and not simply to display an indifference towards the native peoples. Our debates in the House have been reported. The mail that we have received shows that much of what we say is being reported, at least in Canada, although not to a great extent in this country, where the issue of aboriginal rights has met with a massive indifference from the media.
  The Bill is detrimental to native peoples. When one thinks of the making of the constitution in the United States of America, the image grows up of constitution-makers being neutral, fine, upstanding figures who subsequently are idealised by posterity. When we look at the process by which this constitution was made, we see that many of the dealings were sordid. It would be very difficult for historians to eulogise those provincial Premiers, the Prime Minister of Canada and these proceedings as though those figures had brought down tablets from on high and applied them neutrally. The tablets may be of benefit to some in Canada but certainly not to a minority of the people who were there first. A constitution must be founded on consent. A constitution that is not so founded will have great difficulty in being accepted.
  Even though the champagne corks are popping provisionally, and will be popping again when the House of Lords finally passes the legislation, many people will view the proceedings with rather less affection than those who will be celebrating.
  The Bill is detrimental to native peoples. If we look at the Charter of Rights and compare what is contained in the Bill about those international obligations that Canada has signed—the international covenant of civil and political rights, the International Labour Organisation's tribal populations convention, which they have not signed but which I wish they had, and the Helsinki Final Act—we see a gulf between the aspirations contained in the charter and those that Canada ostensibly supports.
  There has grown up a body of human rights law that ought to be observed. Since the Second World War we have seen a plethora of international conventions, conferences and United Nations declarations on human rights. One person has said:
  "Human rights are no longer a stray collection of moral principles which ought to influence the legislature. Every human right can be legally defined, interpreted and implemented. Human rights now form a coherent body of law."
  Clause 35 is a sordid agreement between the provinces and the Federal Government—what Mr. Chrétien described as "quintessentially a liberal compromise". The process by which that was agreed was quite despicable, and it is obvious that aboriginal rights are not entrenched in the Bill. There has been a lack of consultation with the Indians in creating the so-called accord, and it is obvious that the Indians will play only a marginal role in the post-patriation conference. As some hon. Members said last week, they are not even given observer status at the

  667
  conference that will take place 15 years from now. By that time it is surely hoped by some Canadians that the Indian problem will have been resolved.
  The amending formula can be used to extinguish treaty rights and aboriginal title. Indeed, the land base of the Indians can be taken away, as can their resources. The role of the governor-general can be, and has been used hitherto, to protect aboriginal peoples. Lord Denning pointed out in his recent judgment how important was the role of the governor-general. But in future the governor-general will be powerless to assist native peoples if their rights are trampled on. In this Bill, in defining the Canadian constitution, there is no reference to the crucial element of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which Lord Denning regarded as the Indians' Bill of Rights. In the proceedings that have been concocted by politicians in Canada, which they have dignified with the name of a constitution, many of the processes can be used to introduce legislation without native consent, and legislation that would be inimical to native interests.
  Hon. Members have sought to remedy some of the Bill's deficiencies by means of amendments. Some people will say "What an impertinence that Members of Parliament here should table amendments to try to improve legislation in Canada." I recognise that, but it is my view, as a Member of Parliament who has an interest in human rights, that we have every right to table amendments, and the Government have every right to defeat them, as they have done. Some of our amendments were an attempt properly to define aboriginal rights. We sought to devise a real process of consultation for native peoples in the immediate post-patriation conference, and a real role in the conference 15 years hence. We proposed an aboriginal rights commission, which could be set up if the post-patriation conference failed to reach proper agreement. That aboriginal rights commission could be of enormous assistance in protecting aboriginals in Canada.
  In other amendments we proposed amending the amending formula to ensure real consent by native peoples before decisions affecting them were made. We proposed amendments to strengthen the role of the governor-general. We proposed amendments to reinsert the important Royal Proclamation within the constitution of Canada. We fought, and lost, to delete the word "existing" from clause 35 which so many people—politicians in Canada, and certainly natives themselves, as well as academic observers—said was detrimental to native peoples. We fought, too, to prevent future legislation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we must not go over the amendments again. This is the Third Reading, and the hon. Gentleman should stick to what is in the Bill, not what he would like to have seen in it.
  Mr. George: I am delighted that I managed to say all that I intended to say before you pulled me up, Mr. Weatherill.
  If the Bill passes all its stages unamended, there are many people who will be sad—not just native peoples, but the many people who have written to me. Since the campaign began, I have received more than 3,500 letters, of which only five were abusive or supported the Prime Minister. To those who were abusive, I say "Same to you, fella". I hope that those who have not received replies will realise the difficulties that we are in. Some people will
  668
  continue to express their opposition to the measure in the courts, through the legislators in Canada, and through international facilities that will be available to those who wish to have recourse to those institutions.
  Native peoples have fought hard to preserve their right to exist, their land, and their livelihood. Many of us here have done all that is in our power to expose Canada's intentions and hope that Canada will recognise what has been said. We hope, even at this late stage, that Canada will take measures to allay the fears that many people have expressed during the past few weeks.
  I have no regrets at having opposed the Prime Minister. She has been invited to Canada in the past, and no doubt she will be invited there again. The first time that I went to Canada and expressed my hostility to a somewhat surprised audience, I was rewarded for my pains by a debate in the Canadian House of Commons, suggesting that I be given the elbow from the country unless I mended my ways. I have not bowed to such pressure. I hope that the campaign will not cease, following the passage of the measure through this legislature. I hope that native peoples will recognise that a great fight has been put up on their behalf. Canadians must surely recognise that merely passing legislation from this House denying the rights of native peoples is far from being the end of the battle. That battle will continue, and I hope that it will finally be resolved when the native peoples of Canada are afforded the rights and dignity to which I believe they are fully entitled.
  7.55 pm
  Sir Bernard Braine: Not one of us in this House would dissent from what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said about the constitutional future of Canada resting with the Canadian Parliament, the provincial Assemblies, the courts and the people of Canada, and with no one else. If the Bill provided for the repeal of our powers to amend the Canadian constitution, we would all gladly nod it through with the greatest good will towards the Canadian people and that would be the end of the matter. However, the Bill contains more than that. It contains a new constitution and a Bill of Rights which Canada was incapable of legislating for herself, and parts of which have not even been debated in the Canadian Parliament.
  The content of the Bill and its schedules has occupied the attention of this House and its Committee for nearly 19 hours. Virtually every minute has been spent on discussing issues of great importance both to this country and to Canada. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he told his Canadian audience that we have not addressed ourselves to these weighty matters in a light or frivolous way.
  This has been a debate without precedent. It has been an extraordinary debate, and one which I hope we shall not experience again, because we who have moved amendments have been talking to a blank wall. Ministers have given us answers that have borne no relation to the arguments. They remind me of the King in Hamlet whose words "fly up", but whose "thoughts remain below". They have told us that we have no option—echoing, of course, Prime Minister Trudeau—but to accede to the Canadian Government's request to enact the Bill without amendment. They are not open to any persuasion, and that is wrong.

  669
  We warn that to ignore Quebec, one of the two founder nations of the Canadian federation, is to run grave risks, and Ministers clap their hands over their ears. We speak of native rights, and they turn away. They displayed a brief, fleeting moment of unease when we spoke about the international covenant on civil and political rights, but we were assured that this is a matter for Canada, not for us, completely ignoring the fact that we here are enacting legislation which the Canadian Parliament cannot itself enact, and knowing that in so doing we may be in violation of the covenant. In their attitude they signify that Prime Minister Trudeau was right when he said that British parliamentarians have no option but to hold their noses and pass this legislation.
  None of us who have spoken even thought that it would be otherwise. Every word that I have uttered in the debate, and I suspect that every word uttered by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides, is addressed not to the Front Bench but to Canada where, if the letters that I have received over the past year are any guide, there is a deep unease among decent and thoughtful Canadians about the constitution to which we are being made party to foist on them. The fact remains that the Bill will leave the House today unamended, as we suspected it would, because the Government believe it expedient that that should happen and, sadly, because the Opposition Front Bench—which could have taken a different view—agreed that expediency should take precedence over principle.
  Although it is to the credit of the Opposition Front Bench that it has joined in detailed examination of the grave deficiencies that mar the Bill, Opposition right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have also followed the path of expediency and have decided not to support amendments—their own included—which would have made the measure less objectionable. Presumably Opposition Members think—with what appears to me to be considerable optimism—that they may form a Government once again in the future and would prefer not to face the wrath of a Canadian Government failing to collaborate in what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) rightly described as the deception being practised upon certain important interests in Canada.
  I must, therefore, make it plain that I cannot support the Bill and I shall summarise my principal reasons. I join several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), who spoke in Committee last week, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who spoke on Second Reading, in saying that it is wrong and shortsighted to pass the Bill before the Canadian courts have ruled that the Canadian Parliament's resolution is constitutional. The House is indebted to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke) for stating in their letters in The Times on 25 February and 4 March why it is unacceptable to proceed with such indecent haste with the Bill.
  The case of the Quebec Government will be heard a week today in the Quebec Court of Appeal. Their case is that the Canadian Parliament's resolution—on which the Bill is based—is unconstitutional. "Unconstitutional" is a formidable word. It is unconstitutional because it does not
  670
  have the assent of the province of Quebec and does not meet the requirements of the Supreme Court of Canada—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is straying from the contents of the Bill. We heard such arguments in Committee, but they are not in order now.
  Sir Bernard Braine: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I seek to stress that certain weighty matters about constitutionality relating to the Bill's contents should be brought to the attention of the House. The Bill is being rushed through without proper regard to outside events. It is highly relevant that two court cases are pending. One is to be heard in Canada, and I should have thought that that was important. If this great constitutional issue is for the Canadians and for the Canadians alone, what right have we to ignore—by rushing ahead with the Bill—what may happen in the courts of Canada? If Quebec wins its case in the Canadian court and the court rules that what is being done is unconstitutional, the matter will doubtless proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the accepted procedure for resolving Canadian issues of the highest importance, upon which the very future of the Canadian confederation depends.
  Despite the undoubted fact that Canada, by its established practices and procedures, is about to reach a Canadian decision on a Canadian issue that is vital to the future of Canada, the British Government are asking Britain to use its remaining jurisdiction—wielding what the Government have called an anachronistic power—to pre-empt a Canadian decision. What clearer example could there be of gross interference by Britain in Canada's internal affairs? It is wrong to do that. The Bill represents a blind act of expediency that threatens the very integrity of the delicately balanced union that we helped to create 115 years ago and that has long been regarded as one of the most imaginative acts of British statemanship. If, because we pre-empt Canada's internal judicial process, that delicately balanced unity is shattered and Quebec is driven from the confederation, we shall rightly be blamed by future generations of Canadians and Quebecois.
  That is not all. A second legal action is pending in Britain, and the Government, in their blind haste, are ignoring it. The day after tomorrow our highest court will consider the petition of the Indians of Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and whether it should hear the Indians' application for a judicial review of their treaties with the Crown. If, on Wednesday, it is decided to hear the case, the matters to be argued will concern the Crown's obligations towards the native people of Canada. The points of argument are complex and I shall not take up time by dealing with them now. However, they are weighty and that is demonstrated by the many days of argument in the Court of Appeal, the length of the deliberations and the judgments by Lord Denning and his fellow judges.
  I understand that there are additional arguments which learned counsel for the Indians has asked the Law Lords to consider when they review the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It would be wrong for me to go into details, because I am not competent to do so. However, like every other hon. Member, I am competent to make a political judgment on the central issue which the Government are determined, once again, to pre-empt.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) intervened on Second Reading while my right hon. Friend

  671
  the Lord Privy Seal was giving his reasons for not waiting to hear the decision that is shortly to be made by the other place. The hon. Gentleman was right to ask why the Government had delayed the Bill until the ruling of the Court of Appeal on 28 January, but had decided to go ahead while later proceedings were pending in the other place. My right hon. Friend referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal and said:
  "It was clear and definite … there comes a moment when one cannot wait for further possible litigation.… We might easily wait for years."—[Official Report, 19 February 1981; Vol. 18, c. 296.]
  That was no answer to a question concerned solely with a specific action before the courts. To assert that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was clear and definite was to imply that the Law Lords would automatically endorse it. The day after tomorrow we shall learn whether my right hon. Friend was right. Surely another two days' delay would not have caused a crisis in our relations with the Canadian Government. The Canadians have waited 50 years for control of their constitution and all that was needed before we proceeded was a further two days. If the judgment of the Court of Appeal was undeniably correct, my right hon. Friend would have had a more plausible excuse for pressing ahead with the Bill's completion. However, as we all know, the Law Lords not infrequently overrule the Court of Appeal. No doubt the Government felt that it was better not to risk that.
  What would have happened if the Third Reading had been delayed for a couple of weeks? First, we would have had the benefit of a full hearing of the Alberta Indians' case. That would have given the House an opportunity to hear the Law Lords decision concerning the Crown's responsibilities in the right of the United Kingdom. Secondly, it would have allowed us to take into account the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal on whether the Bill that we are about to pass is constitutional in Canadian terms—a double risk that the Government might have been obliged to have second thoughts about this measure.
  I have already contended—and I do so again—that the Government's persistence in riding roughshod over the judicial process is an unacceptable abuse of power. I have a special reason for saying that. The importance of the Alberta Indians' case is that it concerns the position of the Queen. The Bill will leave us today before we have been able to consider the Law Lords ruling on the extent of the Queen's responsibility towards the native peoples of Canada.
  The Government are in a great hurry. They are rushing headlong into this legislation, blinkered against possible consequences both to Canada and to Britain. They cannot wait for next week's hearing in Quebec. They cannot even wait 48 hours for the Law Lords decision. They have made arrangements for the Second Reading in another place on 18 March and for the completion of all the Bill's stages a mere five days later. I understand that because of the different procedures in another place debate will be much more limited there than it is here.
  Why such haste? I am reminded of Chesterfield's aphorism:
  "Whoever is in a hurry shows that the thing he is about is too big for him."
  That may be too kind an explanation.
  A crucial question remains unresolved, even at this late hour. It is inconceivable that Ministers have not grasped the implications, namely, the position of the Queen, both
  672
  in relation to the Indian treaties and the role of her governor-general in Canada and the fate of her discretionary powers.
  Once the Canada Act becomes law, section 48 will turn the governor-general into a nodding automaton. Once the Bill is enacted, section 52 will provide that schedule B is the supreme law of Canada and that any law inconsistent with it is of no force or effect. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said this may be a matter for Canadians. Of course it is. This will be their problem and they will have to deal with it. However, this Parliament is required to make it possible—without our action, it cannot take place—and it should know that some of these provisions were not debated in Ottawa at all. I for one will not be party to such manipulation.
  There is a further reason why I cannot support the Bill. I argued on Second Reading, and again in Committee, that if we enact the Bill as it stands we shall be in breach of our international human rights obligations. In particular, we shall be in breach of the covenant on civil and political rights which the Government have ratified, as indeed have the Government of Canada. At the same time, we shell have failed in the duty which the House owes to protect the rights of minorities and to redress their grievances when it is within our power to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State did the House and myself the courtesy of giving further thought to what I said about breaches of our obligations under the international convenant. He told us that the matter had weighed upon his mind. I had no doubt that it would. He is a sincere man and he is sensitive to questions of human rights. I know that from long experience. Yet, without any kind of explanation, he pronounced himself satisfied that we would not flout the covenant by passing the Bill.
  With great respect, it is of little use telling us, as he did, that the Canadian people have recourse to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. They know that very well. He will doubtless have been advised that the Human Rights Commission has already considered the case of Sandra Lovelace, a Canadian Indian victim of violations of the covenant of civil and political rights. The commission has not only considered the allegation; it found, as recently as July last, that Canada was in breach of article 27 of the covenant.
  I am not plucking allegations out of the air. I am talking about the realities which Canadian Indians now understand, even if, in the past, they were ignorant of them. It is to be hoped that the Government and the Canadian Parliament will take appropriate action to remedy that violation of the covenant. I say no more about it.
  The question which concerns the House is whether the Bill—not some action in Canada—for which the United Kingdom Parliament will be held responsible at the bar of history, conforms to article 2(2) of the covenant. That article requires us to take the necessary steps in accordance with our constitutional processes to adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights that are recognised by the covenant.
  If the Government argue that we have no responsibility for the civil and political rights of the Canadian native peoples, they are turning a blind eye to a fact that has been repeated here time and again. The undeniable fact is that the Canada Bill is going on to our statute book. It contains a detailed charter of rights and freedoms. For the moment it is a matter within our legislative jurisdiction. When it

  673
  is whipped through this House it is whipped through with all its deficiencies. If it contravenes our obligations under the covenant, that is our responsibility and no one else's.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), in an impressive speech last week, quoted a paper prepared by Professor James Fawcett, three times President of the European Commission of Human Rights. In that paper, Professor Fawcett states unequivocally that it is our business—Britain's business, the British Parliament's business—to ensure that all individuals subject to our jurisdiction have their rights recognised.
  The Canadian native peoples, although not within our territory, are subject to our jurisdiction until such time as the Bill is finally enacted. It may be a constitutional fiction, but there is a responsibility here, and I for one am not prepared to rubber-stamp legislation of this kind. It is wrong for us to shuffle off the responsibility, and I shall not be associated with such a breach of our duty.
  There is one hope left, and it is clearly the best hope of all. It is that Canada—a country which has been in the van of decency in international conduct throughout my life, and in particular since the Second World War—will not be deaf to what has been said in this House. It is my hope that another Parliament and another people will take heed of what is being said here. There are already indications that this hope is not without foundation.
  It has been a most unusual debate. We have been talking here not to the Government Front Bench. I have been critical of Ministers, and have felt sorry, in a way, that they have been put in an embarrassing position by a request which came to them prematurely and which had not been properly thought through. I acquit the Government of any responsibility for that. The only thing that they could have done was to delay proceedings, as I have suggested, until the matter had been better clarified. That said, we have been talking here not to the Government Front Bench but across the Atlantic to another Parliament and to another people—a people with their own destiny to fulfil.
  Perhaps Canadians themselves will put to their own political leaders the questions that we have raised here. Perhaps they will themselves demand the full and satisfactory answers that we have been unable to obtain here. I hope so. At least we shall have faced the issues squarely in our own House. Some of us will have tried to keep faith with our duty here and at the bar of world opinion. If the issues that we have raised are taken up again in Canada, history may well judge that our efforts have not been in vain.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. David Ennals: Nothing that I shall say in relation to the Bill, the conduct of the British Government or the Canadian Government, will be said other than in a spirit of friendship with Canada which goes back well over 40 years. I discovered Canada in 1938. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I went to Windsor, Ontario. I want nothing but good relations between Britain and Canada. It is the fact that we are such good friends that enables us to speak as frankly as some of us have during the debates on the Bill.
  As the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has dealt at length with the legal argument, I shall
  674
  not touch upon it, but I do not believe that we have any reason to be proud of the actions of either the British Government or the Canadian Government in relation to the Bill and the issues that lie behind it. We have before us a Bill and a Charter of Rights which, although it has been ruled we can amend, we know we cannot, and which the Government will neither justify nor explain.
  The Canadian Government also appear to have sworn some sort of vow of silence. Nor has the Government Front Bench—although our Front Bench has spoken openly, it has not voted—said a word that can be helpful or reassuring about the problems that have been presented by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the debate. We have been required to put the rubber stamp of both Houses of Parliament and ultimately the seal of Her Majesty the Queen on the Bill, which does nothing to entrench the rights, traditions, nationhood and forms of self-government of the Indian peoples.
  As I said on Second Reading, the sequence of events has been the wrong way round. There should have been a conference first and then a Bill rather than a Bill to be followed a year later by a conference.
  "If the Canadian constitution is patriated in its present form, without Indian assent being required to amend it, and without definition and protection of Indian rights, all the treaties made between the Crown and the Indians will have, in the end, meant nothing."
  That is a quotation from a recent article in The Scotsman. I agree with it. Those treaties were made in peace, in trust and in good faith by both sides. The Indians were possessors of their lands long before the arrival of the Europeans. They were never enslaved or conquered. They never gave up rights to their lands or self-government. They have never wished to be white Canadians nor do they wish to be so now. They wish to preserve their proud traditions. I believe that they are right to do so and that they should not be squeezed into some common mould.
  The only people so far to come well out of this constitutional argument are the Indians themselves. Both here and in Canada the Indians have spoken with great clarity and unity—greater unity than any of us expected. If we go back to 1979, we saw a massive campaign. Three hundred and fifty chiefs came to London, led by Clive Linklater—a Saulteaux Indian—who had never been to Britain before. He and his friends awoke many of us to the issues that we are now facing. The Indians are not asking for material assistance from us or for money. They are asking us to ensure, as we promised, that their constitutional status is protected in the renewed Canadian Federation. They have asked us for the constitutional tools to enable them to develop their own nationhood, their own forms of self-government and to preserve their traditions. Several hon. Members have heard Chief Solomon Sanderson forcefully expound the concept of Indian sovereignty and Indian government that is already working so well in Saskatchewan and which provides a model for future development throughout Canada.
  When we have passed the Bill through all its stages in both Houses—I fear in exactly the same form as it was handed to us by the Canadian Government—I submit that we have a right to ask for a quid pro quo from Mr. Trudeau and his Government. They ask that we pass the Bill precisely as they drafted it. The Lord Privy Seal explained that it had to be passed as delivered to us. If we are good boys and it is handed back to Canada exactly as it was sent to us we have a right to expect some response from the

  675
  Canadian Government to what has been said by hon. Members from both sides of the House. The Canadian Government should thrash out an agreement with the aboriginal people.
  The joint council of the National Indian Brotherhood has been meeting in Ottawa in the past few days. Its representatives asked the Canadian Government to meet them and to open a dialogue which could lead to a genuine settlement of the constitutional deadlock. They are genuine and sincere in wishing to come to terms. They do not want to lose their confidence in Britain and the treaties with the Crown.
  Their approach to the Canadian Government is sincere and right. It is fair to the Canadian people, to the provinces and the Indian people that there should be a settlement in which the Indians are fully involved and for which there is agreement. There has been no response from the federal Government. They have not said that they are prepared to sit round the conference table now. They should not wait for 12 months, as the Bill provides. Mr. Trudeau is held in high respect in the House. We want him to respond now and to sit round the table with the people who have fears so that they can seek together to thrash out the difficulties and hammer out a settlement.
  In the absence of any response to all that has been said by the Indian leaders and right hon. and hon. Members—and there has been no response—I cannot vote for the Bill. When I spoke against the Second Reading I said that I would vote against it. I hoped that there would be a response from the Canadian Government and that my fears and the fears of the Indian people on whose behalf I speak would have been allayed. Instead, there has been silence. I can do no other than say that I cannot support the Third Reading. I hope that there will be a response from the Canadian Government as the Bill proceeds through another place. I hope that by the time that it receives Royal Assent, as it will, Canada will have made a positive response to what we have said. If that is so, the time spent on Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading will not have been wasted.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Eric Cockeram: In introducing the debate my hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that the request to repatriate the Canadian constitution came with the consent of the Canadian Parliament. There is no one in the House who has listened to the debate on Second Reading or tonight who does not support the principle of repatriation. The problem that arises in the minds of many hon. Members, including myself, which is why I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, is the manner in which the House is being requested to repatriate the Bill and the timing thereof.
  The Indian community has a case outstanding, which will shortly go to appeal in the House of Lords. It ill-behoves the House to attempt to prejudge that issue. We have been reminded that the province of Quebec, one of the two founding nations of Canada, namely, the British and French, with 25 per cent. of the population of Canada has a case outstanding in the Canadian Supreme Court. That case is due to start in about a week's time. We are told by the lawyers that it is due to be concluded in May. There is often slippage when cases, particularly complicated cases of a constitutional nature, go through the courts. There may be a slippage in that case until June or July. A constitution that has existed for 115 years can
  676
  well wait another five months to establish beyond doubt that the request made to the House is fully constitutional in the country from which that request comes.
  It appears that the Government are determined and that the House is likely to give the Bill a Third Reading. The Bill will then go to another place, where there will probably be similar haste. I do not prejudge the issue, but it is probable that the Bill will receive a Third Reading in the other place in due course, after which it is necessary that the Bill receives the Royal Assent. Once again a real problem is being presented by the Government. Royal Assent will probably be given to the Bill by someone who is Queen of Canada as well as of Great Britain and who is sworn to uphold the rule of law in Canada's courts. I f, subsequently, the Canadian Supreme Court gives a ruling that in any way casts in doubt the request now before the House, we will cause supreme embarrassment in that quarter, too.
  My criticism of the Government is not that they stress the importance of the rule of law, which they do rightly, nor that at the last election we put the importance of respect for the rule of law high in our manifesto, but that they seek to legislate before the law has been ruled upon. The Government are behaving in a disrespectful manner to our courts and the courts in Canada, which is a sister country of the Commonwealth. That is unworthy of the Government.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. John Roper: We have heard the arguments about the courts frequently, but as a House we have no option but to consider and support the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it would have been wrong to refuse the request of a sovereign, independent Commonwealth Government to take charge of its own constitution, as it has every right to do under the Statute of Westminster. We are merely carrying out the provisions that were laid down and prepared for in that statute 50 years ago.
  On Second Reading I made it clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends supported the measure. We support it again today. We have learnt a great deal about Canada in our correspondence on the Bill, which has been valuable to many of us. We believe that there is close friendship between this country and Canada. The links between us and Canada will develop and grow.
  For many of us in the House the study of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms incorporated in the Bill has been of considerable interest. There seems to be considerable argument, which many of my hon. Friends would support, for introducing some such measure into our own legislation. I shall not pursue that matter, because if I did so you might rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  On Second Reading I said that if we rejected the Bill there would be misunderstandings. Certain remarks made on Second Reading and in Committee have been substantially misunderstood in Canada. We have not helped the interests of the Indian peoples of Canada by comparing their situation with that of people in South Africa. I was glad that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said that earlier remarks had been exaggerated. He paid tribute to Canada's role in furthering human rights.

  677
  Had he not done so, I should have felt obliged to refer to the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, which caused considerable offence when they were relayed to Canada.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I was responding to an intervention. I subsequentally withdrew the remark. It was ill-judged and totally extemporary. Many of us make such mistakes. It is a question of human rights. I should not have drawn a parallel with South Africa and El Salvador.
  Mr. Roper: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman further clarifies the point.
  No one would deny that there are problems in Canada, but the people of Canada must work them out among themselves. In giving the Bill a Third Reading we are sending them our good wishes and good will for the solution of the problems.
  As has been said, it is an historic occasion in the final development of the Commonwealth. It is particularly appropriate that we come to the final stage of the Bill on Commonwealth day, as the Minister said.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: On Second Reading, I said that, although I broadly welcomed the Bill, I would concentrate on that part of it for which I had an especial concern. In fact, concern for the future of the Indian people in Canada has dominated all three days of debate.
  There can now be no doubt that the issue has been and will continue to be central to the reservations that hon. Members have over the patriation of the Canadian constitution and, therefore, over the Bill. Canada is a mighty country—the second largest in the world. It is endowed with immense natural resources and with a huge variety of terrain and climate. We all admire the people from Europe who had the courage, steadfastness and faith to settle that vast area.
  Since the first French and British settlers came, Ukranians, Rumanians, Czechs, Poles, Greeks, Italians, Germans, the Dutch and Scandinavians have followed in their thousands. Many have come as refugees from poverty and persecution. All came to find a wider opportunity in a comparatively empty land.
  The fact of the Canadian federation is an astonishing success. In that enormous country there is an established system of democratic government which contains and satisfies the needs and aspirations of a great variety of people—all Canadians but all, too, with something of the culture of the countries from which they or their parents came.
  In Britain and through much of Europe we know the nation State. We should never underestimate the great challenge of forging a new nation from a polyglot community. Canada has succeeded in that challenge. We in Westminster salute her.
  There are now 23 million Canadians. All but 5 per cent. of them are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. But I fear that towards the native 5 per cent. —the descendants of those whose land it was before the white man came—Canada has to a degree so far failed in her own high ideals.
  I shall summarise two points. First, it is still my view that the Canada Bill does not explain what Canada intends to do about the Crown's obligations to the Indians. I have studied sections 25 and 35 and I note the reference to
  678
  aboriginal and treaty rights. I have also studied the amending formula by which those rights can be eliminated by the federal and provincial Governments without the consent of the Indians. Even without such considerations, however, section 35 is not satisfactory. It neither explains what rights are to be recognised, nor says how they are to be protected and implemented.
  We cannot assume that that lack of explicitness is an oversight. Nor, I believe, can the House necessarily assume that the intention of the federal and provincial Governments is benign. If we are to assume anything, we must assume that those sections will be interpreted in Canada in the light of Canada's past and present Indian policy.
  Time is short, and I shall be brief, but I must be blunt. Since 1840, despite minor fluctuations, Canada has had only one policy for Indians. That policy is best summarised by the word "assimilation". Indians are to be assimilated. They are to become part of the mainstream. They may hang on to their feathered headdresses, they may make artifacts for the tourist trade and the remnants of their culture will be housed in museums, but they will not be allowed to lead their own way of life, to control their own communities, to shape their own economies or to develop the resources of their own lands.
  I do not wish to deal with the detail of Canadian policy, and it would not be in order for me to do so. I wish only to point to the broad sweep of assimilationist policies for Indians that Canada has practised since 1840. It remains my belief that the policy of assimilation is a direct breach of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and of the treaties. The essence of the Crown's constitutional arrangements in relation to the Indians is that, in exchange for their peaceful surrender of vast areas of their homelands, the Crown will respect and protect the Indian way of life for ever.
  The policy of assimilation is wrong. It is also a failure. I am convinced, however, that the policy is perhaps the result more of ignorance than of malice. I do not think that Canadians even now are fully aware of the guarantees that the Crown gave to the Indians. I believe also that we British bear some responsibility for that. I do not believe that Canadians are aware of the constructive objectives that Indians have for themselves and for Canada.
  It is never too late to redress past wrongs. Because these debates are so crucial to the Indians, I have tried to do what I can to clarify and to speak out not only for what the Crown's obligations to Indians are now, but how the Indians themselves understand their rights and obligations to the Crown. I hope that Canada is patient with us and is still listening. I hope that the Canadian press will not spend too long on the procedures of the debate but will continue to give high exposure to its content.
  I turn now to my second main point. Let us go straight to the heart of the matter and examine the Indians' relationship with the Crown. In Canada's present constitution, sovereignty is divided up, not by levels of government, as we sometimes think, but by areas of jurisdiction. The Federal Government have exclusive areas of jurisdiction in defence, foreign policy, transportation and communications. Likewise, the provinces have areas of exclusive jurisdiction in the ownership of resources and in the provision of education and social services. It may come as a surprise to hon. Members that in a sense this is the key concept of the whole debate about the Indian position.

  679
  The Indians, too, believe that they have areas of exclusive jurisdiction on their reserves, subject only to overriding federal jurisdiction but not to provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, that federal jurisdiction is subject to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which has never been repealed in Canada or in Britain, and to the treaties. It is in this sense that the Indians speak of Indian sovereignty, as carefully qualified participants in the overall federal system of shared sovereignty which is the essence of existing Canadian constitutional arrangements—and it was this Parliament which created those constitutional arrangements.
  It is in this sense that we refer td the Crown in right of the federal Government and the Crown in right of the provincial Governments, and it is in this sense that the Indians speak of the Crown in right of Indian government. The Queen is represented by the governor-general of Canada at the national level and by the lieutenant-governors of the provinces at the provincial level, but the Indians have no distinctive Crown representative or officer to mediate in their relationship with the Crown.
  The Indians have proposed an office for the protection of Indian rights. The commissioner responsible for that office would be either the governor-general in an extended role, or a new Crown representative designed to fulfil the unique requirements of the Royal Proclamation and the treaties.
  Most of the Canadian population lives in a dozen cities strung across a 4,000-mile border with the United States. The rest of that huge country is virtually unpopulated except for small townships and hamlets. In vast areas of the mid-North and the far North, Indians are still the predominant population and their numbers are growing. Unless one is an assimilationist, it makes good sense that those Indian communities be allowed to control themselves. It makes no sense to attempt to control every aspect of their life through a huge bureaucracy several hundred or even a thousand miles distant. Indian government is not only an implied right in the Royal Proclamation and in the treaties. It is plain common sense.
  Finally, to those Canadians—and there are many of them—who believe that Indians must take responsibility for their own affairs, it should now be clear that that is precisely what is happening. I have in mind the work of Chief Robert Manuel of British Columbia and the other chiefs of the Union of British Columbia who went across Europe last year alerting the European community to their problems and their fears. There is also the work of the Four Nations confederacy of Manitoba and of the Treaty 9 organisation of Ontario.
  I am mindful, too, of the great leadership shown by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians whose chief, Solomon Sanderson, is on record as saying that the London lobby has advanced the concept of Indian government by 25 years, and I shall close by quoting a piece written by him to his own people in November 1980. It conveys the determination, strength and power of the Indian movement. He said:
  "We have resisted military domination, missionary assimilation and legislative termination. We will insist on enactment of all the provisions of the treaties through a joint process between the governments of Indian Nations, the Crown and the governments of Canada. But we will not be limited by treaties. Our sovereign and aboriginal rights give us greater scope than the treaties. Through Indian government, through our economic development, through our social processes, through our education and through the flowering of our Indian cultures we
  680
  will overcome the frustrations of the last little while in our long history and determine for ourselves what it is to be an Indian within an Indian Nation."
  Because up to this moment the federal Government have still not responded to the Indian people's plea to meet and to talk before the Act goes back to Canada, I shall with great reluctance and some sadness abstain in the vote tonight. An Indian-inspired solution to Canada's Indian problem remains for me the challenge in Canada's future.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. George Cunningham: Listening to this debate, and to preceding debates on the Bill, has made me think that in some respects they are comparable to those that took place during the history of the British Empire, as we picked up one part of the world after another. Debates on those distant parts took place in this Chamber. They were marked by some considerable knowledge, by some considerable ignorance and, above all, by boundless presumption. That is the characteristic that has marked the English—if I may now adapt the national description—down the centuries and has certinly marked them in debates on the Bill.
  Those of us who have had however small a part in British-Canadian constitutional relationships at any time were always aware that the historic and constitutional anomaly could give rise to difficulties. For Britain it did not cause any problem for as long as it lay dormant. For Canada it was always a regrettable latent humiliation that parts of the constitution could be amended only by the parliament of another country. Anyone who has been in that position must be glad that we are now terminating the anomaly.
  The grossness of the anomaly ought to be appreciated. Here is a country recognised not just since 1931, but long before, as independent and sovereign on the international stage but which has to turn to the parliament of another country to alter its own constitution. When that happens difficulties, embarassments and bad relations are almost bound to be caused when the issue has to be discussed.
  There has been no similar case within the Commonwealth, but let us note in passing that we have another wee dormant anomaly that could still cause difficulties, although to a lesser extent. That anomaly is the legal responsibility for choosing governors of Australian States, which still lies with British Ministers and not with any Ministers in Australia at any level. Before that anomaly festers, for goodness sake let us get it sorted out with Australia and remove it.
  Who is to blame for the present situation? In the words of the monologue "Albert and the Lion", "no one really was to blame". One could say that it was wrong of us in 1931 to accept that we should pass the Statute of Westminster, and allow the anomaly to be perpetuated, because it was clearly going to be much more difficult to resolve it in the post-1931 relationship than in the pre-1931 relationship. The Canadians asked us to do it. Were we to say that we would not do it or should we have said that we would hold up the Statute of Westminster for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland until the Canadians had worked out a formula to put to us? Certainly none of the present generation on either side of the Atlantic can be blamed for the situation, but we cannot blame our predecessors either.

  681
  When the latest and concluding chapter of the saga was raised, I felt glad that we were to remove the anomaly, but resentful, as were most hon. Members, about the language used by Mr. Trudeau when he talked of the House having no option but to vote for whatever Canada put to us, without looking at the merits of the matter.
  If we are asked to pass something and we have the legal responsibility to pass or not to pass it, we should not simply cover our eyes and say "Show me where to sign". Mr. Trudeau's remarks were impudent, not because Canada was a subordinate legislature, but because it was an equal legislature. It is not for one parliamentarian or the Prime Minister of one country to talk in that fashion about the parliamentarians of another country. Of course, those remarks were decidely counter-productive.
  Mr. Trudeau would have been better advised to encourage us to look at the merits of the case. At least, I thought that until I sat in on the debates. I found the merits good, both with regard to the constitutional formula for future amendment of the constitution and, though with more reluctance, with regard to the charter of human rights.
  It has been suggested that we should not have been prepared to pass the legislation unless the federal authorities and all 10 provincial authorities of Canada approved the request. I do not agree. It would have been all right for us to accede to the request even if, in an extreme case—to make the point—the 10 provinces had all been against it.
  If we imagine a situation in which each of the 10 provinces possessed a legal veto on constitutional change and something more normal was proposed—say a weighted majority system such as applies in many federal countries—one would expect each of the provinces to say "We would rather hang on to our legal individual veto". But that system does not apply in any other federation that I know of. We could have expected the provinces to oppose the change, but it would have right for us, if we had the legal power to do so, to override them and to introduce at the request of the federal authorities a system more in keeping with what was adopted in other countries.
  I did not feel competent to judge the details of the charter of human rights. I do not feel competent to judge whether it should be possible for a person living in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, to write to his tax officer in French. However, looking at the broad lines of the charter, I see nothing wrong with it. It is pretty well in line with the charters of fundamental rights that we, on our own responsibility, have placed in the constitutions that we have given to quite a few countries in the Commonwealth and it is more or less in line with international practice. Without considering the details, it seems that the general lines of the charter are all right.
  I have been greatly surprised by the fact that the debates have concentrated enormously on the rights of Indians and aboriginal people in Canada. I do not say that we should not have taken any interest in that matter. For example, if the Canadians had put to us a proposal that the constitution should deny Indian people the right to vote, it would of course have been right for us to say that we were not prepared to take the responsibility for passing that.
  We should, however, exercise enormous restraint. We should recognise the fact that Canada is, but for this
  682
  anomaly, an independent country of 50 to 70 years' standing. We should pull back from the feeling that we know better than people in Canada or that when people in Canada disagree, as they always will, we are in a position to arbitrate between them. We are not. If the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) has an infinitely greater knowledge than I have, which would not be difficult, of the Indian people of Canada, he still does not possess adequate knowledge to take decisions with regard to those people. It is for the Indian people of Canada, in relation to their own Government, to fight that kind of battle.
  On the issue of constitutional legality, I should like to correct an amazing statement made last week by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). I am sorry he is not now present. The right hon. Gentleman stated in regard to the divisibility of the Crown:
  "Every Indian in Canada believes that the Canadian federal Government and its agencies are agents of the British Crown in Parliament"
  —by which he presumably means the British Parliament—
  "endowed by Britain with certain administrative and legislative powers, and entrusted by the British Crown with powers to implement on its behalf the promises that Britain made to the Indians".— [Official Report, 3 March 1982; Vol. 19, c. 323.]
  That is rubbish. The idea that not simply some Indians, not even most Indians, but that every single Indian in Canada is unaware of Canadian independence is grotesque. It is not true. We should approach our discussion of these matters in the knowledge that, within Canada, people are well aware that their dealings on these matters, as on practically everything else, have to be settled within Canada and not with our interference. We are entitled to intervene. If the case is very strong, we are right to intervene. But we are not fitted to overturn greatly the balance of judgment that comes to us from the other side of the Atlantic.
  I found amusing Mr. Trudeau's phrase about the empire striking back. I did not, however, think that I would see it in action. But, my God, we have seen it in action in the course of this debate. I think that Mr. Trudeau was impudent in the extreme but we have paid him out in spades. I think now that we can say it is quits. Actually, it is a bit more than quits because our impudence has greatly exceeded his. Let us now, after this passes, go on, or perhaps one should say go back, to a situation where the two countries deal with each other on a friendly and normal basis without the complication that has spoilt our relations over the last two years.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I have not spoken before on this matter and I shall not weary the House with a lengthy speech. If there is a vote on Third Reading I shall abstain, as I did on Second Reading. I do not do so carelessly or without a great deal of heart-searching, for I appreciate that such action could easily be misconstrued as unfriendliness or even colonialism to a truly great independent nation that forms so vital a part of the Commonwealth and that stood side by side with Britain in defence of freedom, democracy and civilisation itself.
  I have visited Canada. I admire greatly the Canadian way of life and the goodness and integrity of those Canadians whom I have had the privilege of meeting. It would have been far easier if I had allowed myself to be swept along on the tide of general good will towards Canada and its people—a good will that I warmly share. I have, however, chosen the course of abstention

  683
  deliberately. I voted for certain amendments in Committee deliberately for one and, to me, all-important reason. I believe, not as the Government and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) asserts, that we have only the obligation to hand back this matter lock, stock and barrel to the Canadians, and that the role that Britain was left to play and should play in the matter is as a trustee of this constitution for the benefit of all Canadians. I believe that it is wrong for us to relieve ourselves of that trust until it has been properly discharged. And I believe that even though the Government and Parliament of Canada demand a speedy patriation.
  We have not just a moral but a legal obligation to discharge that trust with all correctness. What is that trust? In legal principle it is that we must ensure that the request that is made to us is completely constitutional, no more and no less. In a democracy such as ours the mere request made by an independent parliament would be enough, but in Canada—which is a federal democracy with a written constitution—the Supreme Court is the supreme judge of constitutionality. That Supreme Court has not yet given its supreme judgment. It will do so when Quebec has been heard. Until it is heard, the constitutionality of the matter must remain in doubt—it cannot possibly be otherwise.
  Although it is not a legal point, I wish, perhaps out of an abundance of caution, to avoid seeing the British Government placed in the position of having to make excuses for having done something in haste that is not constitutional. Still more so am I anxious to see that Her Majesty the Queen should not be embarrassed in any way, especially when all this could be avoided with only the hardship of a limited delay.
  The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that it would not be right to treat the Canadian courts with less respect than do the Canadians. I agree with that, but that is precisely what we shall be doing if we pre-empt the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court. That is my legal objection.
  My moral objection concerns the racial minorities. I know that the laws that govern the minorities in Canada must be Canadian laws, but if I am right in believing that we hold the residuary duty to legislate in accordance with our trust, then we cannot or should not discharge that obligation without satisfying ourselves that the minority communities are being adequately protected in accordance with promises that Britain herself has made. I have my doubts about that matter.
  I shall not take up the time of the House with my reasons, for they have been powerfully analysed and stated by my hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), in particular. I say only this. Surely we have a moral obligation to make certain that the treaties that a British Queen and a British Government negotiated with the aboriginal people of Canada are discharged with no vestige of dishonour.
  That honour will be discharged, in my view, if the House of Lords and the Canadian appellate courts say that that honour has been discharged or if some assurances of respect for those obligations had come from the Canadian Government. But that has not satisfactorily happened. Until those courts say, in effect, that that honour has been discharged, or until the Canadian Government give those
  684
  assurances, my doubt must remain. I am far from certain that our moral obligation has been properly and fully discharged any more than has our legal obligation.
  I wish the Canadian people well with all my heart. I wish to surrender our residual powers so that that self-governing democracy shall have complete control of itself and its laws and that that should be done with all our friendship and support. But I do not think that it is a matter of presumption to delay the Bill. It is far more important than that. It is a matter of honour. In all honesty, I cannot see that our obligations have truly been honoured, and I cannot therefore in honour support the Bill.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), who has made a gently stubborn, well informed series of contributions to these debates, had a good phrase. He said:
  "I hope that Canada is patient with us and is still listening."
  That is a sentiment that I echo. It is a matter of some sadness that, although on this occasion we should be exhibiting unanimous and undiluted pleasure at what is before us—the patriation of the constitution of a great country whose representative I watched walk side by side with the British representative at the head of the procession of flags of the Commonwealth countries in Westminster Abbey today—we have seen the expression of great " disquiet by many hon. Members about how this constitution might be applied and especially how it might affect the future of the aboriginal peoples. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said, this has in a remarkable way dominated our debates.
  At one stage last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), whose concern for human rights is well established and admired by a great many people, put on record:
  "As I recall, only the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who is not present this afternoon, was prepared to express any confidence during Second Reading that the Canadian Government will live up to their obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights."
  Surely that is not true. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government believe that the Canadian Government will live up to their obligations. I am sure that the official Opposition believe the same. This evening, the hen. Member for Essex, South-East said that the Canadian Government were
  "in the van of decent conduct."
  The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who unfortunately is not here now said, that I
  "seemed to be completely satisfied that everything was all right in Canada; there was no reason for us to have any concern. Having delivered his speech, the hon. Member for Inverness left, and we have seen no more of him." — [Official Report, 3 March 1982; Vol. 19, c. 309–321.]
  The latter part of that was quite true. I did not participate in the Committee stage because Liberals took the view which I understood to be shared by the Government. The Minister was present, and he took part but he did not say anything of substance. The only difference between him and me was that I was not there and he was. What is more, the official Opposition said that it was quite wrong for us to seek to amend a Bill brought before us by a sovereign country after a long process of internal consultation, negotiation and debate and a clear

  685
  majority verdict of the Canadian Parliament, which, I remind the House, was 246 to 24, and a clear majority, bar one, of the Canadian provinces.
  The former remark of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North that I was satisfied that everything was all right is most certainly not the case. I can think of no country, my own included, where, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman,
  "everything was all right … there was no reason for … any concern."
  I was very much disturbed by what the representatives of the Indians told me, and I am sure that that was reflected on both sides of the House. I was equally immensely impressed by the dignity, restraint and the trust with which they presented
  their case.
  I chose my words with very great care on Second Reading, and I repeat them because I cannot find a better way of putting it. This, to me, sums up my position:
  "I have been concerned to learn of the fears of the Indian population. I am sure that if we rehearse them the Canadian Government will pay close attention to what we say. However, I am troubled that we in the House would seem to be holding out to the Indians expectations that we cannot fulfil and about which we cannot do anything. Responsibility for those peoples resides with the Government of Canada. It is with that Government that they must live and with that Government that they must deal."— [Official Report, 17 February 1982; Vol. 18, c. 337.]
  It is, after all, a good and civilised Government by any standards, including our own.
  The right hon. Member for Norwich, North was wrong to suggest that anything that I said implied a lack of recognition or sympathy with the problems of the aboriginal population. That is not true. However, he was right when he said that I disagreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) —fulfilling on this occasion, on behalf of the Liberal Party, the role of a Back Bencher. My right hon. Friend said, echoing slightly what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said this evening:
  "There is no doubt that we have a right to deal with this Bill. Suppose the Bill contained a provision that the Indians should be exterminated? That would be absurd, and it could not be said that we were bound to enact such a suggestion".— [Official Report, 3 March 1982; Vol. 19, c. 320.]
  Indeed not. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said "Suppose that there was a proposal that the Indians should have no vote. We could not enact that". Of course not.
  If the Canadian Government were that sort of Government, they would not have come to us at all. There would be no question of legislation having been put before us. However, they came, and in doing so they risked criticism, because they are democrats. Because they are democrats, they will take the criticisms that have been made and question their policies, as all good democratic countries continually do. We pay attention to what people from abroad say about what we do in Northern Ireland. We sometimes resent what they say, and say that they are ill-informed and that they do not properly understand the situation. I imagine that the Canadians are saying precisely the same thing about many of the things that we are saying here. Equally, to some extent, people in the Canadian Parliament will be entitled to say to their critics here in the British Parliament, who demand the right to amend this Bill because it does not meet their understanding of the reponsibilities that they have, the trust about which the
  686
  hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke, "What have you been doing about that trust during the last 20, 30, 40, 50, 150 years? How many speeches were made in the House on the matter during that time, if the matter is all that important?".
  The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), said that for some of us this responsibility has been an entirely new discovery. The same thing was said by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), who said that many hon. Members had come to the matter rather late. It is, of course, a matter of trust in the Canadian Government. I trust my Liberal Canadian colleagues to be fair and just to the Provinces and minorities. Beyond that, I trust the Canadian people.
  The Minister said in opening that we are removing an anachronism. He spoke of the multitude of ties, both formal and family, which bind Britain and Canada together. As a Scot from the Gaelic-speaking area of Scotland, I know of a special tie, in that Nova Scotia is the only other Gaelic-speaking part of the world. A couple of years ago, in the Mod in Perth—the Gaelic equivalent of the Eisteddfod—I met a Canadian from Nova Scotia, who had never been in Britain but who spoke fluent Gaelic which he learnt from his family who settled in Canada in the early part of the nineteenth century. He was quite understandable and there was no difficulty in communication. Indeed, there is no great difficulty in communication between the Canadians and ourselves. We well understand the problems and fears and the pride of minorities. Those problems will be respected.
  I welcome the Bill without hesitation and am proud to have played some small part in its passage. If there is a Division—and I hope that there will not be—I shall vote in favour of the Bill.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: For much the same reasons as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), I support the Bill's Third Reading. As I explained my reasons for supporting the Bill on Second Reading, I shall detain the House only briefly.
  I wish to make only two points. I read carefully all the arguments put forward in opposition to, or in criticism of, the Bill. To a modest degree, I share some of those reservations and criticisms. They centre on two main issues—the rights of the Indian and Inuit peoples and the position of Quebec. Although I have listened carefully, I have come to the view that such matters are—as lawyers would say—de minimis compared with the Bill as a whole. That may sound rather sweeping, because I understand that de minimis means too small to matter and we are considering the rights of the Indian people and Quebec's position. Nevertheless, they are too small to matter when considered against the big political and constitutional picture created by the legislation.
  That picture is that once nine out of the 10 provinces had reached agreement with the federal Government on the contents of the package to be sent to Westminster as a request, it was game, set and match to Mr. Trudeau. There was then no longer any constitutional reason for trying to delay, hinder or object to the legislation. In a vivid phrase during parliamentary debate in Ottawa, Mr. Trudeau urged his colleagues to beware of the tyranny of unanimity. That is a valid remark. More than most countries, Canada finds unanimity almost impossible. We have heard much about

  687
  the rights of the Indians, but there are many other minorities whose rights could be raised at subsequent proceedings if we were to adopt the imperialistic referee role that some hon. Members would have us do and if we were to try to legislate for the rights of the Doukhobors , the Amishees or those of the Chinese in Vancouver. We have responsibility, but no power. The House cannot try to exercise control over situations that may arise thousands of miles away.
  Anglo-Canadian relations have been strengthened rather than weakened by our debates and by the arguments and discussions that preceded them. That is true on a human, parliamentary and governmental level. Those of us who have been engaged in the discussions and debates have been involved in more personal communications with Canadians than at any time in our lives. I speak as someone who is half-Canadian, with a Canadian family. The warm and friendly exchanges with ordinary Canadians—through correspondence and meetings in the House—have given us all a far greater understanding of Canada than would otherwise have been possible. That is of lasting value.
  On a parliamentary level there have been numerous exchanges between parliamentarians from Westminster, Ottawa and the provincial Parliaments. That, too, has been of real value. If I had to take one example of how great the value has been, I would cite the moment when in Westminster we realised that there was every probability that the Governments in Westminster and in Ottawa would together try to hurry through the legislation. That was the best part of six months ago. At that stage Back Benchers on each side of the House made it absolutely clear, through the usual channels, that that would be quite unacceptable unless the issue had first been to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the light of history, that was an enormous bonus. We have had enough argument when the issue has been agreed; if we had had fundamental disagreements and there had been a split between the provinces and Ottawa before we had tackled it, the Bill would have been doomed. Above all, it was of value to Canada that the highest court in the land ruled on all the crucial issues before the matter was debated at Westminster.
  On a governmental level, we have not heard much of the co-operation between the Canadian and the British Governments, because by their nature those communications were comparatively secret. Nevertheless, I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friends who have high office in the Foreign Office, the Canadian High Commissioner, Mrs. Jean Wadds, and her staff here in London, and the Government in Ottawa, who have co-operated and collaborated in finally getting this package through in an acceptable and realistic form.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) accused the Government in Westminster of colluding with the Government in Ottawa, as though that was some frightful crime and sin of which we should be rather ashamed. The reality is just the opposite. It is the business of friendly Governments to collude and to co-operate. If Parliament in its wisdom thought that this issue was unacceptable on moral or legal grounds—or, indeed, every other ground that has been canvassed high and low in the Committee stages of the debate—we were quite at liberty to say so. One of the great compliments that one can pay this Parliament is that, once the issue had been agreed on to a large extent in Canada, it was clear—indeed it is clear by the thinness of the attendance here tonight—that it was
  688
  not really our business to be arguing and fighting over every small comma, every issue, and every procedural wrangle that could have arisen.
  As someone whose roots lie deep in Canada, I welcome this day, as the Bill begins its journey back to Canada and leaves the House. It is apposite that it should be Commonwealth Day on which this is occurring. I rejoice with my Canadian friends and relatives and wish the Bill well.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: May I add my congratulations to and celebration of the words of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) that on Commonwealth Day we should be approaching the end of the Commons stages of the Canada Bill. It is right that we should clearly recognise the historic nature of this day. As the hon. Gentleman has just said, the thinness of the attendance in the House this evening marks the fact that the majority of hon. Members have accepted on trust the fact that the Bill came from the sovereign Parliament of Canada and have abandoned these proceedings for activities more closely related to the interests of their constituents.
  It is an historic moment for the Canadian people and for the British Parliament. In considering the Canadian nation and the process upon which it has embarked, it is right that this Parliament should recognise its success—its economic record, the respected role of its leaders in the world theatre and in the Atlantic Alliance, its championing of the recently acknowledged importance of the North-South dialogue, and its consolidation and strengthening of its own federal structure, which makes this new constitution so important.
  Many people went from this country to Canada, some of them having unwillingly to turn their backs on their own native land in order to seek opportunities abroad. We in this Parliament can look on their success with some degree of envy, perhaps, and hope that their native land—so free as it is now with its advice to Canadians—might learn some of the ways of success from the expatriates who people today's Canada.
  I am indeed conscious of the importance of the debate and of the brevity with which hon. Members have dealt with the issues that concern them. Given my youth and the fact that I have never been to Canada I am conscious of the comments that have been made and of the important role that has been given to me in replying from the Opposition Front Bench.
  The crucial issue that has concerned many hon. Members in the House has been whether we have a moral, a political or a legal right to amend the Bill in the process of its consideration. We have had many lengthy legal and political arguments on that point during the 19 hours of the consideration of the Bill. There are hon. Members who still hold strong views on each side of the argument, but the Canadian people have made the issue much more clear-cut and much less divisive than the issue appeared to be this time last year, when so many of the provinces were still dissenting, and with the consensus in the Parliament seeming to be particularly fragile.
  The consensus has now been obtained. All but one of the provinces have assented and the majority in the Canadian House of Commons is clear-cut and unequivocal. Therefore, we are not now in the position Of having endlessly to debate our rights, our privileges, our

  689
  obligations and our responsibilities in relation to a Bill that might not have found its own consensus on the other side of the Atlantic.
  I felt some concern in trying to decide whether it was right and proper to consider these matters in some detail. Others of my hon. Friends have had no such dilemma. I came to the view that it would be wrong in principle and misconceived in practice for the British House of Commons to amend the constitution as it has been delivered to us from Canada. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) have said, it would be wrong in principle for us to amend the Bill when the Canadians have deliberated so long and reached that consensus. It would have precipitated a major constitutional crisis between two friendly countries had we ultimately decided to make an amendment after that reasonable consensus had been obtained.
  The arguments for not amending the Bill on practical grounds are also very strong. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has reminded us that it is not just the unwillingness to interfere in the affairs of another sovereign country that should inhibit us from amending the Bill. After the Bill has become an Act and left this Parliament, we shall have no responsibility whatever for any amendment that might, even by accident, have been made during the passage of the measure through this House. Therefore, however strongly we felt on any issue, and however strong the arguments voiced in this Chamber or the other place, our ability to take responsibility after the measure has left this House is negligible, and it surely can be no role of a Parliament in a democracy to seek to take decisions over which it has no responsibility after the event.
  Mr. Ennals: Had there been within the Bill and the charter of rights something that the hon. Gentleman felt was fundamentally wrong, would he still have taken the same line as he does now?
  Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend has posed the question which, in a sense, I tried to deal with by prefacing my remarks with the degree of consensus obtaining in Canada. As other hon. Members have pointed out, had the charter of rights tried to do something that was totally inimical to the principles by which we stand and given that we have the responsibility for commenting on the Bill, we certainly would not have done so.
  I was going to go on to some of the issues that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends raised, but, in view of the processes by which the Canadian Parliament came to its decision, it is clear that we should not be placed in the position of imposing amendments for which we would have no responsibility afterwards, no right to monitor, no right to review and no right to change if we were ultimately proved wrong.
  Although the official Opposition have taken the clear view, which has been opposed by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir. B. Braine), that we would not vote against the Bill in its present form, we have tried to express views and allow free debate on the many issues that have arisen. For the same reason, the Canadian Government and Parliament asked the British Parliament not simply to
  patriate its constitution and to return to it the powers that
  690
  are still subject to our jurisdiction in the British North America Act 1867, but to pass the Act of patriation and enact a charter of rights. Thus inevitably the British Houses of Parliament were likely to pass judgment on what they thought the content of the charter of rights was or should have been.
  Our freedom to comment, to criticise, to suggest and to record our views is right and proper, and the Canadians could not have expected otherwise when they decided to present the Bill in the form that they did. It may be that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is right that whatever impudence may have been interpreted from the words of the Canadian Prime Minister in the early stages, by any stretch of the imagination the record is now straight. As Canadians plough through column after column of Hansard, covering what many of us here have sat through, they will see many comments which will keep them going for many nights if they take any interest in it.
  Two issues have dominated the debate and our consideration of the Bill. The first and the most dominant has been the Indian and other aboriginal peoples of Canada. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) summed up the details of the arguments that we have put forward following the representations that have been so sincerely and passionately put by the representatives of the Indian nations, who have been here for so long talking to and informing British Members of Parliament. I stand firmly with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on this side of the House in saying that perhaps our consideration of the Bill would have been assisted if some of the questions that we put to a helpless and hapless ministerial team, who felt themselves obliged not to give answers to the detailed points put forward for the proper reason that it was not their duty or responsibility to do so, had been answered.
  It might have helped the House if the Government of Canada had made a statement to inform and to put right hon. Members who were not striking the right note. As I said in Committee, treaties can never be for ever. For a Scotsman to wax eloquent at the Dispatch Box about the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is to risk in Scotland nationalist cries about the Treaty of Union signed in 1707. That is much closer to hon. Members. Separatists and nationalists are still carping about the need to implement that treaty in detail.
  The view of the official Opposition and the view of all except the strictly separatist parties in Scotland is that we live in today's circumstances and not with what was put together in 1707 to bring about this House of Commons. The same argument, however regretfully, must be put to those whose treaties go even further into history. Many hon. Members have spoken with great passion about the rights of the Indians. That issue must be dealt with and disposed of by Canadians in the Canadian Parliament which is responsible to its electors.
  Northern Ireland is on the agenda again and we have to consider the absorption of the ethnic minorities. That qualifies us to talk with some authority on the subject, but our lack of success makes a degree of humility appropriate. There are few answers to the problems but hon. Members' views are on the record. We hope that they will be read with interest.
  Quebec is also an important issue. The provincial Administration is openly and avowedly separatist. Its objections arise from that basic philosophy. I recall the charm, persistence and eloquence of the agent-general for

  691
  Quebec who has tried to persuade hon. Members of the strength of the Quebec case. Despite that, I am still unconvinced.
  Hon. Members have said this evening that there is a case for delaying consideration of the Bill until 15 March when the court in Quebec consider the veto question. That is a powerful and persuasive argument. We have already said that indecent haste was displayed in relation to the House of Lords. I recognise the strength of that argument, but it has a weakness. The issue before the Canadian court is unlikely to be resolved by court action. That is because the Quebec Administration, which is avowedly separatist, seeks the sovereignty of what our nationalists would call home rule or independence. It is unlikely to be satisfied by any court judgment on 15 March or any other subsequent occasion. That court case will be followed by another and then another. Nothing short of secession of Quebec from the Canadian federation is likely to satisfy a party that is avowedly separatist.
  If it is legitimate for us on some future occasion to pick an arbitrary date after which we think all reasonable court cases will have been dealt with, is not that taking a decision that more properly should be taken by the Canadians'? If we postpone the Third Reading of the Bill to a time that satisfies us, we are not acting in accordance with the principles of the decision by a sovereign Government. The decision as to what time is right in the litigation calendar should be made, and has been made, by the Canadian people. In the House of Commons we cannot play at Canadian politics. We sometimes find it hard enough to deal with the politics of our own country.
  The social, cultural, economic and personal links that bind the people of Great Britain and Canada are longstanding and real. The Scots, who were all too often driven unwillingly from their native shores by the savage pressures of economics, have made a special contribution to building up the success of the Canadian State. Many of them watch the Canadians' welfare closely and with great affection.
  As a Scot, therefore, I have more than average pleasure in winding up this historic debate for the Opposition and in seeing this stage of the patriation of the Canadian constitution completed. I have no hesitation in recommending Opposition Members to support the Third Reading of the Bill. In doing so I wish the people, the Parliament and the provinces of Canada all our deepest and most sincere best wishes for their future that is now to be constitutionally, but, I hope, never personally and humanly, severed from the United Kingdom.
  9.47 pm
  The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I wonder in exactly what role I am cast. I am described as someone who is rushing forward headlong and blinkered. We are manipulators left, right and centre, we collude with the Canadian Government and at the same time we are helpless and hapless. I feel rather confused.
  I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if I do not review their contributions to what has been an interesting debate, except that I cannot resist congratulating the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I am delighted that the bait that he cast on Second Reading was taken so quickly. I hope that he enjoyed his trip to Canada. I thank him for his constant support for the Bill.
  692
  At this hour I can be brief. We come now to the conclusion of the contribution of the House to fulfilling the request made to us by the Canadian Parliament in December last year. The Canadians requested us to pass a Bill that would create a charter of rights devised by Canadians for Canada. The Bill also incorporates as its other main elements a procedure for future amendments of the Canadian constitution and the repeal of the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster to legislate for Canada.
  Because of this final provision, the last few weeks have marked the last occasion on which the House has been called upon to debate the constitutional affairs of Canada. It has been rightly said that the residual powers of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate for Canada in the matter of the Canadian constitution is an anomaly in the relationship between this country and a leading member of the world community, which in practice has exercised its independent statehood for many decades. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to oppose the passing of the power to amend the Canadian constitution to Canadians in Canada.
  The Government have listened carefully to the doubts and reservations expressed about the Bill. Hon. Members were entitled to take the time of the House thoroughly to thrash out those matters. The doubts fall into two main categories—about the timing of the Bill and about points of substance in the Bill.
  On the timing of the Bill, I can do no better than did the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). A solemn address was received from the Canadian Parliament endorsing a proposal prepared by the federal Government and nine of the 10 provincial Governments. The British Government moved immediately to bring the Bill before Parliament. We delayed consideration of the Bill in January pending the outcome of proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Particularly in the light of the judgment given at the end of January, we did not believe that it would be right further to delay the Bill's progress. In view of other pending legal actions, which are still pending—the case awaiting petition in the House of Lords is only one of many—we decided that further delay could have prolonged consideration of the Bill for an indefinite period.
  The Supreme Court decision on Quebec last year took months to deliver after the hearing. We were told that it would be in July, and then in August; finally, it was September before the judgment came. We considered the effect of that. We also considered the new package that Prime Minister Trudeau was able to achieve.
  Mr. Lawrence: If it was considered constitutionally right to delay consideration of that Bill until the Supreme Court had decided on a constitutional matter, why is it not right to delay this Bill until the Supreme Court has decided on the constitutionality of this matter?
  The Attorney-General: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend has read the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Quebec case. I have formed an opinion from reading it of the likelihood of the present Quebec proceedings succeeding.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is not our view.
  The Attorney-General: My responsibility is to advise the Government on legal matters. Others may take other views.
  Mr. Ennals: Is it reasonable for the Attorney-General to assume what will be the judicial judgment? It seems to be most improper.
  The Attorney-General: It is a matter not of assuming anything, but of giving the matter a balanced consideration after reading the judgment, just as we did in the Indian case.
  Mr. Winterton: It is political expediency?.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he must stand.
  Mr. Winterton: Is it not political expediency. If not, can my right hon. and learned Friend explain it?
  The Attorney-General: I have explained the matter, and I intend to go no further.
  Mr. Winterton: That is not an answer.
  The Attorney-General: Different aspects of the legislation worried a small number of hon. Members who believed that there were defects in the legislation that would affect Canada. It was even said by one hon. Member that the Canadians would live to regret a certain provision. However, the Government have consistently taken the view that we must leave it to the Canadians to judge what is good for Canada. In the last quarter of the twentieth century it is not for this House, which is the best part of 3,000 miles away from Canada, to pronounce on matters that are unquestionably the responsibility of the Government and Parliament of Canada. Most hon. Members share that view.
  It is, as has been said many times, due only to an anomaly that we are here debating the affairs of Canada at all. Those anomalies are about to be removed. That is as it should be. At the same time, there has shone through the debate, even in the speeches of hon. Members who found matters to criticise, a wealth of interest in and concern and affection for Canada that we all share. That also is as it should be. As we pass this legislation which envisages the end of a formal link, I am confident that we can expect other links, less formal but more practical, between our two countries to expand and flourish.
  I shall end on a personal note. In 1942, as an ordinary seaman in Combined Operations, I had some involvement in the Dieppe raid and spent some time with the Canadian troops who played so brave a part in that unhappy operation. Any participation by me at Dieppe was prevented by a too accurately timed bomb on the ship in which I was serving, but during that time I was certainly able to form admiration and respect for the soldiers who carried out that operation. It seems to me that those soldiers displayed then the same courage, initiative and independence that we so admire among Canadians in Canada today.
  I therefore invite hon. Members to support the Bill.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 33.

  Division No. 85]

  [9.56 pm

  AYES

  Alton,David

  Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

  Anderson,Donald

  Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  HomeRobertson, John

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

  Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)

  Banks, Robert

  Hurd,Rt Hon Douglas

  Barnett,Guy (Greenwich)

  Johnston, Russell(Inverness)

  Beaumont-Dark,Anthony

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Beith,A.J.

  Jopling,RtHon Michael

  Bennett, SirFrederic(T'bay)

  Kimball,SirMarcus

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Kitson,SirTimothy

  Benyon.W. (Buckingham)

  Knight, MrsJill

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Lang, Ian

  Best, Keith

  Lee, John

  Blackburn,John

  Leighton, Ronald

  Boothroyd,MissBetty

  LeMarchant,Spencer

  Boscawen,HonRobert

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Brinton,Tim

  Luce,Richard

  Brocklebank-Fowler,C.

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Brooke,Hon Peter

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

  Brotherton,Michael

  McCrindle,Robert

  Brown, Hugh D.(Proven)

  Macfarlane,Neil

  Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

  MacGregor,John

  Bruce-Gardyne,John

  McKay, Allen(Penistone)

  Bryan, SirPaul

  MacKenzie, RtHon Gregor

  Budgen,Nick

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cadbury,Jocelyn

  McQuarrie,Albert

  Callaghan, Rt HonJ.

  Major,John

  Carlisle,John(LutonWest)

  Marks,Kenneth

  Carlisle,Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Marshall,DrEdmund(Goole)

  Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)

  Clegg, SirWalter

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Mather,Carol

  Cormack,Patrick

  Mawby, Ray

  Costain,SirAlbert

  Mawhinney,DrBrian

  Cunliffe,Lawrence

  Maxton,John

  Cunningham,G.(IslingtonS)

  Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Mayhew, Patrick

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

  Mellor,David

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Meyer, SirAnthony

  Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)

  Millan,Rt Hon Bruce

  Dixon,Donald

  Miller,Hal(B'grove)

  Dormand,Jack

  Mills,Iain(Meriden)

  Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.

  Moate, Roger

  Douglas-Mann,Bruce

  Morgan,Geraint

  Dover,Denshore

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Dunn,Robert(Dartford)

  Morton,George

  Dunnett,Jack

  Murphy,Christopher

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Myles, David

  English,Michael

  Neale,Gerrard

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Needham, Richard

  Evans,John (Newton)

  Nelson,Anthony

  Faith,MrsSheila

  Neubert,Michael

  Faulds,Andrew

  Newton,Tony

  Finsberg,Geoffrey

  Osborn,John

  Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

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

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Page, Richard (SWHerts)

  Garel-Jones,Tristan

  Palmer,Arthur

  Goodhew,SirVictor

  Penhaligon,David

  Goodlad,Alastair

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Gow, Ian

  Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

  Grant, George(Morpeth)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'thN)

  Raison,Rt Hon Timothy

  Hamilton,James(Bothwell)

  Renton,Tim

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Rhodes James, Robert

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

  RhysWilliams,SirBrandon

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Ridley,HonNicholas

  Hawkins,Paul

  Robertson,George

  Hawksley,Warren

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Roper,John

  Haynes, Frank

  Rossi, Hugh

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Sandelson, Neville

  Heddle,John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Henderson, Barry

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  695

  Shepherd,Colin (Hereford)

  Trippier, David

  Sims, Roger

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Waddington, David

  Speed, Keith

  Waller, Gary

  Speller, Tony

  Ward,John

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Warren,Kenneth

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Watson,John

  Stanbrook,Ivor

  Wheeler,John

  Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

  Wickenden,Keith

  StradlingThomas.J.

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)

  Mr. John Cope and

  Tinn, James

  Mr. Donald Thompson.

  Townend,John(Bridlington)

  NOES

  Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)

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

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

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Campbell-Savours,Dale

  Roberts,Albert(Normanton)

  Cockeram,Eric

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Cryer, Bob

  Skinner,Dennis

  Dalyell, Tam

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Stoddart,David

  Dunlop,John

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Eastham,Ken

  Wainwright,E.(DearneV)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  George,Bruce

  Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

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

  Woodall,Alec

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Young, David (BoltonE)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Lamond,James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Mr. Stan Thorne and

  Maynard, MissJoan

  Mr. David Marshall.

  Parry, Robert

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

  Canada Bill
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73B (5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      MEAT HYGIENE
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9247/81 containing a Commission report in respect of personnel responsible for carrying out health inspections, supervision and control tasks at establishments handling meat products, cut meat and stored meat, together with proposals for amending Council Directives 71/118 and 77/99 concerning the qualifications of personnel responsible for certain functions required by these Directives; and supports the Government's aim of securing recognition that environmental health officers are qualified to act as supervising and certifying officers for the processing of meat products for intra-Community trade and for similar functions in poultry cutting premises and stores which are separate from slaughterhouses.—[Mr. Brooke.]
      Question agreed to.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
      Ordered,
      That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision of 7th December 1981 on Supplementary Revenue) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr. Brooke.]
      Question agreed to.

  Petition

    ELDERLY AND DISALED PERSONS
    10.7 pm
    Mr. David Penhaligon: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition initiated by constituents of mine who are particularly concerned about the welfare of the elderly and the disabled. The petition contains 540 signatures, mainly those of constituents. Similar petitions containing many thousands of signatures have been presented to the Prime Minister. The petition reads:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The humble Petition of residents of the United Kingdom sheweth—
    That the increased rate of VAT has considerably increased the financial burden on charities;
    That the Government is encouraging many charities, particularly those working with the elderly and disabled, to shoulder a greater share of the work in their sectors, and that this inevitably further increases the expenditure incurred by such charities.
    Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will introduce and approve such measures as may be necessary to exempt those charities which provide facilities for the elderly and disabled from VAT payments.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.
    To lie upon the Table and to be printed.

  Prevention of Crime
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—
  [Mr. Thompson.]
  10.10 pm
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Raising the subject tonight of the role of the citizen in the prevention of crime, I start by drawing attention to worrying reports in the newspapers over the weekend of the sharp rise again in violent street crime in London. The latest figures show that there are now 50 violent street crimes, many of them so-called muggings, committed in London streets each day. That is a very worrying figure.
  I have no doubt that inner London is probably one of the worst areas in the country for violent street crime but I also know that other large cities are showing a similar increase, including, I regret to say, my city of Bristol. It is not my purpose tonight to discuss the reasons for the increase in violent crime, most of which is the responsibility of young men. I am sure that the boredom and frustration of unemployment is a contributory recent factor but there is also plenty of evidence to show that there is a relationship between affluence and crime. The United States of America is an outstanding example of that.
  As we know, the streets of large cities were dangerous places in the nineteenth century, even after the formation of organised police forces. But the early years of the present century showed a sharp drop in street crime even during the mass unemployment of the 1930s. Now we are returning to the street conditions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when no woman went out alone unescorted and arms for self-defence were carried as a matter of course.
  That brings me to the questions about which I wish to speak tonight, and that are being raised increasingly by the law-abiding in this country. How far does the old common law tradition still apply that the power to arrest, detain or even kill in self-defence or in the defence of others, and to keep the peace, are the rights and responsibilities of all citizens? Has that common law principle been eroded by the special statutory responsibilities imposed on the police force over the years since its creation? In short, has professionalism, as in so many other spheres, overwhelmed amateurism?
  Out of that question rises another. Do the police welcome the "have a go" citizen? I had an incident in my constituency of a brave, elderly man who did just that. He "had a go" against hooligans who were causing damage to public property. As a result, he was knocked about and afterwards gained the impression from the police that they felt that he should have stood back and informed them instead, even if it had meant losing time until they arrived. If that is the case, the police attitude of "leave it to us" can provide an excuse for those apparently cowardly individuals who see a woman or an elderly person assaulted violently and do nothing to help.
  An extreme example of what I mean occurred in 1978 and was widely reported at the time. This was when a woman ran screaming through scores of people thronging a shopping centre in Shepherd's Bush in West London. She was being chased by a man who had held her prisoner for eight hours and raped her four times. She bolted into a crowded betting shop. Her attacker rushed in after her and dragged her, screaming and struggling, back into the
  698
  street. Eventually, he became afraid and fled. Not one person had helped her. Of course, that may be due to many causes. Some may say it is due to modern urban living, where no one feels any special personal responsibility for any occurrence. In a somewhat similar case, bystanders thought that the couple concerned were married and felt, therefore, that they should not intrude.
  I hesitate to believe that the explanation for not helping an attacked person is simply the fear of being hurt oneself. The British have always had a reputation for physical courage, and it is hard to believe that there has been any real change in this respect.
  But I believe that the ambivalent and non-committal attitude of authority to general public involvement in dealing with crime causes confusion, and I trust that the Minister of State will be able to make an authoritative statement about his Department's thinking on the subject, because it should be doing a great deal of thinking on the subject.
  However much police numbers are increased—and they have increased greatly in recent years—such is the nature of violent personal assault against individuals and the speed of the attack itself that even the policeman on the beat cannot be everywhere at the same time.
  I am not advocating private police forces or vigilante groups. There are obvious objections to these, and often the motives of those organising such groups are suspect, because sometimes the motives are political or racial. I am asking that authorities should make it clear that the help and active involvement of the ordinary decent citizen is welcomed in putting down crime and that, if a citizen intervenes in support of the police or to deal with a criminal act immediately, ample compensation will be available for any injury sustained.
  As I understand it, there are public funds available for this purpose, but it is not a statutory right. I understand also that if a claimant is involved in legal expenses in making his case for compensation he will have to pay them himself. That is completely wrong. There should be a statutory right to compensation and it should be free of expense once a claim is shown to be genuine.
  I come, then, to the right of self-defence. I had always thought that it was part of the social contract of the classical constitutional theorists that we all had the natural right of self-defence and surrendered it, including the right to bear arms, only for the greater security provided by organised society, a system of law and, of course, a police force. If society is incapable of providing or unwilling to provide that collective protection, the right of self-defence returns to the individual. I thought that that was the classical position in common law.
  In 1980, however, a woman was charged in West London with carrying an anti-mugging spray contrary, apparently, to the Firearms Act 1968. The case was dismissed, I think because of the good sense of the magistrates, after the woman had explained that she had already been attacked and needed to defend herself in future.
  I can tell the Minister that many women carry these devices in their handbags when they venture abroad. It would be monstrous if any were accused of aggresive intentions when they are concerned only with their own defence and safety, in place of a defence which apparently the State can no longer give. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this matter, because the answer that was given to one of my hon. Friends in the

  699
  House on 10 February last year was not encouraging. I shall read an extract from Hansard of 10 February 1981, when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis)
  "asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the growing number of cases known to the public as `muggings', he will take whatever action necessary to legalise the carrying of protective aerosol sprays by women to enable them to protect themselves from such attacks."
  The Minister of State, Home Office, gave the following reply:
  "No. We are not persuaded that the legalisation of such devices is the way to bring about a reduction in violence.—
  [Official Report, 10 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 301.]
  That may be so. Nevertheless, there is a great dilemma here which I suggest it is the business of the Home Secretary and the Home Office generally to consider seriously for the public are much troubled by it.
  10.21 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office
  (Mr. Timothy Raison): I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has brought this important and often overlooked question of crime prevention and the role of the citizen to the attention of the House this evening. I shall try to answer some of the significant matters that he raised.
  We all agree that law and order are essential to the wellbeing of a stable society. Discussion on crime and its remedies often concentrates on what should be done to apprehend and punish offenders. We came into office determined to restore respect for the rule of law and to do all in our power to provide the framework within which the law may more effectively be enforced. Since then, following our full implementation of the Edmund-Davies Committee's recommendations on police pay, the strength of the police has increased by some 8,000. That is very encouraging. However, we cannot expect the police, who do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances, to act alone in attacking crime. Crime, in particular offences such as robbery and burglary, is on the increase, as the hon. Gentleman said, and we, as citizens of this country, must all play a part in endeavouring to reverse this trend.
  An effective response to crime requires the active cooperation of the community as a whole. It is not enough for people to turn a blind eye to criminal activity with the attitude "It's nothing to do with me". It is everything to do with them. The police, who are there to protect the community, cannot operate efficiently without the cooperation of that community, and there are many different ways in which members of the public can assist the police in their task.
  One obvious example of this is the "999" emergency telephone system. Often success in apprehending offenders depends on the immediacy of the police response to an incident. If any member of the public witnesses criminal activity or becomes suspicious about anything unusual, he should always contact the police, without hesitation, by dialling "999".
  The hon. Member has raised the question of what an individual should do if he witnesses a criminal act. Should he "have a go" and physically attempt to prevent the crime from being carried out? It is difficult to lay down hard and fast rules, but if someone sees a crime being committed it is his duty to take action. This might take one of several forms. Certainly he should dial "999" to call the police, or ask someone else to do so. He might also try, if
  700
  appropriate, to warn off the offenders or even intervene physically. It is obviously a matter of judgment for the person concerned what is the best action to take in the circumstances. The police would not encourage a citizen to "have a go" unless he was capable of doing so without risking serious injury himself and unless immediate physical intervention was clearly required—for example, to save the victim of an assault from serious injury, or to arrest a thief who would otherwise escape. Under the Criminal Law Act 1967, any citizen is entitled to use reasonable force in the prevention of crime. What is "reasonable" is for the court to decide in all the circumstances.
  The hon. Gentleman particularly asks about weapons that may be carried by members of the public for use in self-defence. As he is no doubt aware and has implied, there are two provisions of the law which may affect this issue. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 makes it an offence to have in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any offensive weapon, which is defined as any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him. The prosecution has to prove that the article in question was made or adapted for causing injury to the person, or intended for such use, and even if this is proved the person carrying the article still has the opportunity to show that he had a lawful authority or reasonable excuse for carrying it.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: My right hon. Friend should say "he or she".
  Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is right. However, I think that it is generally agreed that this Act places no unreasonable restriction on law-abiding citizens. For example, self-defence with an ordinary umbrella or walking stick would not be caught by the 1953 Act.
  The second legal provision which is relevant is in section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, which makes it an offence to possess, purchase or sell without written authority of the Secretary of State any prohibited weapon
  "designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing."
  Although I should emphasise that I have no authority to give a ruling on a point of law, and the matter could be decided only by a court, we have taken the view that some of the devices designed for self-defence are prohibited weapons within the meaning of the Act.
  Proposals for a change in the law to enable devices such as tear gas or pepper dye sprays to be carried for self defence have been put to the Home Office in the past, but we have felt bound to resist them, not because of any failure to understand why those who feel threatened make the suggestion, but because of the general consequences of such a change. Put simply, such devices would be equally effective in the hands of an assailant, and, no matter how strict a control was exercised over their possession, it would only be a matter of time before they were used by criminals. The result could then well be an escalation rather than a reduction of violence.
  We have no plans at present to change the legislative provisions that I have outlined, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the issue remains under review.
  Mr. Palmer: I accept that sprays and so on could be used by criminals, but criminals often use knives.
  Mr. Raison: That is true, but I am trying to explain that there is considerable technical difficulty in allowing such devices, which could palpably fall into the wrong hands. It would be difficult to know whether they were getting into the right hands.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Given the increase in muggings which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has brought to our attention, does not my right hon. Friend agree that sprays are probably the most effective weapons? As that form of crime is increasing, should not my right hon. Friend consider some change in the law?
  Mr. Raison: We are not intransigent, but if we were to do that there might, in addition to muggings, be a problem of sprayings. We could not permit sprays to be used only by those who we know would behave well. They would come on to the market and it would be difficult to control their ownership. We might end up in an even worse position.
  Of course it is quite permissible to use personal warning devices such as the "shrill" alarms now on sale. These may be of limited usefulness in certain situations. For example, they might provoke an attacker, particularly a determined one, into becoming more aggessive, although they might well frighten off a less determined assailant. Some attackers come unexpectedly and from behind, and it is doubtful whether the victim would necessarily have time to activate the alarm. However, we are currently evaluating the use and value of those devices.
  I share fairly widespread disapproval of the formation of so-called "vigilante groups". As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in a written answer on 29 January, we are opposed to their formation. While the Government have no powers to proscribe them, if such groups act in breach of the criminal law the police will take appropriate action.
  Members of the public can assist greatly in the prevention of crime by taking steps to avoid becoming its victims. For example, property owners and occupiers can take reasonable measures to secure their premises against intruders. Such simple precautions as adequate door and window locks are especially useful, since offences of burglary are often committed by opportunist thieves who would be deterred by even a modest level of security.
  The Home Office is also active in disseminating publicity on all aspects of crime prevention through television, radio and press campaigns, and through the production of films, posters, leaflets and booklets.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: This is all terribly interesting. Will my right hon. Friend not agree that a disturbing aspect of some of the economies that are being made at present—which all the dissemination, the films and the publicity will do nothing to prevent—is that my own authority in the West Midlands is being forced to make a £2 million saving on its police budget, which I was told it would not have to do? It means that many thousands of hours of overtime have been cut. To be effective, a police force should not be cut. I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to the fact that exhortation is not half as effective as the police working full belt to stop the criminals in the streets of our cities. Shall we get a pledge, that will be kept, that the police will not be cut?
  Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is a little wide of the subject of the debate raised by the hon. Member for
  702
  Bristol, North-East who was talking more specifically about crime prevention measures and the role of the citizen. I said at the beginning of my reply to the hon. Gentleman's speech that we have already managed to raise police numbers to the level that I do not think has been approached for a long time, if at all. That is something that I should have thought was to our credit. We have clearly made the law and order programmes a priority in a period of admittedly curtailed public spending. I do not think my hon. Friend can suggest that the Government are anything other than determined to attack the problem of law and order and that the facts bear that out.
  I return to the question of publicity that I was referring to a minute ago. We are trying to offer guidance to citizens on, for example, protecting their homes and their cars, on measures they can take to avoid property being vandalised, and to give advice to children on the dangers of going with strangers. Advice is, of course, also readily available from the local police crime prevention officer, who will have the advantage of knowing the particular crime risks in his locality.
  Another way in which citizens have become involved in the prevention of crime is through local crime prevention panels, and I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the valuable voluntary work they undertake. Since their inception in 1968, over 170 local panels have been formed by police forces in England and Wales to promote and harness local effort in the prevention of crime. They typically include a wide range of local community representatives and police officers. They carry out a variety of crime prevention work. It involves such things as quizzes and poster competitions among school children; arranging crime prevention exhibitions, seminars and publicity exercises; fitting security devices to the homes of elderly people; and establishing arrangements for shops to inform each other on an organised basis of the activities of shoplifters in the area. The quarterly Home Office magazine "Crime Prevention News" features articles on the work of panels as well as crime prevention activity generally.
  I cannot conclude my speech without referring to the vital need for parents to play their part in maintaining and encouraging respect for the law. Too often children are allowed to roam the streets and to become drawn into crime, or even become its victims. Parents perhaps more than any other group are in a position to help prevent crime, both in the short term by proper supervision of their children and in the longer term by teaching respect for the law and so laying the foundation for a responsible and law-abiding new generation of adults.
  Mr. Palmer: I made my speech deliberately short so that the Minister could have the maximum time for his reply. I hope that he will not overlook the point about compensation for those who help the police or intervene to stop crime.
  Mr. Raison: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The position is probably as he outlined it but, in fairness to him rather than trying to give a fuller reply off the cuff, I think that I should write to him about that point.
  This short debate, as I said at the beginning, has raised a very important topic. The hon. Gentleman's anxiety and—if I may say so—uncertainty about exactly what the citizen can and cannot do in the circumstances that he has described are shared by many people. Although, in a

  703
  sense, one is inhibited from giving the kind of broad and sweeping answer that one might like to give, I hope that what I have said shows clearly that under the law there is real scope and real opportunity, as well as a duty, for citizens to play their part in the prevention of crime.
  There are certain complexities which I have tried briefly to illustrate, but it remains the view of the
  704
  Government that we shall not deal with crime without full scale participation from all our citizens, and the more people are able to understand the position, the better it wall be.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE
  Tokyo Round
  Tokyo Round
  European Community (Imports-Exports)
  European Community (Imports-Exports)
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Vehicle Light Bulbs
  Vehicle Light Bulbs
  Quality, Assurance and Standards Division
  Quality, Assurance and Standards Division
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Export Assistance
  Export Assistance
  Airport Baggage Handling
  Airport Baggage Handling
PRIME MINISTER
  Secretarial Assistance
  Secretarial Assistance
  Trident
  Trident
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Sensitive Premises (Police Procedure)
  Sensitive Premises (Police Procedure)
  Chief Constables (Accountability)
  Chief Constables (Accountability)
  Football Matches (Policing Costs)
  Football Matches (Policing Costs)
  Dr. A. Clift
  Dr. A. Clift
  Police Recruitment
  Police Recruitment
  Health Service Workers (Rape)
  Health Service Workers (Rape)
  Nuclear Shelters
  Nuclear Shelters
  Police (Personal Injury Insurance)
  Police (Personal Injury Insurance)
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Street Crime
  Street Crime
  Surveillance Equipment
  Surveillance Equipment
ENERGY
  Severn Barrage
  Severn Barrage
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Gas Prices
  Gas Prices
  British Gas Corporation
  British Gas Corporation
  Dungeness B Power Station
  Dungeness B Power Station
  Gas and Electricity Prices
  Gas and Electricity Prices
  Nuclear Power Station Programme
  Nuclear Power Station Programme
  Oil Drilling (Sites)
  Oil Drilling (Sites)
  European Community (Energy Prices)
  European Community (Energy Prices)
  Domestic Energy Supplies
  Domestic Energy Supplies
  Domestic Heating Oil
  Domestic Heating Oil
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Oil Exploration
  Oil Exploration
  Scottish Gas Boards
  Scottish Gas Boards
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Oil Resources (Depletion)
  Oil Resources (Depletion)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms (Thefts)
  Firearms (Thefts)
  Mr. John McKeague
  Mr. John McKeague
  Extradition
  Extradition
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchasing Contracts
  Purchasing Contracts
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Trading Profit
  Trading Profit
  Treasury Bills
  Treasury Bills
  Farmers (Profits)
  Farmers (Profits)
  Floating Debt
  Floating Debt
  Funded Borrowings
  Funded Borrowings
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Foreign Income (Taxation)
  Foreign Income (Taxation)
  European Community (Budget)
  European Community (Budget)
  Labour Productivity
  Labour Productivity
  Capital Investment (Interest on Borrowing)
  Capital Investment (Interest on Borrowing)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Manufacturing Industry (National Insurance Charges)
  Manufacturing Industry (National Insurance Charges)
  Gas, Water and Electricity Industries (Output)
  Gas, Water and Electricity Industries (Output)
  National Insurance Surcharge
  National Insurance Surcharge
  Customs and Excise (Heathrow Airport)
  Customs and Excise (Heathrow Airport)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Mortgage Interest Rates (Tax Relief)
  Mortgage Interest Rates (Tax Relief)
  Tax Collection (Cumbernauld)
  Tax Collection (Cumbernauld)
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Revenue Estimates
  Revenue Estimates
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Insider Dealing
  Insider Dealing
  Taxation (Staff Requirements)
  Taxation (Staff Requirements)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  UNRWA (Palestine)
  UNRWA (Palestine)
PAYMASTER GENERAL
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
WALES
  Measles
  Measles
  General Practice Trainers Incentives
  General Practice Trainers Incentives
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  School Meals and Transport
  School Meals and Transport
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
  "Greenfield Strategy" (Suffolk)
  "Greenfield Strategy" (Suffolk)
  Atmospheric Pollution (Schoolchildren)
  Atmospheric Pollution (Schoolchildren)
  Secondary School Curriculum
  Secondary School Curriculum
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Student Numbers
  Student Numbers
  Higher Education (Statistics)
  Higher Education (Statistics)
  Inner City Schools (Parental Involvement)
  Inner City Schools (Parental Involvement)
  Public Sector Higher Education (Exhibition)
  Public Sector Higher Education (Exhibition)
  Public Lending Right
  Public Lending Right
  Royal College of Music (Appeal)
  Royal College of Music (Appeal)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foodstuffs
  Foodstuffs
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Severe Weather Damage (Funds)
  Severe Weather Damage (Funds)
  Uncooked Meat (Import)
  Uncooked Meat (Import)
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Calves (Air Transport)
  Calves (Air Transport)
  Shell Fisheries (The Wash)
  Shell Fisheries (The Wash)
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  Parliamentary Delegations (Cost)
  Parliamentary Delegations (Cost)
INDUSTRY
  Engineering and Manufacturing
  Engineering and Manufacturing
  Intermediate Areas (Male Unemployment)
  Intermediate Areas (Male Unemployment)
  Loan Guarantee Scheme (Cornwall)
  Loan Guarantee Scheme (Cornwall)
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  Carpet Manufacture
  Carpet Manufacture
  Regional Development Grants (Wales)
  Regional Development Grants (Wales)
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  New Technology
  New Technology
EMPLOYMENT
  Road Transport Industry Training Board
  Road Transport Industry Training Board
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme (Cornwall)
  Training Opportunities Scheme (Cornwall)
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Barnsley (Redundancy Payments)
  Barnsley (Redundancy Payments)
  Woollen and Worsted Industry
  Woollen and Worsted Industry
  Job Search Scheme (Wales)
  Job Search Scheme (Wales)
  Baggage Handling Dispute (Heathrow Airport)
  Baggage Handling Dispute (Heathrow Airport)
  Training
  Training
SCOTLAND
  Rents and Rate Poundage
  Rents and Rate Poundage
  Severe Weather Damage (Funds)
  Severe Weather Damage (Funds)
  Electricity Boards (Manpower)
  Electricity Boards (Manpower)
  Grampian Health Board (Manpower)
  Grampian Health Board (Manpower)
  Aluminium Smelter, Invergordon
  Aluminium Smelter, Invergordon
  Mental Health Legislation
  Mental Health Legislation
DEFENCE
  Londonderry
  Londonderry
  NATO (Defence Expenditure)
  NATO (Defence Expenditure)
  No. 14 Maintenance Unit, RAF Carlisle
  No. 14 Maintenance Unit, RAF Carlisle
  Young Persons Training Scheme (Royal Navy)
  Young Persons Training Scheme (Royal Navy)
  HMS "Fearless" and "Intrepid"
  HMS "Fearless" and "Intrepid"
  JP 233 Airfield Attack Weapon
  JP 233 Airfield Attack Weapon
  Tornado F2 Aircraft
  Tornado F2 Aircraft
  Blindfire Rapier (Delivery)
  Blindfire Rapier (Delivery)
  Sea Harrier
  Sea Harrier
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Terms of Service (Breaches)
  Terms of Service (Breaches)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Surgeries (Vandalism)
  Surgeries (Vandalism)
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Safety of Medicines
  Safety of Medicines
  Debendox
  Debendox
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Optical Prescriptions
  Optical Prescriptions
  Heating Allowance
  Heating Allowance
  Nurses' Homes (Security)
  Nurses' Homes (Security)
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Department of Experimental Chemical Pathology (Westminster)
  Department of Experimental Chemical Pathology (Westminster)
  Education Cuts (Patient Care)
  Education Cuts (Patient Care)
  Diabetes
  Diabetes
  Hospital Waste Disposal
  Hospital Waste Disposal
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Occupational Asthma
  Occupational Asthma
  National Health Service (Pay)
  National Health Service (Pay)
ENVIRONMENT
  Rents
  Rents
  Council House Sales (Norwich)
  Council House Sales (Norwich)
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Single Homeless Persons
  Single Homeless Persons
  Grisco Ltd. and Comshare Ltd.
  Grisco Ltd. and Comshare Ltd.
  Local Authorities (Work Contracts)
  Local Authorities (Work Contracts)
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Urban Programme Resources
  Urban Programme Resources
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  India Office Library and Records
  India Office Library and Records
  United Nations Truce Supervision Office
  United Nations Truce Supervision Office
  Southern Lebanon
  Southern Lebanon
  Judaea and Samaria
  Judaea and Samaria
  Hong Kong (Carcinogenic Chemicals)
  Hong Kong (Carcinogenic Chemicals)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Land Titles
  Land Titles
  Legal Aid (Matrimonial Cases)
  Legal Aid (Matrimonial Cases)
  National Conciliation Service
  National Conciliation Service
  R. v. Arthur (Judgment)
  R. v. Arthur (Judgment)
TRANSPORT
  Road Accident, Cockburnspath
  Road Accident, Cockburnspath
  Community-based Transport Schemes
  Community-based Transport Schemes
  Lorry Weights
  Lorry Weights

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.

Apartheid in South Africa: Economic Sanctions
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consult with their allies and the front line states on the practicalities of imposing economic sanctions against the Republic of South Africa to end the policy of apartheid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: (Lord Trefgarne): No, my Lords. In our view sanctions would fail to achieve the desired effect, would inflict serious damage on the economies of African and western countries including Britain, and wreck any chance of success for the Namibia negotiations.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister recall the number of times that his Government have objected to the principle of economic sanctions as a means of international pressure? Why have the Government changed their mind over Poland? Do they believe that the Polish régime is more tyrannous than that of South Africa? Is this not leading the Government to use double standards in their actions in foreign policy?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. The comparison which the noble Lord seeks to draw between Poland and southern Africa is not in the remotest degree valid. What we have done in respect of Poland is to indicate by the measures we have taken that business cannot continue as usual with that Government or with the Government of the Soviet Union.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I am a little worried about the word "allies". Could the noble Lord confirm that in two great wars South Africa proved to be a most valuable and loyal ally? Could he further confirm that she continues to be one of our most valued and valuable trading partners?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is indeed the case that we have substantial commercial relations with South Africa. As for the drafting of the Question and the words used in the Question, the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, should address that point to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware of the letter in The Times from the Archbishop of the Indian Ocean asking the Government to explain the moral difference between their attitude to Poland and their attitude to Namibia? As the noble Lord himself is apparently unable to do that, will he ask his noble friend the Foreign Secretary to do so?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I did see the letter in The Times to which the noble Lord refers. In particular, it drew attention to the case of Mr. Walesa, currently detained in Poland. Our anxiety and indeed our locus for expressing our anxiety in regard to Poland stems not least from the Helsinki Final Act.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the actions of the South African Government—who include certain individuals who are

3
opposed to South African participation in the war—against trade unionists, against the Churches and against the South African Council of Churches, is parallel to the actions which we all deplore in Poland? Can he explain where the difference in principle lies? Would he also note that in the Question I asked him whether he would consult with the front line states, which he has mentioned, and all of which have declared that they are willing and anxious, even if they have to suffer, to play their part in international sanctions against apartheid?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the distinction between Poland on the one hand and southern Africa on the other hand is as follows. First, we have not sought to impose trade sanctions on Poland. The difficulty in which we now find ourselves in regard to our trading arrangements with Poland is that the vast amount of credit Poland has enjoyed in recent years has imposed serious difficulties on her economy. To continue the trading relationship as it was would involve extending a good deal more credit to that economy under circumstances which would not, I believe, be prudent. We have consistently and repeatedly stated our opposition to apartheid, to everything that goes with it, and to everything that it stands for. I do not believe that they or the noble Lord can be in any doubt about our views on the matter.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the debate on this Question, which was as distinguished for its length as for its interest, has, according to our clock, taken only one minute? Although witty as ever, his brevity was not quite up to that standard. Perhaps officers of the House would have a look at the clock.

Local Government Staff and Economies
2.41 p.m.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper:
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the rate of reduction in local government staff numbers to meet the need for all possible economies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment: (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the Government believe that, as is implied in the expenditure targets that they have set local authorities, there is scope overall for an increased rate of reduction in local authority manpower which can be achieved by greater economy and efficiency in the provision of services and in administration.
Lord Ellenbourgh: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that Answer, and noting his belief that there is further scope for economies, may I ask whether my noble friend agrees that unless high-spending local
4
authorities do make further staff reductions, especially in non-essential projects, inevitably rates will continue to rise, which will mean that more businesses will be forced to close down and unemployment will rise further? In particular, may I ask my noble friend whether one way of reducing staff costs in local government would be for many more councils to follow the encouraging lead of such councils as Southend and Wandsworth in putting some services out to contract in the private sector? Will my noble friend do all he can to encourage this trend?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend on his first remarks. As for the second part of his question, I agree that there is without doubt great opportunity here if local government will look at this matter objectively, and will simply compare and obtain competitive quotations. I entirely agree that there is much scope.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure that he is because of his experience and background—that the service provided by British local government is truly remarkable, much of it rarely realised? The work of local authorities and local councils is often the butt of newspapers and so on. Does the noble Lord not agree that the present Government seem to be obsessed with two words: making somebody redundant, giving him the sack—and putting him on the dole? Does he not also agree that local authorities give a great deal of encouragement, contracts and support to private industries, and that this provides a way for both sides of industry, public and private, to work together in harmony?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it really is difficult to respond to a speech made in the form of a question, although I appreciate the point the noble Lord makes. I think one has to recognise that this whole debate is about obtaining value for money. This is what concerns people. The level of services provided is in many cases of a good standard; there is no argument about that. The question is whether all the services can be afforded in the way in which they are now provided. Are they being provided in the most efficient way? That was the thrust of my noble friend's point, which I think was a very fair one and ought properly to be made.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that, having regard to the relationship between the targets set and the achievement in reaching those targets, local government is very much more successful than central Government? Would he not agree that the point of the Question would be more appropriately addressed to central Government than to local government?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords, I would not agree at all. There is no way of making comparison; we are not comparing like with like. Local government does not have to deal with national matters such as defence. The only fair way in which one might draw comparison is by looking at the reduction in manpower since this Government came into office and since local government started to react to the Government's request.

5
The numbers show that the reduction by central Government in their staffing is 7·1 per cent. while the reduction by local government is 4·1 per cent.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, is not this question of reduction of personnel as a way of curing unemployment simply adding to unemployment?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, the fact is that if there is either inefficiency or over-manning—and nobody that I know in local government denies that there is much of that—people are simply paying for something that they are not getting. The long-term effect of that is what we are seeing today; people are saying that enough is enough and they will not stand for it. That has a disadvantageous effect on the private sector, who at the end of the day have to provide the real jobs and the real wealth that produces the money for all the other employment.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact that we are seeing streets remaining uncleaned and services that we should have in a civilised community being reduced? Would the noble Lord make absolutely clear that there are no staff reductions when absolutely essential services are required?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I would have thought that any authority really concerned about the streets being cleaned and the need to make reductions should go and look at places which have taken on the services of the private sector, like Southend, and see the improvement in standards there for a dramatic decrease in cost.

American Weapons and European Bases
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper:
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the statements made on the BBC "Panorama" programme on 25th January that the Pentagon plans to manufacture a nerve-gas warhead for cruise missiles in Europe and Big-eye bombs for the F-111 fighters already at American bases in Britain; whether such plans are known to them; and whether consent has been or will be given to fulfil these alleged intentions.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, I am aware of the "Panorama" statements to which the noble Lord refers. In my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on 18th February I explained that, while the United States Government have decided, in the face of the Soviet Union's massive chemical warfare capability, to proceed with some development of new chemical weapons, no decisions on deployment have been taken. We hope that arms control discussions in this field will now make progress.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that chemical weapons can now become even more deadly than nuclear weapons? Can he give us an assurance that chemical weapons are not being and will not be installed on American bases in Britain without our consent? May I ask him to do two more fundamental things? First, in view of the charges that chemical weapons have been used in Afghanistan, Kampuchea and Eritrea, will the Government urge the United Nations Security Council to appoint a commission of unaligned nations to examine those charges? Secondly, will the Government agree to support at the Geneva Committee an international convention banning and dismantling all chemical weapons, in view of the Soviet and American stocks, and President Reagan's plan, which the Minister himself has mentioned?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, when I answered the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I compared these weapons, as the noble Lord has just done, to nuclear weapons. I also mentioned that the Soviet stocks were well in excess of 300,000 tonnes of modern weapons mainly stored forward, against an out-of-date, aging stock of 30,000 tonnes in America, which is the only stock that they have. Against that situation, I hope the noble Lord, instead of pressing this House, will press for the cessation of production of chemical weapons in the UUSR and for the destruction of their stocks. We have the guarantee on consultation of which the noble Lord speaks and which I also announced on 18th February, and, so far as the various United Nations or other forums are concerned, we shall lose no opportunity to support practical disarmament moves.
Lord Peart: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recently in the International Herald Tribune there is an account to the effect that so far nothing has been decided. We have the statement by the Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger that, according to sources, he told alliance diplomats that no decision had been made on either production or deployment. I should like to know whether the noble Viscount has something to say on this matter. I think that my noble friend, with whom I sometimes disagree, is right to question this matter in this way. Cruise missiles, as carriers of chemical warheads, can be very dangerous indeed to all.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I would draw the attention of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition to my Answer on 18th February—I have the feeling that the noble Lord was in the House but I may be wrong—that the United States has, in fact, confirmed that it intends, against the balance that I have mentioned, to start certain developments and particularly they involve ordering long-lead items. That is all. No decisions have been taken on deployment of any kind, and before they are taken, consultation has been promised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that all experience, including that of the last war, is that the vast Russian stock of these horrible weapons is much less likely to be used if those who

7
control them know that their use would produce retaliation in kind?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, it is, indeed, that thinking that has driven our American allies to the very modest step of ordering certain long-lead items as a back-up for efforts at discussions as regards which we wish them well.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that persistent reports have been reaching the West of the deployment and use of chemical weapons by the Ethiopian armed forces backed by the Soviet Union in Eritria, and that evidence of this has been sent to the Foreign Secretary on more than one occasion over the last 18 months, but that the Foreign Secretary and the Ministers in his department simply say that the ambassadors of the western nations in Addis Ababa do not have conclusive proof of the deployment of these weapons? Therefore, will not the Minister take on board the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that the United Nations should be invited to set up an international commission to examine the deployment of weapons of this kind in Kampuchea, Afghanistan and Eritria?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, we are indeed taking part in an investigation in relation to the use of chemical weapons in the Far East. I promised the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—at least I think I did—an answer in relation to Ethiopia which I have not yet sent him, but which I have called for and will send him.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House look at the phrasing of this Question, because it would seem that this is a formula which would allow the Order Paper to be used and Questions to be asked on anything which is written, broadcast, televised or disseminated by any process? Can it be in the interests of the House to draw attention to matters for which Her Majesty's Government have absolutely no responsibility at all and would always stand back from—"Panorama" programmes or any other televised programmes? Could my noble friend look at this matter? I would not ask for a decision now. However, I am not sure that this is in the interests of the House because it opens Question Time and the Order Paper to a lot of erroneous and inaccurate statements being made which may be believed outside?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young): My Lords, the whole question of the framing of Questions for the Order Paper is, I think, governed by the wording of Questions and Motions as set out in the Companion to Standing Orders. I think that it would be very difficult to show that in this particular Question there was any reason why it should not appear on the Order Paper.
Quite a number of noble Lords are indicating that they wish to ask supplementary questions on this matter. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will ask their
8
questions and then I suggest that we move on to the next Question.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm that, in terms of lethalness, a cruise missile armed with gas would be somewhat less than 0·1 per cent. as lethal as one charged with a nuclear weapon—that is, nuclear weapons are at least a thousand times more lethal? Secondly, but most unfortunatunately, will the noble Viscount confirm that we have no control whatever as to what the Americans choose to put into their cruise missiles, even though they may be based here?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, so far as lethality is concerned in a hypothetical situation where no decisions have begun to be taken about deployment of weapons of a power which I do not think we have yet understood—I am referring to modern chemical weapons—I cannot answer the noble Lord's question. So far as the second part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, I would say once again that Her Majesty's Government are entirely satisfied that the American assurance on consultation before any deployment—assuming that by then no progress has been made on disarmament—will be entirely satisfactory.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a copy of this remarkable document is in the Library due to the kindness and courtesy of the Librarian? It is a transcript which he obtained for me and it is for any noble Lord in this House to see it there.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I presume that the noble Baroness is referring to a transcript of the "Panorama" programme. I find that there is plenty of speculation in the media of every kind on every defence subject. I am finding that the vast majority of it has very little correlation with the facts.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that, in spite of the points that he has made, the competitive development and production of chemical weapons by the Russians and the Americans is a fresh and deplorable escalation of the arms race? Secondly, will the noble Viscount be more specific?—he referred in his reply to the fact that the Government are willing to support measures in suitable disarmament forums. Can he assure the House that the Government are going to take an initiative in a particular forum of a particular kind in order to try to check this arms race?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, Lord Mayhew's definition of an "arms race" or a race at all is, I think, different from mine. If your opponent is within 10 yards of the finishing post and you order a pair of running shoes and tell him that if he does not stop you are going to start chasing him, then I suppose that you can call it a race. That is the situation. As far as an initiation of disarmament talks is concerned, I am quite sure that my noble friend loses no opportunity whatever to initiate them. But as I have said so often in this place, I believe that most worthwhile initiations are not widely announced in advance.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that the House did agree that, after we had taken the last three questions, we should move on to the next Question.

London: Non-Domestic Rates Increase
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: 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 is the estimated increase of non-domestic rate burden in the Greater London Area for the financial year 1981–82.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the non-domestic rate burden in Greater London rose from £1.294 billion in 1980–81 to £1,706 billion in 1981–82, disregarding the supplementary rate issued by the GLC. The year-on-year increase in rate burden includes a gain in rateable value of 1.3 per cent.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend the Minister for his Answer, disturbing as it is, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that the leaders of Labour boroughs in London have warned the GLC of the consequences of these substantial rate increases this year`? Would he not consider that the present rising trend could threaten chaos for London's jobs and industry of a kind favoured by the enemies of democracy?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have seen the expressed concern of the London borough Labour leaders and, of course, I share that concern with them, as I do with my noble friend who asked the Question. As to what the effects of this will be, I would refer my noble friend to a survey carried out at the beginning of December by the London Chamber of Commerce, which was quite dramatic in its answer to those who said that increases of this kind in rates to the non-domestic sector is of little consequence in so far as it affects jobs. It affects jobs and employment very much indeed.

Travel Concessions (London) Bill
3.1 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a very short Bill, but nevertheless an important one. It gives the Greater London Council power to pay for travel concessions for elderly and disabled people. The GLC is the only authority which does not have specific power for that purpose. County and district councils outside London were given this power under Section 138 of the Transport Act 1968. It was extended to London boroughs by Section 40 of the Transport (London) Act 1969, but not to the GLC.
Very soon after the passage of the 1969 Act, the London boroughs arranged for concessionary fares on London transport for their elderly and disabled residents. These arrangements were taken over and
10
extended by the GLC, and London now enjoys one of the most generous concessionary travel schemes in the country for these categories of people. However, following the judgment in December in the case brought by the London Borough of Bromley, the GLC said that they would not be able to go on paying London Transport for these concessions. I should make it clear that the case had nothing to do with travel concessions for pensioners, and there was no reference in the judgment to the lawfulness of the present scheme. It was the GLC who said that they could not go on financing it. They have, in fact, been using their Local Government Act powers to spend the product of a 2p rate to maintain these concessions until now, but they have said that they are not prepared to continue doing so beyond the end of the current financial year. There are apparently other things on which they would rather spend their money.
The statements made by the GLC that the judgment threatened free travel were, therefore, thoroughly misleading. They caused a great deal of unnecessary alarm and anxiety for many people who enjoy the benefits. In order to allay these fears, my right honourable friend announced that he would introduce legislation to give the GLC the same powers as other authorities to finance travel concessions. These powers are quite separate from the GLC's powers to pay grants to London Transport under Section 3 of the 1969 Act, which were at issue in the Bromley case, and the GLC are not subject to the same financial duties under this Bill as they are in making grants under Section 3. This Bill will, therefore, put the GLC's powers in relation to travel concessions beyond question. It is for the GLC to decide how they use them. They have, in fact, made provision for some £50 million in their budget for next year to enable the present arrangements to continue.
The Government have made it clear to the GLC that, apart from bringing the GLC into line with other authorities on concessionary travel, no immediate legislation is needed to enable them to pay a reasonable amount of subsidy to London Transport. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has given his formal opinion that it would be lawful for the GLC to approve the revised budget put forward by London Transport for 1982.
That budget involves a very substantial level of support for London Transport from public funds, over and above the £50 million for travel concessions. London Transport will get in all a total in the region of £250 million for grants. London Transport expect to raise some £500 million in fares, so grants from all sources will amount to about 30 per cent. of London Transport's total income. There is also a hidden subsidy, because London Transport receives its capital funds free and, therefore, does not have to meet interest charges on borrowing for capital investment.
In addition, the GLC will have to raise an extra £125 million from the rates next year to make good the deficit incurred by London Transport in 1981–82. My right honourable friend offered to introduce legislation to enable London Transport to meet this accumulated deficit by borrowing in order to widen the options for making it good, but the GLC decided to pay off the whole amount next year by increasing their rate

11
precept—in other words, by making London ratepayers make it up all in the one year.
It is regrettable that London ratepayers will still be faced with a very steep increase in the GLC precept next year, from 18·2p in 1981–82 to 34·85p, which is a rise of over 90 per cent. But for the Bromley case, however, the burdens imposed on London ratepayers would have been far heavier still. The extra cost of the GLC's policies would have been about £250 million next year, rising to over £400 million in 1985–86. In total, the extra cost would have been some £1,200 million over the life of the present council, which is, co-incidentally, about the same as the total amount of bus and rail subsidies for the whole of the country this year.
My right honourable friend has made it clear that he is not prepared to introduce legislation to enable the GLC to carry on their unbalanced policies. It is apparent from the evidence brought forward in the Bromley case that these policies were introduced without proper regard for the interests of ratepayers. That is particularly evident in the case of the elderly, with whom this Bill is particularly concerned. They received virtually no benefit from the new policies, yet over a quarter of the heads of households in London are elderly people, so they have had to meet a substantial share of the cost of the fare reductions, which were of greatest benefit to people who work in London, many of whom live outside the London area and do not contribute at all.
Moreover, the GLC did not stop to consider whether cutting fares across the board was the most effective way of spending money to improve transport in London. It was purely and simply political dogma rather than a transport policy. They have claimed that it improved productivity by increasing the number of passengers and, therefore, reduced the cost of carrying each passenger. It is an illusion to think that one can get something for nothing. In fact, the cost of running the system did not go down; it went up. It was really an expensive way of buying extra custom. On the GLC's own figures, it cost the ratepayers £1·40 for every extra journey on London Transport.
That is an incredibly high price to pay; so what benefits did the GLC expect to gain? They did not expect the policy to lead to a reduction of more than 1 per cent. in car traffic in London. Most of these extra passengers were probably public transport users making extra journeys. There were also probably a significant number who switched from British Rail.
The GLC have made a great deal of their concern to increase employment in London. But cutting fares is a singularly ineffective way of spending money from that point of view. Many of those who benefit are visitors to London or, as I have said, commuters from outside the London area. For those boroughs and others who are concerned about their ratepayers, this policy pressures their ability to provide other services. Furthermore, a large part of the cost is met by industry and commerce in London, and in the long run this is bound to lead to loss of jobs; so the overall effect is likely to be a net reduction of employment in London.
It is easy to criticise the irresponsible actions of the GLC, which have caused such turmoil in the operation
12
of the capital's public transport system. But there are serious underlying problems which need to be tackled. The Government consider that it would be premature to try to deal with these by hasty legislation. The Government accept the need for a reasonable level of subsidy to maintain the public transport services, which are essential to the life of the capital. The Government are also in favour in principle of low fares. But the problems which have to be faced are, first, how to cut costs and improve productivity so as to minimise the need for subsidy; secondly, how much subsidy should be paid and who should pay for it; and, thirdly, how to ensure that these decisions are taken in a responsible way.
The cost of operating London Transport has been increasing faster than that of other comparable undertakings. Since 1970 the costs of the National Bus Company have risen by about a quarter, after allowing for inflation. The costs of municipal bus companies have risen by about a third in that period, whereas London Transport's costs have risen by a half. Instead of backing the efforts of London Transport to reduce costs, the GLC intervened to increase them. We now need to consider how to ensure that London Transport services are run better and more efficiently than in the past.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way on one point? The noble Lord, making reference just now to a decision of the GLC, said that it had caused turmoil. Is it not the case that it was a decision of the Law Lords rather than the GLC which caused the turmoil?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords; I do not accept that at all. The fact is that there was no turmoil, there was no problem of this kind in any way before the GLC made the decision which necessitated a reference to the Law Lords.
The cost of operating London Transport, as I said, has increased faster than in comparable undertakings. To the extent that lower fares cannot be achieved through greater productivity, the costs must be met by either ratepayers or taxpayers. Both may, with good reason, consider that they are already paying enough. The contribution by central Government, through the transport supplementary grant, fully recognises the special position of London as the capital city. In the coming year London will receive practically 40 per cent. of the total grant for the whole country, though it has only 15 per cent. of the population. There is no case for taxpayers outside London to subsidise London Transport still more in order to hold down fares in the capital. If the GLC want to widen powers to subsidise London Transport then it is up to them to say how a proper balance between the interests of ratepayers and travellers is to be preserved, and who will be the gainers and who will be the losers.
We also need to clarify the responsibilities for transport in London. At the moment there is an incredible confusion and there are signs of a breakdown in the relations between the GLC and London Transport, and we have the quite extraordinary spectacle of the chairman of London Transport calling for London Transport to be freed from the political control of the GLC. My right honourable friend has now seen Mr. Livingstone

13
and will be seeing Sir Peter Masefield tomorrow to discuss the issues.
So far, the GLC have not attempted to address themselves seriously to dealing with the real problems of providing a stable basis for public transport in London. Instead they have launched an irrelevant and misleading publicity campaign at the ratepayers' expense. After they have themselves approved London Transport's budget for this year, and agreed to the fare increases due to take place later this month, incredibly they are actively encouraging the employees of London Transport to strike and to refuse to collect the new fares—which they themselves have agreed. And they are calling on Londoners to act illegally by refusing to pay the fares, I say again, which they themselves have approved. That seems to me to be the height of irresponsibility.
The Government greatly regret the need for the fare increases, but absolutely no purpose will be served by the strike which is planned for Wednesday. Nobody can gain from it. It has been brought about by playing on the fears of workers about job losses, I say again, in a totally irresponsible way. The GLC have talked about job prospects, service levels and fares, in a way that confuses the actions that are needed now to get London Transport's finances back on to a stable basis, with wild speculation about what may happen in the longer term.
The Government share the views of all those who want efficient services to meet London's needs, at reasonable levels of subsidy. The present Bill represents an essential step towards that end. I hope that it will now be possible to move from political campaigning to serious discussions. I should explain to your Lordships that the reason why the Second Reading of this Bill has been brought forward without allowing the normal interval after First Reading is that the GLC need the powers by the end of the month so that they can use them for the next financial year. I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bellwin.)
3.14 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, of course we on this side of the House support this Bill in so far as it puts the Greater London Council in precisely the same position as local authorities outside London. I need hardly say that concessionary fares for the elderly and disabled are vital for the people of London. For every three passenger journeys by normal fare-paying passengers there is one concessionary passenger journey.
Following the legal judgment, concern was expressed about the situation of London's transport concessionary fares scheme. Ministers said that such fears were groundless and nonsensical. The Secretary of State said that it was alarmist talk. The Secretary of State also said that nothing would be gained and a great deal of unnecessary anxiety would be caused by demands for instant Government measures. But I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, agreed that the GLC had advised the Secretary of State that in view of the legal ruling by the Law Lords it could not use its powers to subsidise London Transport to pay for concessionary travel because it was decided not to use
14
the power of the 2p rate for that purpose. Therefore, something had to be done. It was not alarmist talk.
Now we have this Bill, which we welcome. We cannot consider this Bill without reference to the judgment, to the present position of London Transport, and the future. In fact, the Minister made clear in his speech that we cannot separate these aspects. The general position of grants towards public transport outside Greater London is dealt with in the Transport Act 1968. That for Greater London is dealt with in the Transport (London) Act 1969, and that was well dissected and discussed at the legal hearings.
There will be few Members in the other place, and few noble Lords in this House, who were here at the time of the passage of the 1969 London Act who did not believe at that time that they were providing for Greater London precisely the same powers as those in the 1968 Act for areas outside Greater London. If the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who has joined your Lordships' House, were here, he would (I have a copy of his speech) be able to confirm that that is what he said in introducing the Second Reading in the other place.
Of course, judges must determine on the actual provisions of Acts of Parliament, and not on what is said by Ministers, not what is in Hansard of the other place, nor in the Official Report of this House. This is a point that I repeatedly stressed in relation to amendments that I moved to the 1980 and 1981 Transport Acts, but no notice was taken. I was told that one could trust Ministers, irrespective of what is written down in the Act, and I shall be reminding noble Lords of this when we reach the 1982 Transport Bill later on.
To paraphrase the judgment, the 1969 Act gave the Greater London Council power to make grants to the London Transport Executive, but this had to be subject to the undertaking being run with due regard to ordinary business principles, and the GLC had to give proper regard to the fiduciary duty to the ratepayers. What the Law Lords did not decide—it was not their position—is the level of grant support raised from the rates which will be within the fiduciary duty of any council. At what level do grants from rates impinge the fiduciary responsibility to ratepayers, and upset the balance between ratepayers and a particular group? Is not the determination as to the level of grant that is reasonable a political decision, not a legal decision, and is this not a matter which must be left to the elected representatives to determine?
I wonder what would have been the position of any legal challenge to the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge? When Labour took control of the old London County Council for the first time in 1934, Herbert Morrison was tired of the delay and procrastination and he decided that the London County Council would tear down Waterloo Bridge and put a new bridge in its place—which is a credit to that administration—using the LCC's funds. I wonder what the position of that would be in the light of this present legal ruling?
Further, could not the issue of fiduciary duty affect the decisions taken by local authorities in other matters? To assist me in asking that question, I have with me the Statement of Mr. Kenneth Clarke, until a few days ago the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who on 1st March in the other place said:
" In the GLC case, the Law Lords touched on fiduciary duty.

15
Among other things, their Lordships drew a distinction between the duty in relation to transport, which is essentially a trading service, and other social services. They applied a stricter test to transport than they might have done to other social services ".
In other words, it could affect a number of other local authority issues. I do not know exactly who has paid for the Barbican, but presumably it could cover the Barbican Centre, or the development of a huge council housing estate, or expenditure on a big park, although somebody might say that was unfair to the general ratepayers.
The then Minister went on:
"The fiduciary duty to the ratepayers is not statutory". (Official Report, Commons, 1/3/82; cols. 45–6.)
I am sure that that is a statement with which all noble Lords would agree. I have asked repeatedly what the criteria are for determining the level of grants, what subsidies can be paid. Again, Mr. Kenneth Clarke said on 24th February:
"We accepted the Revenue support for 1982–83 of a little over £89 million, which is nearly 5 per cent. more in real terms than we gave for 1981–82". (Official Report, Commons, 24/2/82; col. 937).
Who determined that that level of grant was lawful? When does an £89 million grant become lawful but a £149 million grant does not? The Law Lords never laid that down. Mr. Kenneth Clarke (I must keep referring to that former Minister because he did most of the talking on the subject) said on 1st March, only a few days ago:
"That"—
referring to the London Transport Executive's budget and the budget of the GLC—
"is a lawful budget. It is not cast in any doubt by the Law Lords' judgment. Because doubt continues to be expressed, we have gone to the extent of letting the GLC have the Attorney-General's opinion, which puts it beyond doubt that it is a lawful budget". (Official Report, Commons, 1/3/82; col. 44.)
Again I ask: what determined that it was a lawful budget? What are the criteria for determining such matters? I ask that because it is very important not just for the future of Greater London's transport but for the future of transport outside as well.
A leader in the Sunday Times on 20th December, soon after the judgment, said:
"It leaves it utterly uncertain"—
referring to the judgment—
"what, if any, subsidies to fares are legal, not only for the GLC but for every other transport undertaking. For this, the only remedy lies with Parliament".
It went on:
"For, like the present GLC or loathe it, the plain fact is that it was elected, more recently than Mr. Howell's Government, with a clear mandate for its cheap fares policy. Mr. Howell is entitled to refuse to finance that policy by cutting the Government's grant to the council, but he is unwise to seek actually to veto it by allowing the Lords' judgment to stand. The consequences, if he refuses to budge, could be serious".
On 18th December the Guardian made it quite clear that a new law was absolutely essential, and other journals made similar statements.
In recent days we have had the judgment of Mr. Justice Woolf in which he dismissed the application of Great Universal Stores that the supplementary rate levied for transport purposes by Merseyside Council was unlawful; and the grounds for the application
16
were precisely the same as those in the GLC case, except that Merseyside was acting under the powers given by the Transport Act 1968, which did not cover Greater London. The learned judge said that there was an absence of the word "economic" from Section 9(3) of the 1968 Act and that the general view of the executive had not been made especially subject to the financial duty. Should not the Government therefore put the position right so that the GLC is put in the same position as Merseyside and all authorities outside Greater London?
It cannot be said, as seemed to be implied in the Minister's opening speech, that London's fares policy was hastily conceived. It may be criticised, but there is no doubt that it was adopted by the Labour Party in London after considerable discussion, and a great deal of that discussion was brought before the public. There was actually a discussion involving the issue of the London fares policy some 12 months ago in the other House; throughout the election it was a controversial item; the electors knew it was a key issue; and it was actually featured in a television programme which I saw. Did anybody throughout the election period allege that the act proposed by the Labour Party in Greater London was unlawful? They may have said it was unwise but nobody suggested that it was unlawful. On the contrary, it was considered to be within the law. Since it came into operation, we have figures from the London Transport Executive to show that the use of buses went by up 11 per cent., and the use of the Underground by 7 per cent. An article in the Sunday Times on 13th January, under the heading, "Why nobody can win the fares war", stated:
"Transport in London has reached a level of chaos and public dissatisfaction that requires a complete change of direction if the problems we now face are to be solved".
It went on to point out that that was not a statement made after the Law Lords' judgment. It said:
"In fact, the sentence quoted above opened the transport section of a 150-page statement on Labour Party thinking written more than a year ago. It became the manifesto for the May elections. It was precisely to order the chaos and stem public dissatisfaction that cheap fares were introduced".
That is not me speaking; it is from an article in the Sunday Times.
Noble Lords will have noticed that the Minister, in what I would say with respect was an untypically aggressive speech, made this a political issue. My notes have scored out three paragraphs because I did not want to make this an aggressive speech; I was going to say that transport in London was a non-political issue, but after the noble Lord's speech I fear I cannot, and, in spite of what he said, on Saturday morning I shall be taking part in a demonstration to press the Government to act on restoring a sensible position in regard to London's transport.
The former Minister, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, allowed himself when closing the Second Reading debate in the other place to make a political attack on the GLC in general, not just on transport, and the issue is really what is needed for London's public transport. Why, in the United Kingdom, is transport in the capital and other major cities made the subject of political football? Other Continental countries deal with the matter more sensibly and there is little or no argument about the need to pay large-scale subsidies for public

17
transport. Indeed, the subsidy in London is much lower than it is in other capitals—a fact which has been agreed by Ministers in the figures that they have given—and in London more of the costs are met out of fares revenue than is the case for transport services in other parts of the Continent.
The need now is to clarify the position in Greater London. I have asked questions about the criteria, but up till now I have received no answer. I therefore ask this question: should the Government decide on the level of transport supplementary grant, how far could the GLC go—or, for that matter, any other authority—to take from the rates income monies to finance a low fares policy on which the council members have been elected and on which the council has made a democratic decision? Would such a course be unlawful? If so, can the Minister give me the legal references which would make it unlawful? If not, what is the legal restraint against the council?
Is there any assurance that payment of a grant for concessionary fares could not be held to be unlawful? Could not the fiduciary duty of a local authority be quoted even against a grant for concessionary fares? We must ensure that everything possible is written into the Bill to make certain that the legality of concessionary fares in Greater London is not to be challenged in law. It must be made absolutely watertight.
In conclusion, I would point out that the former Under-Secretary of State for Transport said on 1st March:
"We are prepared to look at the general law if and when we reach the stage where we feel that we are receiving serious representations on it from the GLC and the London Labour Party".
I am delighted to know that the Secretary of State has today met Labour leaders in Greater London.
In view of the references made to Sir Peter Masefield, the chairman and chief executive of the London Transport Executive, I should like to close my speech by reading from a statement which he addressed to the Greater London Council with his full report on a proposed budget for London Transport. Sir Peter stated:
"The Executive believes these measures "—
that is, the proposals for dealing with the situation—
"to be both in conformity with the present law and feasible, and stands ready to implement them. The result would, however, be to drive large numbers of passengers away from public transport.
"By the end of 1984, scheduled bus mileage would be reduced by one-quarter (mileage actually operated by one-fifth) and passenger miles by bus and Underground by one-quarter. Some people would not be able to travel at all, others would use cars and taxis and increase the general level of road congestion. Employers would be faced with higher London Weighting costs and increased wage demands".
Sir Peter continued:
"We have to say that this decline in the role of public transport in London would be against all international trends and could only be to the long-term detriment of the economic and social life and well-being of the capital city, and therefore of the country as a whole. London Transport therefore seeks the Council's support in endeavours to obtain changes in the law which would permit the level of financial support needed to maintain an adequate standard of public transport in London".
That is the statement that Sir Peter Masefield addressed to the Greater London Council. In welcoming the present Bill, which covers the one issue of concessionary fares, I urge the Government to cease making political
18
capital out of London's transport and to get on with the job of putting the law in order.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, there is no doubt that your Lordships' House will this afternoon give an unopposed Second Reading to what I regard as a somewhat pathetic and puny Bill. I doubt whether a single voice will be raised against what is contained in the Bill, but there is no doubt that my colleagues and I believe that it is a totally inadequate measure. In a sense it is also an unnecessary measure, and a measure which stems from what I might describe as a clash of dogmatism. Dogmatism has been referred to from the Government Front Bench, and I would suggest that it is not all on one side of this argument.
In passing, I should like to refer to the fact that the Law Lords have been attacked from all sides, not within your Lordships' House, but outside, and that is something which I think we all deplore. It is their job to interpret the law as they see it. It is our job in Parliament to make sure that laws are properly enacted, and if we fail so to do, the blame should not attach to the Law Lords, who are doing their job, and who must be respected, because any other way would lead to anarchy and chaos in our country.
As I say, my Lords, the responsibility rests with Parliament to get the laws right, and in particular it rests with the Government to bring forward legislation to correct anomalies and to fill gaps in the law as it stands. That is what the Government should have been doing in relation to London Transport, in terms not just of concessionary fares, but of a much wider spectrum of problems that exist; and that the Bill singularly fails to do.
I do not think that today anyone will suggest that London Transport should be left to the free processes of market forces. I do not see on the Government Benches anyone who is likely to stand up and put forward that eccentric point of view, even on a subject such as this. However, perhaps some Conservative-controlled boroughs in the Greater London area might take that view. But at least the Government are now on the side of the angels and by putting forward the Bill at all they admit that they are prepared to intervene. But it simply does not go far enough. We are within a matter of days of public transport in this capital city being set on a course which could lead to its total destruction. It could lead to a decline in an already bad environment, to clogged roads, to further depopulation of our capital city and, indeed, to a loss of revenue through a deterioration in tourist traffic.
This is a serious problem, and it is a problem not only for the citizens of Greater London; it is a problem for the country as a whole, and it is a problem in particular for the whole of the South-East region. I say that because the transport problems of London are not confined to the City of London, Westminster, or even the GLC area. They go much further than that. At least the whole of the South-East region is involved. I do not want to give your Lordships a long lecture on regional government—that might come some other time—but there is a sense in which the GLC is not big enough an authority to deal with strategic transport planning for the region as a whole.

19
We know the reasons for the opposition to cheap fares. They are twofold. First, some ratepayers are unable to use services because the London Transport services do not reach into their part of Greater London. I am talking here, as the Minister did, of those people who travel on the commuter services of British Rail, and surely that factor has to be included in the total package if we are ever to get a solution to the problem. The other reason is that there are many users who do not in fact pay rates, such as tourists, and people who live in other parts of the country and who come here and use London Transport because it is part of the capital city. It is the sense of unfairness on both sides that makes the equation so difficult to balance.
I believe that the first mistake on the part of the GLC was to go for so dramatic a reduction in fares in such a short period of time. The second mistake was to try to recoup the cost from the rates. The truth is that on all sides we need a much less dogmatic approach to the problem. We need a smaller degree of hyperactivity on the part of the GLC and, if such is possible, a lower degree of inactivity on the part of the Government. Neither the one nor the other offers a solution to this extremely complex problem. Indeed, when we look at the long-term situation we see that we might well be faced with a totally different demand over a period of 10 or 15 years; during that time the whole pattern of office usage in London, with the advent of the micro-processor, might undergo a complete change, which might mean that people will not come into large offices in the centres of this and other cities. But we simply cannot wait for that development to solve a problem which is immediate and which, as I say, is within a matter of days of hitting us.
The Government really must recognise that the problem will not go away. Making rude noises about the GLC will not make it go away. I believe that they must act—and act soon. It may be that some stop-gap measures have to be introduced, but I hope that in his winding-up speech the noble Lord will say more than he said in his introductory remarks, which I found extremely depressing. If not, I warn the Government that within a few years people will say of London Tranpsort what I fear I have to say about this Bill today: It is all right so far as it takes us, but it takes us hardly anywhere at all.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this House is a very tolerant place. There is a Bill before us at the moment which deals with a couple of Acts of Parliament and certain narrow sections; namely, Section 138 of the Transport Act 1968, which allowed the shire counties to make provision for the elderly and the disabled, and Section 40 of the Transport (London) Act 1969, which extended that power to the councils of London boroughs and the City Corporation. The Greater London Council, as we have been reminded, used its 2p rate provision to deal with these matters before; has decided that it has many duties to perform which may well have to be performed out of that 2p rate; and that in any event certain legal advice it has received makes it doubtful as to whether the 2p rate user would be proper having regard to the House of Lords decision. So this Bill, we are told, comes before us, as it came before
20
another place, in order to enable the GLC, without any doubt, to do what the shire counties have been able to do and the boroughs of London and the City Corporation.
There, one would have thought, the Minister might have left it. But quite properly, in my view, in one sense, and quite improperly in another, he himself has extended the whole area of this debate by pouring an onslaught of abuse on the Greater London Council, its policies, its irresponsibilities, its leaders, what it has done with finances and so on. From that point of view it was not a very proper exercise, in my view, and hardly lends dignity to the Government's case on this Bill. Where it was quite proper, in my view, is that it is quite absurd to treat this one little Bill as being a contribution towards a solution of the very drastic problems of London Transport.
I have only three points to make, and I hope to make them fairly briefly. The first point I want to make is that if it be a fact that there is an imprimatur of trusteeship for ratepayers upon any expenditure of rates under statutory powers, is the Minister sure on the best legal advice he has obtained—is he sure beyond a peradventure—that in regard to the usage by the Greater London Council of the powers under this Bill for the elderly and disabled, that user, too, is not imprinted with the need to observe a fiduciary relationship to the ratepayers of London? if it is so subject, could he please inform the House, as my noble friend Lord Underhill was asking, what really are to be the criteria in the way of the Greater London Council—we are talking only about the Greater London Council, but it would apply to other local authorities—for the user of these essential powers in supplying an economic and decent system of transport for the aged and the disabled?
So that is the very first point I make. It is an important point because if the Greater London Council and the public are being misled into thinking that this is an unconditional, unfettered power, then of course it would be a very wrong thing. If there is no doubt about the situation and it is an untrammelled power to use this benefit for the elderly and disabled, then I am sure we would all appreciate it if the Government were to say so.
My second point is the one with which I tried to open and which other speakers have mentioned, and that is the whole question of this not being an isolated matter that one can deal with in regard to London Transport. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I think was responsible this afternoon for an extremely sound and (if I may be allowed to say this without being patronising in any way) extremely eloquent and well-delivered speech, and in the course of it he dealt with the whole importance of London transport, the transport of the capital city. I should like to embroider the point that he made so well, and I hope in doing so not to ruin the texture of it.
But it is a fact, of course, that the whole question of London transport and the transport of the capital city, and the fares of that London transport, have an effect upon housing, the effect upon the housing of its citizens quite obviously being that if fares are so expensive that they cannot afford to travel to the areas that need employment then it is of great importance as to where the housing takes place. It also has the effect that I have just hinted at on employment, and

21
it has an effect upon our tourist trade. In London we are fast becoming not a very attractive place from the point of view of economical living, economical hotels and economical entertainment. At least it would be an attraction if our public transport system in London were known throughout Europe and, indeed, the world as being a transport system which was efficient and cheap.
It goes beyond that. It has an effect upon the whole governmental policy in regard to inflation, because, quite obviously, an increase in fares is one of the essential ingredients in a wage claim; and this, too, is going to force up wages. So it is a very important matter that one is dealing with when one is thinking in terms of London Transport and fares.
My third and last point is this—and for me it is a very sentimental point. There is no justification at all for the noble Lord the Minister to address this House as though every single problem of London Transport can be met by the one question, "Mr Livingstone, I presume?". I say this is a sentimental point for me because this is not a problem that arose since the present GLC came into power. Back in 1955–27 years ago—a departmental committee was set up to deal with the problems of London Transport. It was an eight-man committee which was chaired by a very eminent gentleman, unfortunately no longer with us, Sir Paul Chambers, who at that time was the deputy chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries and who subsequently became their chairman. Among the other seven members of the committee, the humble Lord who addresses your Lordships now was included.
I took the trouble to look at the recommendations of that Committee on London Transport that sat and reported more than 20 years ago. I wonder whether your Lordships will bear with me as I quote from just a few of the recommendations then made, and may we all reflect upon the words of the old and somewhat sad song, "Will they never learn?". I quote from paragraph 391 and onwards:
"Some of the most important and most effective of the suggested measures, including those relating to traffic congestion, involve decisions and heavy capital expenditure by authorities other than the London Transport Executive. Others, including those relating to maintenance costs, involve internal action by the London Transport Executive itself. These measures are all the more urgent because of the unsatisfactory financial position of the undertaking. London has one of the best passenger transport systems in the world. It is served by a body of workers of all grades who have a fine tradition of loyalty and public service. If, however, steps are not taken to improve the external conditions in which London Transport operates and if certain internal reforms are not made there is a serious danger that the standards of efficiency will decline and costs will rise with an inevitable reaction upon fares".
Paragraph 394 says:
"The standard of service provided by London Transport is high except for (a) acute overcrowding at a number of points during peak hours, (b) poor interchange facilities, and (c) some irregular and slow running of road services which pass through congested streets".
The report might have been written yesterday and the noble Lord might have acccompanied the very eminent Minister of Transport in discussing these very topics this morning with the leaders of the Greater London Council. I could go on reading from the passages of the report but I shall bore your Lordships if I do so. They deal with the contribution the Government could make by way of example to the nation in
22
trying to get rid of traffic congestion and the costs and the competition between public and private transport which result if only they managed in their own Government departments to stagger the hours of employment so that the peak hours did not lead to an over-abundance of transport staff which have to deal with the peak hours and are not necessary for other hours, quite apart from the transport itself which has to be supplied.
As I have said, we are not dealing with a new problem; we are dealing with an old problem. There is no point in the Government throwing offensive remarks at the Greater London Council as though these problems were created only yesterday. What is required and what the citizens of London require and expect at this moment is that, instead of a Minister delivering a speech full of invective, the Government sit down in sanity and without trying to make political propaganda with the heads of the Greater London Council, with the heads of the London Transport Executive and forgetting for a moment (if they like) manifestoes and documents which might be sent out by one party or the other, and try to deal practically, sensibly and humanely with a problem of the capital city and its machinery of transport which is of such vital importance not only to London but to the nation as a whole.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I fail to appreciate how, when faced with the kind of "politicisation" (if there be such a word) that we are faced wtih in this matter, the Government, and least of all, I, can be accused of becoming involved in political attempts to raise the temperature—and I think that was the implification of what noble Lords opposite have said. Let me try to get this back on course. One of the clear difficulties in dealing with subsidies for transport is that they can get out of hand. London Transport expect to have direct running costs of over £700 million next year. It is very easy for subsidies to escalate rapidly when costs go up, even without cutting fares. When control of a local authority changes hands, it may be tempting for a new council to make a dramatic shift in policy and to increase expenditure very sharply, much more quickly than would be possible with a service like education. That was the experience that faced the last Labour Government. I will not hold up your Lordships by going into that.
The whole nub of the problem, the financial aspect, seems to me to be to maintain a balance, to provide enough subsidy to support an adequate level of service and to meet the needs of travellers without imposing too heavy a burden on ratepayers and taxpayers. My right honourable friend gave his view of what is a reasonable level of support in his transport supplementary grant settlement. It is for the GLC to take their own view on whether a different level would comply with the law. But there can be no question of giving the GLC unfettered power to pay as much subsidy as they like without taking account of the interests of their ratepayers. They have a discretion but they must use it responsibly. They seem to be making heavy weather of this.
The only way of achieving complete certainty would be to introduce legislation enabling my right honourable

23
friend to specify by how much they are allowed to spend. I am not sure that that is what they would want. In fact, I am sure it is something they would not want. One could talk at great length on what has been said and, clearly, there is a strong difference of opinion in this matter between noble Lords opposite, certainly, and the Government. I think that however much one tries to turn away from the fact that there are strong political currents running throughout this situation, it is not possible to do so. I quote a London Labour councillor in a local newspaper as saying:
"There is also a slight suspicion that the GLC at a political level is happy to have the worst possible result to give them a greater platform to campaign from".
Mr. Wetzel, the chairman of the GLC's transport committee, is reported to have said in Time Out:
"The judgment has given the Labour Party the best spur we would have hoped for before the local elections next May… We are going to spent £250,000 on a campaign. It's a real fillip for us—the best thing that could possibly have happened".
That is what he said and I think it puts it in perspective.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the Minister could rise above such a perspective. Instead of quoting remarks which may be in the right context or in the wrong context, I hope that the Minister—and I am asking him a question—will consider the advisability of introducing into his speech words of conciliation and arrangements for joint planning; because, as I repeat, the citizens of London are fed up with the politics of this and they want a decent transport system.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I rather think that that is coming it a bit. If I had been in my former incarnation I would have answered the noble Lord more vigorously than I am expected to in this House. If we want to get it on the level he speaks about, let me make three other quotations from the Law Lords—and this is really the nub of what the noble Lords opposite have said about this matter of the criteria, the fiduciary duty. Lord Justice Oliver said that the fiduciary duty was owed:
"not simply to electors but to the whole body of ratepayers including a large and important number who have no voice at all in choosing local councillors".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said:
"Once it became apparent"—
the fares reduction—
"that the ratepayer's burden would be approximately doubled, the council acted in breach of its fiduciary duty".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, although still alluding to the decision to make the 25 per cent. fare reduction, added that this was:
"not a reluctant yielding to economic necessity but a policy preference. In so doing, the GLC abandoned business principles. That was a breach of duty owed to the ratepayers and wrong in law ".
My Lords, I think I should refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said. With respect, I did not think his contribution was as helpful as did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Lord Mishcon said:
"The Government must act".
He said:
24
"The problem will not go away".
But what he did not say was what ought to be done about it. He referred to market forces as being,
"an eccentric point of view".
He might like to know that in Tokyo most of the public transport is in fact carried out by the private sector. He also said the GLC's mistake in its fares policy was to try to recoup the lower fares by charging it to the rates. He did not say where else it should be charged to.
There it is, my Lords. We seem to have got off on an unusual tack for us in this House, but it has to be recognised that feelings run very deeply and there is much more to it than the simple point of view of this one issue which is the subject of the Bill. I absolutely concur that it has been right to broaden the discussion. Clearly, your Lordships are going to agree that this Bill should go forward. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I am hoping that there will be discussion, that there will be joint consideration of the problems and that there will be an attempt somehow for those involved to help to find solutions in a way that is acceptable.
It is a major problem and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was dealing with the same problem 20 years ago confirms that it is an old one and it will not go away and it tends to deteriorate because of the increasing enormity and scale of it. So I agree with him on that. It is a pity I could not agree with much more of what he said, but that is not the first time. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this Bill should go forward.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he can possibly give some information about the criteria? This must be about the twelfth time that I have asked. When does a figure become lawful and at what level does it become unlawful? There must be an answer to this because otherwise we are in an impossible position.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, that is exactly what I was trying to do in what I was saying. I was in no way trying to belittle the difficulty of coming to that conclusion. But as the courts would say about everything, what is reasonable? What is the burden that the taxpayer, the ratepayer and the traveller should pay? If you come to a conclusion which is patently reasonable to everyone, then I would have thought that was the criteria. Beyond that, no one can go.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Coal Industry Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Administration of Justice Bill [H.L.]
4.4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be

25
now read a second time. When I obtained leave to introduce it and read out the long title, a witty Peer from the Liberal Benches rose and asked whether it was intended to substitute this one measure for the entire statute book.
This sally was well received by the House, and rightly so. But I must begin by explaining that this is almost the opposite of what I am seeking to achieve. Law tends to need darning from time to time, like old socks; and, despite its monstrous long title, its nine Parts, and its 69 clauses and its seven schedules, this is essentially a darning exercise, intended to carry out a very large number of relatively small reforms, all, in my judgment overdue, none, I hope, highly contentious, and certainly not from the party political point of view. It is intended to be a measure of good legal housekeeping. But I have set my heart, such as it is, on getting it, and my colleagues have kindly consented to my receiving a slot in their already overcrowded legislative programme but only on condition that I can persuade another place to carry it through on Second Reading procedure.
It has already been shown informally in its present form to their legal representatives, and I am informed that they have generously given a sympathetic response to my humble request and I am grateful to them for it. But this does place limits on the extent to which I can propose or accept amendments, and I hope that noble Lords in this House will be sympathetic and understanding. In particular, I shall not be able to use it as a vehicle for carrying controversial hobbyhorses of any kind. In the battle for parliamentary time, the Lord Chancellor's Department is often the loser. Like the Pope, we have but few divisions, and the acres of print we occasionally require for our measures do not normally excite much political sex appeal. The only effect of trying to insert controversial clauses, even if meritorious, is that maybe we shall lose a valuable measure of law reform.
The Bill naturally falls into two halves. The first contains law reform proper, the second what I might describe as technical but necessary amendments or adjustments to the judicial process. I can succeed in carrying out these improvements by consent alone. So I now turn to the first half. The law reform proposals in the Bill come from a number of different sources. Indeed, their origins are illustrative of the way in which nowadays we go about the business of law reform. It is generally accepted that the work of the two Law Commissions, set up some 16 years ago, very largely on the initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has led to a regular and very beneficial flow of law reform which would not otherwise have seen the light of day. Their contribution is substantial and I am always anxious to do as much as I possibly can to ensure the implementation of their reports wherever these are found acceptable. This is important if the morale of the commissions is to be sustained, and the quality of their membership kept at its present distinguished level.
Proposals emanating from the two commissions form the basis of much of Parts I and II of the Bill and some of Part III. There are times, however, when pressing problems arise in the legal field which are not necessarily suitable for a reference to one of the Law
26
Commissions. In such cases a body drawing on wider membership or experience is required and the Government of the day will then decide on setting up a Royal Commission. The concern which was expressed following the thalidomide tragedy 10 years or so ago, together with other matters, was such an example. It led to the creation of the Royal Commission of which my late noble and learned friend Lord Pearson was the chairman. I was very largely responsible for its appointment, and I should like very much to be midwife to some of its proposals. Its deliberations resulted in a lengthy report, on much of which decisions remain to be taken. But however, Parts I and II of the Bill do effect some important Pearson recommendations and, in relation to England and Wales, subsume some of the earlier work of the Law Commission. I believe the changes will be generally welcome and represent worthwhile improvements.
Finally, your Lordships will find in Part IV of this Bill the results of the work of yet another kind of law reform agency—this time the Law Reform Committee which advises me on more technical matters which are referred to it. The Law Reform Committee has been in existence since 1952 and was the successor to the old, pre-war, Law Revision Committee. It consists of judges, barristers, solicitors and academic lawyers under the chairmanship, at present, of my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman. The recommendations of two of its recent reports on wills are contained in this Bill, thus confirming the wisdom of the decision to leave this committee (and its cousin the Criminal Law Revision Committee) in being when the Law Commissions were created. There is, as your Lordships will appreciate, a place for law reform by a highly qualified full-time professional body like the Law Commission as well as for a substantial part-time contribution in matters of pure lawyers' law.
I now turn to the Bill itself. Parts I and II are concerned with damages for personal injuries and death. Broadly speaking, they contain for England and Wales and Scotland respectively certain recommendations of the Pearson Commission which, in relation to England, endorse the Law Commission's Report on Assessment of Damages, published as long ago as 1973. Your Lordships will recall that I told the House in the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on 20th January, of the conclusions which the Government had reached on these. I mentioned, in particular, that the Pearson recommendations on periodic payments and the modified multiplier had, after extensive consultation, not proved acceptable. On the other hand, the Government have not yet taken a final view on the recommendation for full offsetting of social security benefits against damages recoverable for personal injuries. This is a proposal which is currently being canvassed in the White Paper on the Industrial Injuries Scheme. But in Part I of this Bill, the Government are accepting a group of Pearson recommendations which will get rid of certain obsolete or unnecessary rights of action, remove important anomalies and introduce changes of particular benefit to plaintiffs. It may be helpful for the House if I were to mention the main changes which will result from Part I, clause by clause.
Clauses 1 and 2 abolish certain claims for damages or rights of action. Clause 1 abolishes damages for

27
loss of expectation of life but provides instead that, in assessing damages in respect of pain and suffering caused by the injuries, the court shall take account of any suffering caused or likely to be caused to the plaintiff by awareness that his expectation of life has been reduced. This will, in effect, abolish what is often called the conventional award for loss of expectation of life—currently about £1,250. This is regarded as being of little financial significance and has often been criticised as derisory in respect of the deaths of husbands, wives and children. I should make it clear that this does not affect any claim by a living plaintiff for damages for loss of income where his life has been shortened.
Clause 2 abolishes a number of archaic actions for loss of services, and thus completes a process begun by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970. There is no longer any place for an action on behalf of a husband for being deprived of the loss of services or society of a living wife as the result of injuries suffered by her or for the benefit of a parent on the ground of his having been deprived of the services of a living child. In the same way, an employer's right of action in respect of loss of services of a menial servant, of the rape or seduction of a female servant in his employment or of the enticement or harbouring of an employed servant, will be abolished. The House, I hope, will recognise that there is an anachronistic, even proprietary, flavour about these actions, and they ought to go.
Clause 3 introduces three important changes in the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and, in doing so, replaces the text of the first four sections of that Act. The first change replaces the old Section 1 with a new section and increases the range of dependants who may bring an action in respect of fatal injury. In future, those able to claim will include all ascendants and descendants of the deceased (instead of merely parents, grandparents, children and grandchildren), former spouses and any person treated by the deceased as his child.
The second, and most important, change in the fatal accidents clauses will be found in the proposed new Section IA of the 1976 Act (now part of Clause 3(1) of the present Bill). This will introduce a new claim for damages for bereavement and, on this, I owe the House a rather fuller explanation than on the other provisions of this Part. The proposal in the Bill follows the Law Commission's recommendation of 1973. It will give a fixed sum by way of damages to a spouse for the loss of the other spouse and to parents for the loss of a child. The amount is fixed by the Bill at £3,500 but would he capable of being increased by order.
In deciding that this was the right approach, the Government have rejected the somewhat broader proposals that appeared in the Pearson report, which recommended a right to damages for loss of society, which would have been available also to children for the loss of a parent and which would have been tied to a figure of one-half average industrial earnings. I should add that we are not following the provisions which since 1976 have been the law in Scotland and which allow the courts a discretion to award damages for loss of society, unlimited in amount, to the same
28
class of beneficiaries as the Pearson recommendation.
Personally, I believe that no monetary sum can adequately compensate a person for bereavement and I speak, as the House will remember, not without bitter experience of these things. It is for this reason that I think the award should be of a conventional, fixed kind available only in limited circumstances. My present view is that it should not be available to an unmarried minor child in respect of the loss of a parent because, following the minority report in Pearson, such a child is already likely to receive substantial dependency damages in any event. Bereavement damages can add little or nothing to that and I think there are telling reasons for adopting a simple solution of the kind that appears in the Bill.
The third change in the Fatal Accidents Act would require the courts to disregard all benefits coming from the estate of the deceased in reduction of damages payable to a dependant. This is now a relatively small change. In recent years many benefits, including the matrimonial home, are already disregarded.
Your Lordships will find in Clause 4 the other significant change in the law of damages. In effect, this reverses the decision of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity in Gammell v. Wilson. In that case, the House felt itself compelled to decide, but with great reluctance, that a claim for the income which would have accrued to the plaintiff during the years of his life that have been lost, survives for the benefit of his estate. This has meant that, in some circumstances, a defendant has had to compensate not only the dependants who may have a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act but also the estate. This element of double compensation is unacceptable and Clause 4 puts that matter right. I should emphasise that it does not affect the right to damages payable to a living plaintiff in respect of the lost years' income.
Clause 5 deals with a very minor matter. It prevents another case of double compensation. Any saving to an injured person attributable to his maintenance wholly or partly at public expense in a hospital or other institution will be set off against any lost income as a result of his injuries already compensated by way of damages.
Clause 6 is of greater moment. It introduces a new procedure for provisional damages on the lines recommended by the Law Commission and endorsed, in general terms, by the Pearson Report. What is proposed is that the courts should be empowered to make a provisional award in cases where the medical prognosis is particularly uncertain and where there is a chance, falling short of probability, that some serious disease or serious deterioration in the plaintiff's condition will accrue at a later date.
One might, for example, have a case where the plaintiff's sight is impaired as a result of an accident at work, but not so badly as to deprive him for the time being of his livelihood. In such a case, however, the medical evidence may point to a possibility of his actually going blind within the next five years. A similar example might be that of a young child whose skull has been fractured in a motor accident. The recovery may appear to be complete by the time the case is heard, but the prognosis may include a slight (if diminishing) possibility of epilepsy. In cases of this kind, under the existing law the only remedy is

29
inadequate. The plaintiff may apply for what is called a "split trial"; that is to say, a trial of the issue of liability first (when recollections are relatively clear) and an assessment of the damages later (when the prognosis can be, but is not always, more definite). But under the existing law, when it is made, the award is an award made once and for all.
Consequently, in the two examples I have given, if at that stage the evidence is that there is, say, a one in 10 chance that the plaintiff may lose his sight completely or become epileptic, the judge must award him one-tenth of the damages that would be awarded if there were not a mere chance but a certainty of the danger coming to pass. This method has the advantage of achieving finality (which is often as important to the plaintiff as to the defendant) but I must describe it as extremely crude. It means that if the chance event never happens, the plaintiff is overcompensated, but if it does happen he is under-compensated, sometimes to a very high degree. In other words, in either event the award is bound to be wrong.
The purpose of Clause 6 is to make it possible for the court to take a different approach, to wait and see; that is, to award nothing in respect of the feared event but to give damages for what is known, and then to allow the plaintiff to apply for damages later if the feared event actually takes place. In all other respects, the award is, of course, perfectly normal. I do not imagine that this procedure will be employed very often. It will not be invoked unless the plaintiff wants it and the court is satisfied that this procedure will not cause serious prejudice to the defendant. It will, therefore, be comparatively rare, but in those cases where it is used it will he manifestly fairer to both parties than the existing rule.
So far, I have been dealing with England and Wales and Northern Ireland. I now timorously venture north of the Tweed, though on the Committee stage I hope that I shall be assisted by my noble and learned friend who occupies the Front Bench as Lord Advocate. The content differs considerably in part, due to the fact that a number of improvements in this area have been secured for Scotland by the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976. Part II therefore covers—with that qualification for Scotland—much the same area of damages as Part I does for the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Act of 1976 carried into effect the Scottish Law Commission's Report No. 31, which was published in 1973. The commission's continued involvement in this field is now evident in the provisions of Part H of the Bill.
In general, the clauses follow recommendations made in the Scottish Commission's Report No. 51, which was published in 1978, in which the recommendations of the Pearson Commission on claims for services and admissible deductions were reviewed. Where the Scottish Commission has suggested any modifications to the approach advocated by the Pearson Report, the Scottish recommendations have been preferred in the clauses which are now before your Lordships. This is the case, for example, with Clauses 8 and 9, which provide for an injured person to recover compensation for necessary services given to him by a relative, or for any loss of ability on his part to render services to members of his family. Clause 10, which lists
30
payments to be received by the injured person which should or should not be taken into account by the court in assessing damages, also reflects the further consideration given to the Pearson recommendations by the Scottish Commission.
Clauses 11 and 12 are prompted directly by Pearson recommendations and have not benefited from any commission consideration separately made. Clause 11 is essentially the same as Clause 5 in Part I, and provides that maintenance at public expense will be taken into account in assessing damages. Clause 12 corresponds to Clause 6 in Part 1, which gives the court power to award provisional damages. Clause 13 provides for the interpretation of the terms employed in Part II. Clause 14 further demonstrates the close interest taken by the Scottish Commission in this field, because the repeal of Section 5 of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 was prompted by its Report No. 64, which was published as recently as April 1981. This concluded that the means of avoiding a multiplicity of actions set out in the Act proved rather unwieldy and the problem could be accommodated more satisfactorily by rules of court.
After my excursion into Scotland, I now return to England and Wales. Part III amends the law regarding awards of interest. Clause 15 and Schedule 1 enlarge the powers of the High Court and the county courts to award interest on debts and on damages. The most serious defect in the existing law is that, by paying his debt at any time between the commencement of proceedings and the giving of judgment, a debtor escapes having to pay interest at all. This is because the court has no power to award interest except on a judgment, and then only in respect of the sum for which judgment is given. This situation has been criticised strongly by the Law Commission—see their Report No. 88 on interest—and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and others in a case called Tehno-Impex last year. Part III solves the problem by enabling the courts to award interest on any debt outstanding when the writ is issued from the date when it should have been paid down to the date of judgment, or, if paid before judgment, down to the date of payment. This should remedy what I regard as a serious injustice.
The other provision in Part III is Clause 16. This is not concerned with debts or damages, but with orders for lump sum maintenance and interest thereon. It often happens, particularly when the court is trying to bring about what is now called a "clean break" on the dissolution of marriage, that an order is made for one party to pay the other a lump sum by way of maintenance. If the capital is already available, there is no problem, of course, but often it cannot be paid immediately but only by instalments or by payments out of the proceeds of sale of the home, or both. In this kind of case, it would assist the court if an order could be made for the lump sum to carry interest at a rate fixed by the court from the date of making the order down to the date of payment, and Clause 16 so provides.
I turn now to Part IV. This brings into effect two reports of the Law Reform Committee—on the making and revocation of wills and on the interpretation of wills. It introduces one new proposal not emanating from the committee and it provides the legislative

31
changes necessary to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Registration of Wills and the Unidroit Convention on the International Form of Will.
I refer first to Clauses 17 to 19. Your Lordships will see that they are all amendments to the Wills Act 1837. After 150 years, many of the provisions of that Act have been much interpreted by the courts and sometimes, I regret to say, the result has been to complicate rather than simplify the result. Sometimes anomalies have appeared or difficulties have resulted from changing social circumstances. The Law Reform Committee looked afresh at the way in which wills should be made and the circumstances in which they should be revoked. Clause 17 follows their recommendation in restating and simplifying the formal requirements for signing and attestation. Clause 18 deals with the effect on a will of marriage and divorce, which of course did not happen very often in 1837. The approach which is adopted restates, with some modifications appropriate to present day conditions, the well-established rule that a subsequent marriage revokes a will not made in contemplation of that marriage. The clause also introduces a new rule. Where the testator was divorced after making his will the appointment of his or her former spouse as an executor or any gift to him or her lapses. At present, divorce has no effect at all on a will and, thus, there can be unintended results where a testator who does not remarry fails to make a new will.
Clause 19, which does not stem from the Law Reform Committee's report, will deal with another, and much criticised, provision of the Wills Act, which is intended to save, for the benefit of a testator's grandchild, a gift in his will to his son or daughter who has, in the event, predeceased him. The original section of the Wills Act 1837 does not always work satisfactorily. In some circumstances, the gift may not go to the grandchildren but instead may be taken up in payment of creditors or go into the residual estate.
Clauses 20 to 22 bring into effect the Law Reform Committee's report on the interpretation of wills. This is a very technical field, and I shall not detain your Lordships in it for long. It is perhaps sufficient to say that Clause 20 extends the remedy of rectification to wills which will enable, in some limited circumstances, errors to be corrected so that the testator's real intententions can be carried out. Clause 21 replaces a good deal of complex case law on the interpretation of wills by a restatement of the principles and by allowing the introduction of extrinsic evidence to assist in the interpretation of a will. Clause 22 is designed to be of assistance where a home-made will may fail to give effect to the testator's intentions because a life interest is unintentionally created. Instead of this, a gift to a spouse will be presumed to be absolute.
I should now briefly mention the clauses which will enable the United Kingdon to ratify the Convention on Registration of Wills and the International Form of Will. Clauses 23 to 26 provide for facilities for the deposit and registration of wills in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the designation of the Principal Registry of the Family Division in London as the national body through which wills may be registered in other contracting states and which will answer requests for information from those
32
countries about wills registered in the United Kingdom. Thus it will be possible for testators to take advantage of a system for the safe deposit of wills, while inquiries as to the position of any will deposited in any of the other contracting states will be facilitated. This will make life easier for executors, beneficiaries and others involved in the administration of estates. Clauses 27 and 28 establish a procedure whereby wills which comply with certain requirements of the convention on the form of international will will be recognised as being formally valid in any of the contracting states. The form of the international will is set out in Schedule 2 and any will made in accoradnce with that form will, in any event, be valid under our domestic law.
So much, my Lords, for the law reform proper. Now for the minor adjustments. Part V of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous amendments affecting county courts. Some are "useful but technical". One or two are intended to modernise features of county court life which, in the light of changing circumstances, now look a little odd. One example is Clause 30, which does away with the present requirement that a registrar must live within the district of his court. The clause to which I ought to draw attention, however, is Clause 35. This provides that certain county court judgments may be transferred to the High Court and enforced in the same way as High Court judgments. Your Lordships will no doubt know that county court judgments are enforced by county court bailiffs, who are members of the public service and answerable to the Lord Chancellor, while udgments in the High Court have always been enforced nominally by the sheriff of each county and in practice by the under-sheriff whom he appoints and the sheriff's officers. Many observers, especially members of the legal profession, have suggested that under-sheriffs are more effective in this respect than bailiffs. I say nothing about the effectiveness of under-sheriffs, but I must say that I myself have not seen evidence which really supports the case made by critics of the county court system. However, I have reached the conclusion, in deference to professional and public opinion, that under-sheriffs should be permitted to enforce a limited category of county court judgments. Last autumn, your Lordships will remember, the limit of county court jurisdiction was raised from £2,000 to £5,000. Although it will not appear expressly on the face of the legislation, I propose, if the clause finds favour generally, that the minimum qualifying limit for a judgment to be transferable to the High Court for enforcement should be £2,000. This as regards execution will allow the judgment creditor the option of invoking the sheriff's officer or the bailiff, according to which he prefers.
My Lords, Part VI of the Bill restates more concisely and in modern terms the main statute law controlling the management and investment of funds in court. It replaces the separate statutory provisions for funds in the High Court and the county courts now contained in Part I of the Administration of Justice Act 1965 and Part X of the County Courts Act 1959 with a single statutory framework for dealing with money held or paid into these courts. It also clears away the present detailed and restrictive legislation which the Accountant General has found in recent years to be too inflexible in conducting the investment of funds in court in modern

33
economic conditions.
The two most significant changes made in this Part of the Bill are, first, that, while the essential framework of the legislation relating to the management of funds in court is retained, it is restated in the broadest terms and the administrative detail previously dealt with on the face of the statute will be contained in rules. Secondly, Clause 42 will enable the Lord Chancellor to authorise persons other than the Accountant General to hold shares in the common investment schemes which are currently managed by the Public Trustee. In particular, it will permit the Public Trustee to hold shares in these funds, and thereby to make use of the benefits of these unitised investments on behalf of the trusts of which he is the trustee. Your Lordships may remember that I answered a Question about this—I think last week.
Your Lordships will see that Part VII introduces some miscellaneous matters. There are a number of clauses headed "Family Law". All I need say at this stage, I think, is that they are purely of a minor "administration of justice" character; they do not have anything to do with the recent Law Commission recommendation on financial provision after divorce—nor could they, because that subject is outside the scope of this Bill. I shall, however, refer briefly to Clauses 53 and 54, which resolve some difficulties which have arisen in the working of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971. Clause 53 fills a gap in the court's power to obtain information from the debtor about his employment and financial circumstances. Clause 54 is intended to eliminate the complications which may arise where a debtor is paid in advance—for example, because he is about to go on holiday—by ensuring an even flow of payments over the period in question. Clause 56 brings into effect a minor recommendation of the Oliver Committee, removing from the statute book the requirement for an annual audit of a judicial trustee's trusts and leaving it to rules to determine how this shall be done. Of the clauses on land registration, Clauses 59 and 60, one enables the process of computerisation at the Land Registry to be carried a step further and the other, with Schedule 4, simply clarifies the powers of county courts under the land registration legislation; it makes no changes of substance.
Almost all of the provisions in Part VIII affecting Northern Ireland are intended to keep Northern Ireland in step with changes in the law in England and Wales. In particular, the changes in Schedule 5 ensure that changes in the law regarding personal injury litigation proceed at an even pace in the two law districts, and almost all the changes in Schedule 6 reflect provisions in the law of England and Wales which are to be found either in Part VI or Part VII of the Bill or in the Supreme Court Act which was passed last year. Likewise Clause 63, regarding expert evidence, and Clause 64, about allowances for justices of the peace, are modelled on provsions in the law of England and Wales. I attach some importance to a uniformity of approach in matters concerning the administration of justice and I am gratified to find how readily reforms proposed for England and Wales are accepted in Northern Ireland.
Part IX deals with general and supplementary matters, transitionals, repeals and savings, which need not concern the House until the Committee stage. My
34
Lords, I have to apologise for detaining the House for so long on a Bill which contains so much detail that is useful and, I hope, little, if not nothing, that is controversial. The Bill advances the cause of law reform and will allow the machinery of the administration of justice to operate more smoothly. I commend it to your Lordships and beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.42 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House would have been entranced by even the metaphorical picture of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor darning old socks in presenting us with certain legislation. May I be permitted to congratulate him on the neat, colourful and even artistic tenor of his presentation—of his sewing ability? May I also commiserate with him on having to deal not only with old socks but also with odd socks, in this conglomerate Bill?
If I may say so, it is a pleasure to see in his seat the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, especially when one has heard such frequent references to the report of the Pearson Commission of which he was such an able and useful member. Your Lordships will remember with pleasure the numerous occasions on which he has endeavoured to bring the recommendations of that commission before this House. I believe that all of us have sympathy with the noble and learned Lord's position in endeavouring to get some reforms through, having regard to a heavy legislative programme. I wish to make it quite clear, with the permission of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, that we on these Benches will do all we can to assist in the happy progress of the Bill.
Having said that, and having heard what the noble and learned Lord has said about amendments, I hope he will think it useful if, in this Second Reading speech, I endeavour to bring to the attention of the House and, if I may say so with respect, to the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, certain points which he himself may wish to take on board and deal with before the Bill proceeds much further.
There is no doubt that in regard to Clause 2 of this Bill a most helpful exercise has taken place in ridding our law of some archaic and indeed anachronistic rights of action. When one comes to deal with Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill, and in Part I as well as in Part II we are dealing with rights to damages resulting from personal injuries, perhaps your Lordships will permit me in all humility to explain what the existing rights are in relation to personal injuries, subject to correction (and I speak as though I was an advocate addressing a jury at this moment) by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if I get my law wrong—but I hope that I will not.
There are three types of personal injuries which are relevant to consideration of the issue of damages. The first is an ordinary case where personal injury is sustained. There, as your Lordships will appreciate, the damages awarded are for pain and suffering, or for the loss of a limb, as well as compensation for loss of earnings and any special damage which might have been sustained; the special damage being actual monetary loss—items such a clothing and so on. The

35
second type of injury where damages are an important consideration is where, unfortunately, the person injured, apart from suffering physical injuries, has his life shortened. In that case, in addition to the damages to which I have just referred, the injured paintiff would be entitled, under the ruling in the case of Pickett v. British Rail Engineering which was decided in 1978, to what the noble and learned Lord referred to as "the lost years". That would be some compensation to him for the fact that he will be deprived, one estimates, of certain years of his life during which he would have earned. From that point of view, he is awarded compensation as well as for the mental suffering that obviously anybody must undergo if he knows that his life has been shortened as the result of an accident.
Nothing in this Bill affects either of those two cases, but it is relevant that your Lordships should have those rights under consideration when you look at the third case, which is the case of a fatal accident. It has been said that it is cheaper to kill than it is to maim in an accident case. Your Lordships will appreciate the truth of that, while appreciating too that the object of the law here is to compensate and not to punish, when I remind your Lordships that in that case the award of damages would be based on the following considerations at the present time. First, there would be an award under the Law Reform Act for loss of expectation of life. Your Lordships may think that that amounts to a very high sum; but let me say that, as a result of judicial decisions, the amount which is normally awarded now in that category is the sum of £1,250. That is a head of damage under the Law Reform Act for loss of expectation of life. In addition, as the noble and learned Lord said, this House when sitting in its judicial capacity came to a reluctant conclusion in 1980 that there should be also inherited by the estate the damages for "the lost years" to which I have referred, namely, the loss of the ability to earn during the years of which the deceased was deprived. Under this Bill, both those heads of damage will go.
The third right which exists at this moment is under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, and there a dependant, as described in that Act—the father, the mother, the son and so on; a very limited description of dependants—would be entitled to claim for what he or she has lost as a result of the fact that the person upon whom he or she depended for a certain part of his or her livelihood, or indeed all of it, has been killed. That is a head of damages that remains under this Bill. But there have been added to it, and very properly added to it, if I may say so, both ascendants and descendants of the deceased, and also a former spouse, who can now claim as a dependant. My Lords, you will hear me say something about that, because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he did not propose in this Bill, as he is at present minded, to include as a dependant the minor unmarried child of somebody who has been killed in an accident.
To those heads of damages this Bill seeks to add, possibly in substitution for the first two that I talked about, and certainly that of the loss of expectation of life, a heading under the title of bereavement. In respect of that bereavement, the persons who under this Bill will be able to inherit this claim, as it were, will
36
be persons such as the father and the mother who have lost a child, the husband or the wife who has lost a spouse, but not the child of the deceased. Here I realise that in one respect I misled your Lordships and I ask for leave to correct myself. I think I referred to this under the Fatal Accidents Act, when, of course, I should have referred to it under the head of bereavement, because of course a child is entitled to claim under the Fatal Accidents Act both before and after this Bill is passed. I apologise to your Lordships for that, but otherwise I believe I have given a correct statement.
There are the following points that I would wish to raise on this Bill. The first is that I believe it to be wrong, if I may say so, that in the bereavement situation a child should not be allowed to benefit. Secondly if I may say so, I object to the fact that there is a price put upon a bereavement claim with a ceiling of £3,500. Thirdly, I dislike the terminology of the bereavement claim. May I mention in regard to this that the Bill now before the House in fact follows the report recommendations of the Law Commission, both in respect of the title "bereavement", and, secondly, in regard to the limitation of an amount?—the Law Commission had a different amount, a smaller amount; it was a few years ago, of course, that they reported. Thirdly, the Commission in its recommendations excluded a child of the deceased from being able to benefit under this bereavement claim.
The Pearson Report, however, did recommend that a child should be included in a bereavement claim or in a claim under this sort of head. The Pearson Report further said that it should be a claim not for bereavement but for loss of society. Thirdly, because, as your Lordships will remember, Pearson had as its overriding recommendation the issue of absolute liability which was linked to a state fund of compensation, the Pearson Commission recommended that the formula for this head of damage and the amount of it should be related to average annual earnings. I wonder whether your Lordships will permit me in dealing with this matter to make a very short quotation from the Pearson Report in this context. I am reading from page 93, paragraph 405 of Volume 1 of the report:
"Some of our witnesses felt that the entitlement to claim damages for lost dependency should be further extended".
What I wanted to say to your Lordships was this. First of all, is it not pretty obvious content that the child of a deceased person killed in an accident is the one who very possibly has suffered the greatest bereavement of the lot? After all, one may sometime hope, if one has unfortunately lost a husband or wife, to achieve happiness again by obtaining another spouse. The child can never obtain another parent who has been killed; the child can only obtain a stepparent of a foster parent. To exclude the child from this right in respect of a deceased parent seems to me, if I may say so, to be all wrong.
The points that are put against the child having a right to claim under the heading of bereavement are, first, that it would be impracticable because there might be children who were resident abroad and one would have to find out who they were and so on. Secondly, the point is made that the child will in most cases be a dependant anyway under the Fatal Accident Act.

37
I would argue to your Lordships in the following way. Pearson in fact has the same recommendations as the law now is in Scotland and has been since 1976. The Scottish Damages Act in fact provides for unlimited damages—and I will talk about that, if I may, briefly in a moment—recognises the right of a child to a claim, and also deals with it not under the head of bereavement but on the basis of loss of society. I am recommending that Scottish law be followed. It has not in the slighest proved impracticable.
On the question of dependability and, therefore, having to be able to claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, one only has to envisage two cases: first, the child who has lost a mother, where the mother is not the earner in the family but the father is—there would then be no claim under the Fatal Accidents Act at all—and secondly, a child whose father has been killed, disabled, become blind or whatever and, therefore, the mother has to be the earner in the family. In neither of those cases would the child have any right under the Fatal Accidents Act.
If I may say so, it is rather absurd—I hope that I am not using too strong a word—in an area where we are endeavouring so far as possible to have a commonly related law in the EEC, to have a situation where, if an English family or an Irish family or a Welsh family travel over the border to Scotland and there is a fatal accident in Scotland, the English family would be able to claim under Scottish law, the child would be able to claim, and there would be unlimited damages and the situation would therefore be one of greater advantage than if the accident occurred on the other side of the border where, in exactly the same circumstances, a child would not be able to claim at all and there would be a limit to the damages of £3,500.
The final point that I wish to make on this issue is the title of bereavement. I ask your Lordships to consider for one moment the position of somebody occupying the same profession as I have the honour to do, in explaining to a widow that your Lordships and those in another place have, in their wisdom, decided that the amount to be paid to her for her bereavement and in compensation for her bereavement is a maximum sum of £3,500. I think that it is offensive to say the least. One can explain if one likes that, as a result of your Lordships' wisdom and deliberations, it has been decided that a loss of society claim is open to her and that there has to be a maximum for that sum, however difficult it may be to assess in money terms. That may be possible. But I am asking your Lordships, as you appreciate, to follow the law of Scotland and to say that the amount should be at large and unlimited, and that the claim should, indeed, be a loss of society claim.
I hope that I have made my points fairly clear. In endeavouring to speak away from notes I did, in fact, as I have said, erroneously make to your Lordships a point under the Fatal Accidents Act and I made the wrong point. The point that I was trying to make was that a common law wife is not deemed to be a dependent now or under this Bill. What I wanted to say to your Lordships was that as this was looked at by Pearson and recommended by Pearson for consideration, as by the Law Commssion. The position of a common law wife ought obviously to be looked at very carefully in this day and age and one would have
38
thought that she ought to be included in the list of dependants. You Lordships will be relieved to know that I can now pass on quite quickly to Clause 6 of the Bill which, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, is a very useful measure and it is one that I assure him is much appreciated—namely, the award of provisional damages where the prognosis is uncertain. I want to thank the noble and learned Lord for the reasoning behind this clause which practical experience shows is very necessary in certain cases.
Before leaving this part of the Bill may I beg the noble and learned Lord to make clear, for the benefit of all legal practitioners, what I know is intended, which is that the commencement date of this part of the Bill is three months from the date when the Bill is passed? I think that it would be of great benefit if, in clear terms, the statement was made that, of course, all causes of action before the commencement date of the Act are preserved. Indeed, that would be the position, however unfortunate it might be, in the case of the decision of Gammell v. Wilson which would still obtain until the commencement date of this Bill.
I turn to the question of wills and I can deal with that very shortly. However, in the midst of an arid speech perhaps your Lordships will permit me to try to bring a smile to your Lordships' faces by saying that there is a strange typographical error on page iii of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill. The whole object of the exercise of this Bill is to make it more comfortable, peaceful and simple for a testator to make his will. If we look at the wording of the top of page iii we find that Clause 17 replaces the elaborate provisions of certain past enactments:
"with a single provision dealing with the signing and attestation of wills and relaxes the law governing the position of the testator's signature and the acknowledgment of signature by an arresting witness".
I hardly think that that is likely to bring peace and quiet and simplicity to the testator's mind.
I did have a rather more serious point to bring to the noble and learned Lord's attention and it is as follows. In the simplification process, the Clause 17 that we are now considering does, in fact, go beyond the recommendations, as I understand it, of the Law Reform Committee. In removing the requirements that a will must be signed:
"at the foot or end thereof",
it appears to relax the formal requirements for signature rather further than the committee recommended, because there should surely be an express requirement apparent on the face of the will that the testator intended to give effect to his signature to the writing signed in his will. Otherwise it would seem that the signature may appear at any place on the document, and this may give rise, it is thought, to quite a lot of litigation of an unnecessary kind. But that is a matter of an amendment which can obviously take place if it appeals to the noble and learned Lord and to your Lordships, as I hope it will.
I come now to my very last point. The noble and learned Lord referred to mending old socks. I talked in terms of his having also to deal with odd socks as well as old ones. Of course it is rather extraordinary to find provisions dealing with the Wills Acts in a Bill entitled the "Administration of Justice Bill". But

39
the noble and learned Lord made his position abundantly clear and the reason for this was given by him in very lucid terms. I would only ask that consideration should be given as soon as possible to a consolidation of the Wills Acts so that at least when the practitioner or the humble citizen looks to see as regards wills what are the law and the formalities at the moment, he does not have to look at the Administration of Justice Act, but is able to look at an Act sensibly headed "Wills Act".
Again I make it clear that we on these Benches look with great favour on the small, but very necessary, reforms that have been carried out, and we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the way in which he has led us through this Bill on Second Reading.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I had not put my name down to speak in this debate and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for saying that I may precede him. I rise mainly in order to make it clear that admiration for this Bill is not the monopoly of the Opposition Front Bench. Indeed, I think that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is to be warmly congratulated on presenting to us a Bill which is so wide-ranging and in all its terms so acceptable.
No doubt there will be a few points of detail to discuss at the Committee stage, and Second Reading is not really an occasion for adding to the excellent explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has given of various parts of the Bill, especially those relating to damages for bereavement. I think that he was justified in pointing out that even as a result of this Bill the position will, in one important respect, be different in Scotland from what it is in England. That tempts me to observe that in the Act of Union there was nothing about harmonisation between Scottish law and the law of England and Wales. Indeed, on the contrary the parties to the Act of Union virtually pledged each other that for the rest of time the Scots at any rate would be allowed to have their own legal system treated quite separately.
But, of course, both Scotland and England belong to the European Economic Community. Perhaps I may also mention in passing—I hope not without regard to the terms of the Bill, which deals to such a great extent with damanges under the law of both Scotland, and England and Wales—that one of these days our Parliament may be faced with a European convention dealing with damages and may then bring us face to face with the issue, which is an important one, and has been for years, in the Continental system, as to whether or not we should have moral damages against which our courts have, for the most part, leaned successfully.
However, it could be said that when we had loss of expectation of life coming into our law, that was a breach of the rule that we do not award moral damages. In a sense, it comes very close to what moral damages are on the Continent. I think that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is to be congratulated on having grasped this nettle with regard to damages for loss of expectation of life. It is an irrational concept
40
and until it was laid down by high judicial authority that they should be arbitrarily fixed at the sum of, I think, £1,250, the application of the principle gave rise to a lot of difficulty in practice. I must say that I welcome the step which my noble and learned friend has taken with regard to loss of expectation of life.
I sympathise with him in not going any further than he has done at this stage with the recommendations of the Pearson Commission. Nor has he dealt with the somewhat separate question of product liability, which no doubt will again exercise our minds one of these days. Bur sufficient is it for us to take note that product liability has become a sort of legal football in Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels, and various committees of the EEC have been kicking it round to each other. However, it is a very controversial subject and there is a considerable gulf between the views held on one side and those held on another. Whatever result is likely to be achieved one day, it would probably result in a very wide extension of insurance.
With respect to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, to my mind this Bill does not look like an old sock. It looks to me like an up-to-date vade mecum for lawyers, and also for that reason I very much welcome it. Although, of course, it deals, in lawyers' terms, with important legal principles, it deals with matters which are important in human terms. The bereaved family of a person who has suffered damage through injury of one kind or another, the people making wills—all kinds of human situations—are covered by this Bill in a way which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships. Indeed, it deals with them in that understanding and sensible way which we would have expected from my noble and learned friend. My final comment, if I may be allowed to say so, is that at first sight the Bill seems to be well drafted.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and, indeed, a personal pleasure to be able to allow him to precede me in this debate. It is also a temptation to follow him in some of his remarks relating to the Act of Union of Scotland and England, if it were only for the stimulus that that instrument gives to think about two other Acts of Union, one of which is a topic upon which I have thought a very great deal and in which I am deeply interested. That was an Act of Uniformity. I think that we should leave that matter for the moment.
I wholeheartedly join my noble friend Lord Mishcon in the assurance given to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that this Bill in no way raises any deep political issues at all, and that it is a Bill which I am sure the House as a whole will generally welcome and will, indeed, regard as a Bill that has been drafted with a great deal of thought and humanity. In many respects it is a pity that we have not heard lay opinions upon this Bill this afternoon. It may be that those Members of the House not learned in the law have taken all too seriously the stricture of St. Luke, who said:
"Woe unto you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge".
The Bill has been likened to the darning of old socks. I must say that what came to my mind when I

41
first read it was that tale of the late Sir Winston Churchill who, with magisterial hauteur, on one occasion rejected a blancmange, saying:
"Take it away, it has no theme whatsoever".
Of course, this Bill has no theme, and it is none the worse for that. It is a pot pourri of a number of interesting and necessary reforms. I join my noble friend Lord Mishcon in making the point that, if the opportunity presents itself at an early date to consolidate appropriate parts of the Bill with parent Acts, then that surely is a course that should be taken. It makes it infinitely easier for lawyers and, one suspects, perhaps some day infinitely easier for the soulless computer that will to some extent replace the services of lawyers.
May I deal, quickly I hope, with matters which have already been referred to and one or two matters that have not be alluded to. First, the question which arises in relation to Clause 1. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made it abundantly clear—and I welcome this—that it does not refer to the living plaintiff. I would respectfully, however, point out that there is nothing in the heading to that clause, nor in the side note, nor in the language of the clause itself, that makes it clear. Perhaps I am being unnecessarily careful in this matter, but out of an abundance of caution it may well be that consideration might be given to spelling out that perhaps most obvious point.
So far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned in the context of refusing and abolishing damages for loss of expectation of life, I appreciate that deep philosophical and moral considerations are tied up with this question. There are massive difficulties in so far as any decision upon the proper and appropriate criteria to be applied is concerned. There is the impossibility of applying ordinary methods of calculation, for what is being calculated bears no relationship whatsoever to monetary loss.
I appreciate, however, as I am sure every Member of the House does, that monies paid under such a heading at the moment are in most circumstances paid to parents very often of children, or of young persons, who have been killed in accidents. Such matters, I am sure, are not looked upon by those parents in the cold light of the unremitting logic of jurisprudence. If this provision stood alone, therefore, personally I would have thought that that factor in itself might be regarded as a severe criticism, whatever the intentions of the draftsmen were in this matter. It does not stand alone, however, and in practice, although one is dealing with a totally different situation, it has of course to be considered side by side with Clause 3, which deals with the bereavement award.
I appreciate here again that it is no easier to reduce something of the quality of human grief to pounds and pence. I am sure that everyone here accepts respectfully and with sympathy what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this connection. I am sure that in the case of parents who receive awards upon the death of children that the money itself, as money, gives them no joy whatsoever in the vast majority of cases. I am equally sure, however, that many parents would say, upon the receipt of such a sum of money, that it was not the money as such, not the economic value of the money that counts, but that the money is some expression on the part of society
42
of the gravity with which society regards the loss of a human life. It is on that basis that an award for bereavement as such really and fundamentally rests.
The question arises, of course, whether it should be a fixed sum or whether it should be a sum arrived at by judicial calculation. I was greatly impressed by many of the arguments that were advanced in this connection by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. The difficulty however of judicial calculation of such a sum, as I see it, is that it would entail a very close and detailed examination of the exact relationship between the claimant and the deceased. That not only might be extremely difficult of proof but might, in many circumstances, be highly embarrassing as well.
The question arises, however, if there is to be a figure, whether that figure should be the figure of £3,500, subject of course to being changed by order from time to time, or whether it should be a higher figure. I would suggest that if a fixed figure is to be agreed upon, that figure might be of the order of £5,000. That latter figure, I would suggest, bears probably a better relationship to the sort of fixed figure that was decided upon by this House in Rose v Ford in 1937, bearing in mind the changes in the value of money. That was an award for loss of expectation of life rather than for bereavement, and I am trying to look at it not in a technical way but through the eyes of those who will be receiving such a sum.
I wholeheartedly join with my noble friend Lord Mishcon in what he has said in relation to Clause 3. The House is invited generously to extend the category of claimants, and I am sure that that is something that everyone welcomes. It is, however, particularly unfortunate that no reference has been made to the common law spouse. It is right that Parliament should consider on the one hand respect for the sanctity of marriage; it is right I am sure, however, on the other hand that Parliament should consider the exact situation that exists in hundreds of thousands of households the length and breadth of this land.
In Clause 3(5) provision is properly and generously made for the illegitimate child. Logic demands that the spouse on a common law basis should be treated with no less understanding and generosity. If Parliament be minded to accept an amendment, I would suggest that a suitable form of wording is found in Section 1(1) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, where there is reference to
"any person… who immediately before the death of the deceased was being maintained, either wholly or partly, by the deceased;".
May I refer quickly to Clause 4. This clause deals with the double recovery anomaly which was exposed in the judgment of this House in Gammell v. Wilson in 1981. A number of difficult alternative possibilities were open. In my submission, this is probably the best that was open to the House. There were two problems in Gammell v. Wilson. One was the question of double recovery, the other was the question of what criteria a judge should apply in coming to a decision in relation to the potential earning capacity of a young person.
Some cases can be very difficult indeed. The matter was touched upon in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and it may well be that at Committee stage thought might be given to whether or not certain guidelines should be laid down in this

43
connection. I quote briefly the words of the noble and learned Lord:
"The appellant in Gammell's case was disposed to argue, by analogy with damages for loss of expectation of life, that in the absence of cogent evidence of loss, the award should be a modest conventional sum. There is no room for a conventional award in a case of alleged loss of earnings of the lost years; the loss is pecuniary. As such, it must be shown on the facts found to be at least capable of being estimated. If sufficient facts are established to enable the court to avoid the fancies of speculation, even though not enabling it to reach mathematical certainty, the court must make the best estimate it can. In civil litigation, it is the balance of probabilities which matters. In the case of a young child, the lost years of earning capacity will ordinarily be so distant that assessment is mere speculation. No estimate being possible, no award, not even a conventional award, should ordinarily be made. Even so, there will be exceptions; a child television star cut short in her prime at the age of five might have a claim. It would depend on the evidence".
I am certain that it would be inappropriate to legislate for a fixed sum in such circumstances. The House may come to the conclusion also that it would not be appropriate even to lay down guidelines, and that on the whole it is better to leave the matter to judicial discretion, difficult though the problems facing the judge are in such cases.
I will deal for a moment with what in my submission is a very serious omission from the Bill. I heard, and heard with sympathy, what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said with regard to the difficulties of Parliamentary time, and perhaps the even greater difficulties of parliamentary draftsmen being available. Nevertheless, in the long judgment of history, this will be looked on as a Bill that gave Parliament the opportunity to deal with certain vital and fundamental problems. I would refer of course to the most pressing issue on which no final decision has yet been announced by the Government, and that is the question of the recommendations of the Pearson Royal Commission on the matter of no blame damages in the context of road accidents. I was unfortunately unable to attend the splendid debate in your Lordships' House on 20th January this year initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I read it with great interest and I could have added nothing to what was advocated by Lord Allen and my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones.
It is a situation which in my submission cries out for the compassionate acceptance by Government of a problem of such magnitude that it can be settled only by legislation. The House will remember the figures; over 7,000 a year killed on our roads and some 300,000 injured, 80,000 of them seriously. The majority of those injured very probably do not make any claim at all, even probably the majority of those seriously injured; sometimes because no blame can be pinned on anybody—it is not always that there will be blame on any person—and in many other circumstances because it is impossible to find witnesses or to find witnesses who years after the event have a proper recollection of the event. A vast legion of people are deprived of their just rights in this matter.
Road accidents exist in an area that Parliament has regarded as being a special area for many years. Parliament has ordained that it is compulsory that there should be third party insurance. It is almost 50 years since an agreement was made between the Ministry of Transport and the Motor Insurers Bureau to cover
44
cases of those who had not complied with statute. It is a special area, an area regarded as being special in the codes of many other countries. As the House heard on 20th January from the noble Lord, Lord Allen, it is the code in Sweden, New Zealand, all the provinces of Canada, many of the Australian states and in many of the states of the United States. The cost would not be high; it would be a small fraction of 1 per cent. of total Government taxation in a year.
I understand and accept what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says about the difficulties of accepting amendments that might be controversial. I am sure the noble and learned Lord—I do not say this in any way sarcastically—could plead the "vehicular defence" (that this is not a proper vehicle for an amendment of such sweeping dimensions) but all I ask is that at some appropriate stage, on a matter as important as this (important not just to law reform but the community as a whole, dealing, as it does, with the deepest considerations of justice) the Government should at the earliest opportunity spell out their attitude in relation to this most important recommendation of the Pearson Commission.
There is a great deal I should have wished to have said in relation to wills, but the House has listened patiently to me and I am sure they are matters which can properly be mentioned in Committee. This is a Bill which is generally to be welcomed. Its defects, as I say, lie mainly in relation to what it has failed to take heed of. There are problems that will remain with us. A comprehensive and painstaking study has been made by the Law Commission and the Pearson Royal Commission. Anomalies have been exposed in our civil law which a responsible and reasonable society, like other communities in different parts of the world, would wish to remove. Having said that, I am extremely grateful for the patience with which the House has listened to my ramblings and again, on behalf of these Benches, I welcome the Bill and the motives behind it.
5.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should be churlish if I did not acknowledge with gratitude the gracious way in which these lengthy but relatively modest proposals—invaluable proposals, as I believe them to be—have been treated by noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I acknowledge with pleased surprise that even the draftsmanship has received the accolade of my noble friend Lord Renton. I also acknowledge with thanks the various constructive suggestions and criticisms which have been made by the few noble Lords who have felt able to participate. I will take them all into account before the Committee stage, although it may be that it would be better to see what amendments are tabled before dealing with them in any detail. I shall try to deal with one or two of them now.
First, as regards the rather ambitious proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has just made, I must tell him that in a Bill with 69 clauses, ranging from wills to family law, and from Scotland to interest on judgments and provisional damages, the main recommendations of Pearson would not permit me to legislate, except in a separate Bill. I could not even contemplate such a course. I recognise

45
the anxiety with which the proposals are expected to receive consideration, but I am not in a position to make an announcement today. It is quite clear that, however sympathetically one regards these matters, the provision of what would really be radically a total revolution in the law of tort and the provision of a new social service, could hardly find a place in this Bill, whether it would be cheap or expensive.
I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for setting out so plainly the provisions of the existing law. When I saw that I had 25 pages of notes to pursue, I trembled before the endeavour myself. I was very grateful to the noble Lord for having informed the House so clearly what is involved, and I was equally grateful to him for pointing out that, contrary to what he had originally said, the right of the dependent child to damages in a fatal accident case is provided for under the existing law and will remain unaltered under the Bill.
The point which has recurred in the speeches of both the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Elystan-Morgan, concerns the very difficult question of damages for bereavement—I continue to so call it without prejudice possibly to accepting at a later stage what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the terminology. First, I should like to say what is my policy in such matters. My policy is, so far as I can, to give effect to the reports of reputable bodies, or one of them, and to choose between one or the other, where they differ. I have personal feelings of my own, and I shall in fact disclose them at this stage. They differ from my policy, and noble Lords will understand why when I say what my personal feelings are.
Like any other lawyer, and in particular like all Lord Chancellors, from time to time I receive letters from Members of Parliament and members of the public about the loss of a child, or a spouse, or a parent, as the case may be. My correspondents say that they are awarded only the present conventional sum and that it is an insult. I have to explain, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, explained in his speech, that what is being awarded is not damages for the loss of the child at all, but a notional loss to the estate of the spouse or the deceased person, based upon loss of expectation of life to her. It is notional damages to the deceased, and not real damages for bereavement. That, I believe, is a very pertinent point to have to explain to begin with. But, of course, it answers no questions at all.
I hope that the House will forgive me for talking personally about this matter. It is a very sensitive matter, and the only way to talk about it is in a personal way. I lost my mother when I was quite a boy, I lost my father in middle age, and I lost my wife when I was already an old-age pensioner. I am not at all going to differentiate between the degree of loss and the agony of bereavement in any of those three cases. I have always personally taken the view that there was no sum of money, at all that one can nominate which is not an insult to, the bereaved person, whether it is £10 million or £10. I feel that very strongly myself. I know that in saying that I am not expressing the view of the majority, but nothing will alter that opinion so far as I persona, fly am concerned.
Having said that, one has to face a quite real problem of how to express the loss terms of money. Of
46
course it is said, and will be said, by lawyers that the law is always having to turn into money things which cannot be turned into money. For instance, if somebody offered to break two of my legs, I would get something for paid and suffering. But whatever I was offered for pain and suffering in return for the breaking of my legs, I think I would say, "No, thank you very much. I prefer to have two perfectly good legs"—except that they are not perfectly good. The law is constantly having to do that kind of thing.
But I believe that when it comes to the death of a wife, a child, a brother, or a parent, the law which tries to specify a sum in relation to the particular case is entering into the realms of the impossible, and either there must be a determinate sum, or nothing at all. I have opted for a determinate sum not because I believe in it, since I would give nothing at all, but because a wise body of men—one wise body of three different wise bodies of men—came to a particular conclusion, and my policy is to pursue the best, or the least bad, of conclusions of organised bodies which have investigated subjects of law reform.
I do not myself share the admiration for the charm of Scottish law in this respect. It does not in fact compensate, or purport to compensate, for grief. It compensates for loss of society, which is even more difficult to estimate. That, I am afraid, would drive one into asking questions about how well the spouses got on together, how much the children were admired or loved, or how much the parent was admired and loved, and whether the parties sometimes got drunk at nights. It involves the courts and the lawyers in an insoluble problem as a quantum, including the issue from which we shrunk during my first term in office, in a slightly different context, of deciding whether or not a widow was likely to remarry, which personally I find a most repulsive inquiry. But, again, it is a matter which one must approach sensitively, and opinions, I am afraid, are always subjective and seldom mean very much, except to the person who holds them; and we all hold them.
Sometimes the Scottish law yields a dividend (if that is the right word) in the way of solatium rather less than the £3,500 mentioned in the Bill, or the other calculation which the Pearson Commission returned. We must all think about these things. As I say, I shall pursue some policy which will not represent my private opinion, and I want to be perfectly candid about that. I know that on the whole the conscience of mankind would demand something, and I know that it is not my conscience. I shall try to give effect to something. If I can think of anything better than what I have done, or what the Law Commission recommended some years ago, I shall do it. It is not a matter of principle with me, except that my own convictions, I know, are very deeply held and are rather different from the convictions that are equally deeply held by other people.
I think that the common law wife presents a certain number of difficulties, although I note what the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said about the family inheritance Act. It is of course a phrase unknown to statute law as such. There are different degrees of permanence about relationships of this kind which obviously would present the courts with a very considerable difficulty which is not presented by the ordinary

47
matrimonial relationship, or not to the same extent, or the relationship of parent and child. But I will certainly see what I think about that after reflection.
The position of the signature on the will, which was very properly brought to my attention by Lord Mischon, is, I am afraid, something upon which I can offer no useful wisdom at the present stage but I shall hope to arm myself for the Committee stage with something better than that. As to the commencement of Clause 6 I would expect it to be longer than three months because we shall ourselves have to think out what needs to be done and also give the practitioners time to think out the implications. It will not, I think, be retrospective as regards death before commencement. I am afraid the spirit of Gammell v. Wilson will stalk to our discomfort through the courts for some time yet, but retrospective legislation has problems of its own.
As regards consolidation, I am an enthusiast for consolidation but I should like, if I may, to share with the House a spot of bother that I am having about consolidation at the present time, and especially am I quite certain in my mind, without researching the problem, that this would be true about wills in particular. The consolidation committee, which does such useful work and through which the work of the Law Commission and others has to pass, is not allowed to consider for consolidation what are called pre-consolidation amendments. My view, which I did manage to carry through in a particular Bill, is that before you consolidate you ought to have pre-consolidation amendments which ought to be placed before the consolidation committee, and then the resulting whole could be treated in the way that consolidation Bills are treated, the pre-consolidation amendments being embodied either in the consolidating Act or, alternatively, in a separate Act. At the moment this is not possible.
I thought myself it would not cause much trouble if we did it, but it has run into a certain number of snags. If noble Lords on either side of the House can give the thing a fair wind in private conversation with those who deal with these things, I would personally be very much obliged because the state of our statute book is quite undoubtedly scandalous, as it has been for the past 300 years, and consolidation is one of the ways in which it can be reduced to some kind of decent order. But I think the greatest single piece of machinery that we could now invent to advance the cause of consolidation would be to get rid of, in some such way as I have described, the problem of pre-consolidation amendments.
Having said that, I should like to renew my thanks to the House for the gracious way in which this Bill has been received and apologise for the extremely long time I have been introducing it. I think the facts of the matter speak for themselves.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
5.54 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the
48
House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Alteration of general functions of the Red Deer Commission]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("and 4") and insert ("4, 5(1), 6(I), 7(1) and (2), 8(1) and (3), 110), 120), 14, 15(1) and 19").
The noble Lord said: This is a paving amendment for the next two, and if I may, therefore, I will speak to all three together. As was made clear on Second Reacting, the Red Deer Commission should not have the burden of dealing with other species except in the very limited instance of sika. The present staff have more than enough to do without any additional work. They are already two years behind with their census counting, and this amendment Bill will give them more work still to do without adding other species, as the Bill at present provides. They are constituted as a Red Deer Commission, and not as a deer commission. Why therefore add that they could be given powers "furthering the conservation and control of other species"?
When the working party representing almost all interested parties met in the Red Deer Commission offices to discuss proposals for this legislation the Red Deer Commission gave the impression that to say the least they were not keen to deal with roe. Regrettably, the findings of this working party seem to have been largely ignored, and it seems that the forestry interests have been given preference, which they were not on that committee. Once the commission have become involved with other species it could involve them running about all over Scotland instead of being confined to the red deer areas as at present, and therefore involve them in a great deal of extra work and extra expense. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: I was one of those who would have supported the noble Lord, Lord Burton, a few years ago in wishing that the Red Deer Commission should have to do with nothing but red deer. I have, however, changed my mind on this subject, not because I think that anything has changed about the problems that they will have to face as a result of having to deal with other species of deer but because there is no doubt that other species of deer are moving on to territory which previously was occupied only by red deer. Certainly this is true of sika, and certainly it is true of roe. I do not know about the other curious species of deer which I would have personally liked to have seen totally eliminated from the natural scene of the British Isles, such as muntjac and so forth, but it is certainly true of roe and of sika that they are extending their range and that they are presenting problems in areas that were previously solely red deer areas. Reluctantly I feel that the commission and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, are correct in, framing the Bill in the way in which they have framed it.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his comments supporting the Bill. These amendments would prevent a very modest extension of the remit of the Red Deer Commission which is provided for in the Bill. Of course the commission is and will remain primarily concerned with red deer; but it came out clearly in the consultative process which preceded the framing of the Bill that it would be helpful if the commission could play an appropriate role in regard not only to sika but to other species. In going about their work, as I explained on Second Reading, the Red Deer Commission do not and cannot ignore other species which they encounter. It is more than just accident, therefore, that they acquire some knowledge of the habits and distribution of these other species. It seems only right that the knowledge which is acquired by a public body such as this should be tapped for public benefit.
The fear expressed by my noble friend that this would strain the resources of the Red Deer Commission is really unfounded. It is normal practice, where a Minister has a power to give directions to a body which is responsible to him, to consult the body before issuing the directions. The Commission itself would be keenly aware of the resource implications of taking on a new task, and quick to point them out. I hope my noble friend will consider that point and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burton: I am not at all happy about withdrawing this. Perhaps there could be more consideration given to it. If the powers of the commission are to be extended to roe deer, without fallow deer, then I hardly feel that my noble friend can call it a modest extension. There are far more roe deer than red deer in Scotland. Therefore, if they are to look after roe deer as well—and, after all, this amendment says that it will mean that they will be furthering the conservation and control of roe deer if the Secretary of State gives them these powers—then the work of the commission must be more than doubled. They will be a deer commission and not a Red Deer Commission; and they are not constituted as such. This wants carefully looking at. I sat in on all the working party meetings in the Red Deer Commission offices. Not in my recollection did the working party at any time come out with a recommendation that the Red Deer Commission should look after roe deer.
Lord Glenarthur: I understand my noble friend's point but the powers that this particular clause, and the other two that he mentioned, deal with are purely advisory. They do not bring in control. The effect of Clause 1(1) and Clause 1(2) is to extend the range of the Red Deer Commission's powers and functions from red to sika. That which applies to other species is only advisory. That is quite plain in the Bill.
Lord Burton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("nippon").
The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects the Latin name for sika deer. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I am delighted to say that we acknowledge the fact that the second "nippon" should not be in place, Although it appears in the 1963 Act and in the Deer (Close Seasons) (Scotland) Order 1966, it denotes only one of a dozen or so sub-species of sika deer. We are happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Observers and research]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("practical or").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a probing amendment. The wording of the Bill is:
"to support and to engage in research on questions of practical or scientific importance".
I know that, "practical or" appears in the 1959 Act and that is probably why it is here. But the fact that it is in the 1959 Act does not mean that it is good wording. I think I have some idea of what it means but I have put down the amendment to draw attention to the fact; because I feel that it is not beyond our wit to find something more suitable. Until we know what is meant exactly by, "practical or" it is difficult to put down the wording that is required. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friend seeks to ask for expansion of what "practical" means. There is nothing new in these words. The 1959 Act, in Section 4(b), already empowers the commission to collaborate in investigations into questions into investigations into questions "of practical or scientific importance". Clause 2(2) merely adds that the commission may undertake such investigations of its own initiative. A question of "practical" importance would be, for instance, a duty of the stock-carrying capacity of a given type or area of land, or in general, any study that related primarily to matters of interest to deer management rather than to academic zoologists, or biologists interested in scientific aspects of deer. It is most desirable for the commission to he able to undertake such studies.
Lord Burton: I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
("(3) At the end of section 4(a) of the said Act of 1959 the words "on that land" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment really is worded to advise any owner of land on questions relating to the carrying of stock of red deer and, if amended, sika on that land. I am not happy about this. It came up at one of the meetings on this Bill at which some of the Red Deer Commission were present. I thought that it was desirable that the words "on that land" should he removed. The position now is that there are more and more deer groups and the deer move about the area. Therefore, it is important that the whole picture should be considered and not specifically one segment of land.

51
Therefore, although I do not think it of great consequence to the Bill one way or the other, I think it would tidy matters up if the words "on that land" were removed. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I see the purpose of the amendment, but I do not think an amendment is necessary here, nor do I think that the amendment as drafted would achieve its purpose. In practice the Red Deer Commission take a broad view of their duties of advising landowners, particularly in their encouragement of deer management groups. As yet nobody has seriously challenged their power to do so, so they are able to operate satisfactorily under the existing Act.
At the same time, the seemingly restrictive words, "on that land" do serve a purpose. They register that fact that a landowner has an interest only to the extent that there are, or might be, deer on his land. If his land is not deer territory, he will have no business inquiring what goes on elsewhere; if it is, he can already get all the advice he needs from the Red Deer Commission. The amendment, however, would give carte blanche to any landowner to ask any question about deer anywhere in Scotland. The commission of course are not bound to answer in cases where they think the questions irrelevant, but it is still open to doubt whether we should create the right to ask the question in the first place.
Lord Burton: I am not entirely happy with that. A lot depends on the wind and the weather and so on, and the deer still move about considerably. I think that this would largely arise when the commission were considering making some sort of a control order. I think it undesirable if a control order is made without considering the deer on the neighbouring land. Perhaps the noble Lord does not think it is reasonable, but it is of small consequence and I shall be happy to withdraw it, but I think it ought to be looked at.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Glenkinglas Lord Glenkinglas moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Copies of returns of deer killed by occupiers to be sent to owners.
At the end of section 5(1) of the said Act of 1959 there shall be inserted the words"; and copies of any such returns of deer killed by the occupier shall be sent to the owner of the land involved as soon as possible in order to facilitate the proper control and balance of deer stocks.".").
The noble Lord said: From conversations I have had since put down this amendment, I know that it does not altogether meet the point which needs meeting. As my noble friend Lord Burton said just now, there are coming into existence, very wisely, all over Scotland, deer groups. The purpose of these groups is for the accurate and proper management of deer in the hope that ground is not over-stocked, thereby perhaps causing marauding, which is part of the problems of this Bill. If that is to be so, people must know what is being killed in any particular area. I thought that the owners of land should be told but I thought also that, under the 1959 Act, the Red Deer Commission kept records of all deer killed whether by occupiers
52
or by owners; and, therefore, if they pass on information to the owners everybody would be satisfied.
I am told by the Red Deer Commission that they do not get these returns except from what one might call designated owners of deer forests, so there are a great many deer being killed but they possibly know very little about that. I hope therefore that my noble friend will realise that the aim that I have, which is that the fullest possible information should be available for the better management of deer, is what I am trying to get at and that he will not tell me that my amendment is defective.
Lord Dulverton: I should like to speak in support of what my noble friend said in relation to returns being made to owners for the better management of deer. I should also like to confirm what both he and my noble friend Lord Burton said about the growth of deer management groups throughout Scotland which are being encouraged actively by the Red Deer Commission as a means towards better control and management of deer. I think my noble friend has a point but it may be dealt with by a subsequent amendment.
Viscount Thurso: I think that this is an important and valuable amendment. Certainly the spirit of it is very important, because any owner of land who sets out to produce a cull that keeps the deer population at a stable and satisfactory level has to take into account the numbers of deer that are normally on the ground and the numbers that are normally killed. If he is not aware of numbers of deer that are being killed, he is liable to make mistakes. He may wonder why his policy, which has been framed in all good faith and according to the best advice given by the deer commission, is not having the results that it ought to be having.
It is important that the information should be available. It should be available to the deer groups, to the Red Deer Commission and to the owners of the ground upon which the deer are killed, whether they are killed by the occupiers or by sportsmen who have taken the shooting on the ground. If this amendment is not satisfactory, I hope that at some later stage the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will take on board the spirit of the amendment and try and incorporate something into the Bill which will produce the same result in giving valuable management information where it is needed.
Lord Burton: The next amendment is perhaps a better one. At this stage one might draw attention to the fact that if one looks at the 1980 Red Deer Commission's report there is a discrepancy of nearly 4,000 deer out of 35,000 between estate and venison dealers' returns. Four thousand out of 35,000 is a large figure. If this amendment were put in not only would it allow owners to know what is going on on their own ground but it would give a much more accurate return to the Red Deer Commission.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Bearing in mind that the whole purpose of the Red Deer Commission is to control, I find it difficult to understand how they control if they have not adequate information. They can only get it by returns. I suggest that if this amendment is

53
defective then the noble Lord should see what can be done. There is a lot of guesswork going on. I have the Red Deer Commission report for 1980 and this is one of the outstanding matters. There is a little bit of guesswork about culling and everything else when you do not entirely know the extent of the problem.
Lord Glenarthur: I entirely sympathise with the views expressed by noble Lords who feel that knowledge of what deer are killed by tenant farmers is just as much part of the management scene of deer as what the proprietors of the deer forest shoot themselves. This particular amendment would not achieve the desired effect. The commission gathers returns under Section 5 for their own purposes and they have not found it necessary to go to the smaller type of occupier at whom the amendment seems to be aimed, despite the discrepancy to which my noble friend Lord Burton referred of 4,000 out of 35,000. Nor would it be practical for them to do so. They would be in the business of chasing up returns from probably several thousand occupiers. They simply are not staffed for that kind of work.
The place to deal with this question is in the context of the rights of occupiers; that is to say, under Clause 8. I have tabled an amendment at that point which attempts to deal with the matter so far as it is appropriate to put the matter at all under statutory control. Perhaps we may debate the merits of my proposal when we reach it. I hope that it will be agreed that we cannot involve the commission. The cost would be unacceptable.
Viscount Thurso: Surely this amendment does not require them to make the return to the commission. It is the owner who is required to make the return to the commission. He is making at the present moment a false return for the simple reason that he has not the power to get the information from his tenants. He has not the power to require his tenants to give him the information on the numbers of deer which they kill. If an amendment like this were passed, this would give the owners of the ground the right to find out from the occupiers of the ground how many deer they kill. Therefore, he can then make a correct return to the deer commission as he is supposed to be doing.
Lord Glenarthur: As I said, the amendment I have tabled comes later in the Bill. I accept the noble Lord's point; but the effect of the amendment as it is written would be to oblige the Red Deer Commission to send to the owner of the land any returns of deer killed that they may have acquired from the occupier of the land. There is no way that this could be achieved without the Red Deer Commission being involved. I hope that when the noble Lord looks later in the Marshalled List he will find that my amendment meets this case.
Lord Glenkinglas: I should like to thank my noble friend for his sympathy. When we get to Clause 8 I shall look hopefully at his amendment and see whether it does what I hope it will do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard Viscount Massereene and Ferrard moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Notice of killing of deer
. After section 5 of the said Act of 1959 there shall he inserted the following new section—
"Notice of killing of deer.
5A.—(1) It shall be the duty of any occupier of land who intends to kill deer on that land to give not less than twenty-four hours notice of his intention to do so to the owner of that land or his agent or to the Commission.
(2) It shall be the duty of any occupier of land who has killed deer on that land within 28 days of such killing to notify the owner of the land and to give him details of the numbers, species and sex of the deer killed.
(3) Any occupier of land who—

(a) fails to comply with the provisions of subsection (1) or subsection (2) above; or

(b) knowingly or recklessly furnishes any information which is false in any material particular;

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and imprisonment.".").
The noble Viscount said: I should like to make a few remarks about subsection (2) of the new Clause 5A as the Committee have been talking about returns. In this amendment it shall be the duty of any occupier of land who has killed deer on that land within 28 days of such killing to notify the owner of the land and to give him details of the numbers, species and sex of the deer killed. As we have already heard, it is extremely important for an owner of land let to a farm tenant, to an occupier who is killing deer in his land, to have knowledge of the number, species and sex of the deer killed. My noble friend Lord Glenkinglas spoke about this in Amendment No. 7. This amendment says:
"…and copies of any such returns of deer killed by the occupier shall be sent to the owner of the land involved as soon as possible…"
My experience in the Western Highlands is that "as soon as possible" might eventually become impossible because people are inclined to put off until tomorrow what they should do today, and tomorrow never comes. I should like to see a time limit, a specified number of days. I have put in subsection (2):
"within 28 days of such killing to notify the owner".
I do not think 28 days is too short a period, because in the original Deer Act of 1959 the Red Deer Commission asked for returns from the owners or occupiers, I think, within 36 days of having a notice served on the occupier and the owner.
Perhaps I might return to the penalties involved if the occupier does not make a return within 28 days. Under the 1959 Act, if one failed to make a return to the Red Deer Commission within 36 days of being given a notice one was fined £20 for a first offence and £50 for a second. All terms of imprisonment were for three months, as I have put in this amendment. Taking inflation into consideration, I do not think that £200 as against £20 is after 23 years an incorrect rate of increase. To return to Clause 5A(1), it says:
"It shall be the duty of any occupier of land who intends to kill deer on that land to give not less than 24 hours' notice of his intention to do so to the owner of that land or his agent or to the Commission".
Some people may say that 24 hours is rather short notice, but I do not really think so. If anybody has a

55
lot of deer spoiling his crops or young trees, obviously he wants to drive them out and possibly kill some of them as soon as he can; so I do not think that 24 hours is the wrong period of notice. If a person cannot get hold of the owner, he can probably get hold of the agent, and if he cannot do that he can go to the deer commission; I hope they keep their office staffed. So I think this is a reasonable amendment and I therefore beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: I am afraid that I do not think this is at all a reasonable amendment and it is not very good for the occupier, the owner or the deer, for the simple reason that the sooner the deer that maraud upon turnips are shot the less will have to be shot: it is as simple as that. The typical marauding deer are stags at the end of the rut, and if they come down to the turnips and get a taste of them it is well known that they will go back to the hill and the other deer will get the smell of the turnips off them. More deer will return the following day, and whereas you may start with perhaps two stags coming on to the turnips, the next day you may have six and the next day you may have 30. So if you shoot them the night you find them on, the better it will be for the deer population because you will remove the temptation from the other stags to be brought to the turnips, having smelt the turnips on their fellow stags the previous night.
Lord Burton: I am afraid I think this is a very good amendment and it is important that we should have it in the Bill. I have quickly looked at Amendment No. 101, which I think is the one my noble friend has referred to, and I do not think that really meets the case at all whereas this one does. This is in three parts. There is the prior information of intention to kill, and I think that is only reasonable because, after all, why should anyone be allowed to run about on somebody else's ground at night with a light so that the staff will wonder what on earth is going on, with no information having been given beforehand? Surely it is reasonable for some information to be given. Later on I see there is an amendment to the effect that the police should be notified. Then of course there is the intimation of what is to be killed. If a landowner is to control his deer properly he must know what is to be killed and he must know in reasonable time; otherwise the season for that particular species or sex could have expired. I do not think that 28 days is too long a period.
Then you get on to the penalties for failing to notify. There is no point in having a regulation if there is no penalty for not complying with it, because an awkward occupier need not bother to reply if there is no compulsion. The compulsion here is the same as the owner will have if he fails to make a return to the Red Deer Commission—which reminds me that I have not yet sent in my own return for this year. I think it is still in time but it has to be done close to the end of the season.
I think this is not at all an unreasonable amendment. There may be some difficulty about the penalties, in making one individual liable to another, but I cannot really see the difficulty involved and I have consulted two or three lawyers. I would totally disagree with
56
the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, about the question of a delay of a day or so. If you want to keep the deer out for one or two nights all you need do is to put a lamp in the field—the same sort of light, if you happen to have one, which is used at the roadside: a flashing light. That is most effective. We have used such a lamp several times for our own turnips, and this year on at least two occasions deer which have been going into a field for some time have left it just shortly after they have started clipping the turnips: just putting the turnip clipper into the field has been enough to deter them from going in for a night or two. So the question of urgency which the noble Viscount has suggested is really "baloney" in this case. There is no such necessity.
Lord John-Mackie: I have been accused by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, of not knowing an awful lot about red deer, but I do know something about deer destroying crops. If one is a farmer and sees deer on his crops, the point which the noble Viscount Lord Thurso, made is valid enough. But the point is, if you see deer in a field you do not look for a lamp or something: you go for a rifle immediately. To say that you have to 'phone up somebody—I believe the suggestion was made that you might even have to telephone the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—is rather ridiculous. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, says it is "baloney", but I would say that he is talking baloney, if I may say so, on this occasion. Under Clause 5A(1) it is quite ridiculous to expect the farmers to do that.
Lord Dulverton: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. He said that I had accused him of knowing not much about deer. If I understood him aright, very recently he passed a comment to me in this House that he did not know much about them; but I am not accusing him in this regard.
Viscount Thurso: I should also point out that if Clause 5A is introduced it will in fact remove from farmers a right which they have enjoyed since time immemorial. It is a very important point.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is quite right when he says that the effect of the suggested Clause 5A, as put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, would be seriously to diminish the rights of occupiers which they have held for a very long time. It would prohibit any tenant from killing deer on his land until he had given the landlord or the Red Deer Commission 24 hours' notice. First, there is a technical defect in the amendment in that subsection (1) does not make clear what would be the effect on an owner-occupier. Possibly, he can be deemed to notify himself, though if that be the case it would appear that, having done so, he would have to wait 24 hours before doing anything about it. Or it might he that he would be obliged to give notice to the commission, but in that case I cannot imagine what action the commission might take on the information.
But there is a more fundamental objection. It is simply that whenever deer come on to a crop the occupier would be forced to wait 24 hours before he

57
could take effective action. But as the noble Viscount said, and despite what my noble friend Lord Burton said, experience has proved that the most effective action is often to shoot promptly the first deer that arrives, which will deter the others. Otherwise, more deer will follow, so that by the time the farmer can start shooting he will have many more beasts to deal with and more damage will be caused. As I said in relation to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas, I have sympathy with the idea that the owner should be able to get some information on what is happening to his deer stock, but I do not believe that this solution provides the answer.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The point about notifying the owner within 24 hours is that the owner will get rid of the deer far more efficiently and far less cruelly than the occupier. The occupier may not be very used to deer. He may wound them and will probably shoot deer of the wrong sex, but the owner will usually be far more efficient. As my noble friend Lord Burton said, you can easily keep deer off a field for 24 hours. There are several easy ways. You can drag a carcase around a field, because the slighest taint of blood will keep them away for 24 hours. As my noble friend said, you can also use flashing lights and all the other methods. In this whole Bill, the odds are loaded against the owner and, strictly speaking, it is not a fair Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Burton: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, I wonder whether any noble Lords here have had experience of tenants running around their property at night, with a light and without any notification. It is an extreme aggravation to the staff who are supposed to look after that ground. You do not know what the lights are doing in the fields or the woods. I have quoted what happened on three or four different occasions this winter. I was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, who admitted that he himself did not have much experience. But I have had practical experience, and I do not see how your Lordships can tolerate people running around at night in this way.
Lord John-Mackie: The noble Lord mentioned shooting at night, but on this occasion we are talking about shooting in the daytime. I have great experience of deer on agricultural land in Epping Forest, not 22 miles from where your Lordships are sitting. Fallow deer there do as much damage to agricultural land as red deer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Power of Commission to deal with marauding deer]:
6.35 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) for the word "substantial" there shall he substituted the word "serious";").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I
58
also speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 92 which have the same point at issue. I was prepared to move this amendment at reasonable length, but as I understand that the promoter of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, may be inclined to accept it, I shall be more brief than I had originally intended.
In Clause 3 we are seeking to amend Section 6 of the 1959 Act, which deals with the power of the commission to deal with marauding deer. It states, in effect, that the commission, once satisfied that there is damage, can authorise in writing, with conditions if they think fit, any person who is competent to do so to follow and kill the deer. In speaking of the damage, the 1959 Act qualifies the word "damage" by the word "substantial". I am seeking in this amendment to alter that to "serious damage" and I shall explain why.
Since the 1959 Act was enacted, practice in this matter has changed and that is the most important point of all. Indeed, when the 1962 Act was under discussion in your Lordships' House, the father of the present Minister of State, the last Earl of Mansfield, used the words "undue damage" presumably in an attempt to describe some more restrictive exemption. Eventually, after some further discussion, the word "serious" was decided upon and that word has been carried on in many statutes to mean precisely what the noble Earl's father was talking about; that is, undue damage, serious damage and something more than substantial.
The latest example of this of which we must take note is the Government's own Wildlife and Countryside Act, most of which I emphasise applies to Scotland. So we have the words "serious damage" used in like contexts in an Act which now applies to Scotland. The word "serious" has supplanted the word "substantial". Indeed, in a debate in the other place on the 1963 Act, the Government pointed out the difference and said that the Scottish Act,
"which at this point is not followed by the Bill"—
that is, the Bill which was then under discussion—
"leaves the onus on the occupier to prove that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to his crops."
The word "serious" was already creeping in.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act is not the only pedigree of this Bill. One could mention the Protection of Birds Act, the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act—which has become part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act—the Badgers Act and the Deer Act 1963, which applies to England, and the Deer Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales. So one can trace the way in which the word "substantial" has been steadily dropped from legislation since the 1959 Act, and it now seems proper to bring this Bill into line.
I would mention one final point. We are here trying to say that the damage must not just be pretty bad; it must be weighty, important and grave and that is something more than substantial. If you look up the word "serious" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, you find quoted as an example:
"The damage is not thought to be serious".
That is a precise example of the way in which "serious" and "damage" are used together to mean a fairly

59
weightly form of damage. That is the reason for the amendment. I repeat that we want a word which shows that the consequences or the effects must be serious, and I do not think that the word "substantial" does that. It is time that we brought it up to date. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I do not want to take up your Lordships' time on this amendment. There is not a great deal to choose between "serious" and "substantial". However, the word "substantial" was chosen by the working party when we discussed the legislation in Inverness with practically all the parties involved. It seems to have been the preferred word. This matter was discussed by a number of other bodies upon which I sat and they all seemed to prefer the word "substantial" to the word "serious ". If, on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who has no doubt studied the matter, considers that the word "serious" is better than the word "substantial", I shall be happy to accept it. Nevertheless, I should prefer the word "substantial" to be retained.
Lord Glenarthur: I am delighted to know that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has spent hours thumbing through dictionaries. I can assure him that I have. I have spent more time during the last few weeks discussing the relative merits of "substantial" and "serious" than upon almost anything else. I accept that damage needs to be qualified in some way, and the choice is between "substantial" and "serious". As the noble Lord said, the word "serious" has been creeping in, for very good reasons, over the years. I am very happy that the word "serious" should be substituted for "substantial", and therefore I shall accept both this amendment and the related Amendments Nos. 16 and 92.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard Viscount Massereene and Ferrard moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 22, after (" "any") insert ("fenced or otherwise enclosed").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment raises the question of what is meant by "enclosed". Nobody appears to have arrived at a conclusion, which rather surprises me. My amendment suggests that the words "fenced or otherwise enclosed" should be inserted after the word "any" in line 22 on Page 2 of the Bill. The enclosure could be effected by a wall, or a fence, or even a dry moat, though one seldom sees dry moats in Scotland.
If I may speak from personal experience, I have a deer forest and various tenants. One of my tenants farms about 12,000 acres. On this land there are several hundreds of acres of natural forest. This is on lowland, none of which is higher than 400 or 500 feet at the most. When the weather is bad, the deer come into these woods—as they have done for centuries. It appears to me that because of the way the Bill is drafted the Red Deer Commission could come into those woods and slaughter the deer if the occupier complained. The deer have never done any damage to these woods, which have been there for hundreds of years. The only animals which are doing damage to the woods are the sheep They eat all the young
60
seedlings. Therefore, when the gales come the trees are blown down. Eventually there will be no natural woodland. There are also mature larch and mature pine trees on this land. The deer have free access to those.
How will one define enclosed agricultural land? I know of farmers who have put up a few rotten posts and one wire and called that enclosed land. They then attract the deer and shoot them. It brings in a far larger income for some farmers than they can earn from farming. I should like the land where deer can be shot, by the occupier asking the Red Deer Commission to do it or by the occupier shooting them himself, to be enclosed. I have never understood why it is that we cannot by statute say that such land—real agricultural land and young plantations—should not be enclosed by a proper deer fence. There would then be no trouble and bad feeling between owners and occupiers. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: It may be for the assistance of the Committee—I make no remark as to the desirability or otherwise of the amendment—if I said a word or two about enclosed land which causes a lot of difficulty. Enclosed woodland causes equally as much. So far as I know, there is no statutory definition of either term. A number of courts have sought to interpret it, in particular in an English case called Jemmison v. Priddle. Basically, the expression is a term of art. They way the courts interpret it is as land which is apt to include all ordinary farmland and also woodlands where there is a boundary which distinguishes it from moorland and similar types of land, whether the boundary is natural or man made. There does not seem to be any difference in the approach of the courts in Scotland to those in England and the terms are used more or less freely in both countries. The point is that whatever it is that encloses the land or the woodland can be something as man made as an effective fence, or as man made as an ineffective fence or as natural as a burn.
Lord Glenarthur: The proposed amendment would restrict the Red Deer Commission's power to deal with marauding deer to enclosed land. Whatever may be its intent, the effect of the amendment would be to nullify the commission's principal deer control power under Section 6 of the 1959 Act. What it proposes is nothing less than the removal of the main legal power to deal with marauding deer on unenclosed land. I do not think I should be putting it too strongly if I said that the effect of the amendment would be to make not just my Bill but the 1959 Act itself virtually unworkable. There are specific legal powers to deal with deer on enclosed land elsewhere in the Act—that is, under Section 33. Section 6 of the Act is designed for deer control on deer range generally—that is, on unenclosed land. If the powers of Section 6 were not available, I can only suppose that the commission would have to fall back on much more sweeping powers such as those which are available to them under Section 7 of the 1959 Act, which means the imposition of control schemes. That is a reserve power which has rarely, if ever, been used. I think my noble friend would agree that it would be much better if it were to stay that way and were not to be used.
Viscount Thurso: It might possibly be better if the Red Deer Commission were to fall back upon such expedients as control schemes. This has all to do with the Red Deer Commission deciding what the relative stocking of deer and sheep on hill land shall be. I believe that people should understand that what is being sought is the right to set down that one may have only so many deer per acre. That is what underlies this particular part of the Bill. Whereas I would fight to the death for the right of the farmer to obtain compensation by shooting marauding deer upon land that he has tilled and cultivated, I do believe that the deer, on the other hand, are entitled to some ground on which they may roam.
This is the point here: that if one is keeping a part of the Highlands of Scotland as unenclosed land available to deer, then the deer have somewhere to go. If one says that they may not cross through the fence and go on to enclosed land, everybody understands this—except perhaps the deer; but one can put that right by going after those deer which maraud. But once one is on the hill, one is dealing with a very "grey" area which requires clarification. I am not sure that it requires clarification by this amendment, but I believe it requires clarification after what has been said by the noble Lord, Glenarthur, in justification of his attitude to this amendment. I say to him that I hope that at some stage we may be able to clarify this point.
Lord Glenarthur: There are other amendments down which relate to Clause 6 and we shall be discussing them in due course. It is possible that there will be further improvements to that clause. As to the question of deer on hill land generally, there is a need for the Red Deer Commission to have a controlling power on unenclosed land. We heard from my noble friend what the definition of enclosed land might be, but Section 6 as it stands works very well and there is quite a lot of doubt as to whether or not Section 7 would be really effective in the way that he described the Red Deer Commission putting it into effect. I hope that the noble Viscount will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The position is further complicated by the fact that stags are migratory. I have three times the number of stags on my land in the summer as I do in the winter. It is all very well for the Red Deer Commission to set themselves up as God above the owner as to how many deer he should have, but it is very difficult to judge, because hinds always stay in the same place while stags do not. We have managed very well in the past, with the owners actually managing their deer but still, I presume that I have to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The noble Viscount talked about the owners "managing their deer". Does anybody own the deer?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: On my forest we brought in deer to improve the stock, and in certain forests we do feed them sometimes.
Lord Ross of Marnock: But as I understand it, no one owns the deer. The deer is a wild animal. It is only owned by somebody when that somebody kills it, and they should kill it lawfully.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I agree that the deer is a wild animal under existing law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): I must point out that if Amendment No. 11 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 13.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: We have other amendments coming up which are better than Amendment No. 11, and so I shall not move that amendment.
[Amendment No. II not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 12 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 13 or Amendment No. 14.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, leave out lines 24 and 25.
The noble Lord said: We are still dealing with Section 6 of the 1959 Act, which deals with the power of the commission to deal with marauding deer. The reason for my amendment to delete lines 24 and 25 is that those words are safely in the first subsection of Section 6 of the 1959 Act, and to put them in at this point again would make the section almost unreadable by simple repetition. I should like to read out how Section 6(1) would read if lines 24 and 25 stay in the Bill:
"Where the commission are satisfied that red deer or sika deer are causing serious damage to crops, pasture, animal or human foodstuffs, or trees on any agricultural land or woodland or garden ground, or injury to farm animals…"
and then going over it all again, as the Bill would now propose,
"(including competing with them for food) or damage to agricultural production".
The whole thing is so repetitive that if is almost nonsense. I believe it would be much better to leave out lines 24 and 25 because they are safely in the subsection already, in the 1959 Act.
Lord Burton: I am a bit of a quandary because I am not sure that the noble Lord is not right. On the other hand, my noble friend behind me, Lord Dulverton, has proposed very much better wording than this. I believe that for the first time this evening my noble friend who is moving the Bill may agree that this particular part of the Bill is not well worded and that it certainly wants revising. But whether we should revise it by taking the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and removing lines 24 and 25 altogether, or whether we use my noble friend Lord Dulverton's amendment, leaves me in a bit of a quandary.
Viscount Thurso: I should be happy to take the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and let my amendment fall.
Lord Glenarthur: I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Northfield, that Section 6 of the 1959 Act, as these amendments detail, will result in fairly arduous reading. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, would remove from the categories of damage for which the Red Deer Commission may employ their control, powers, competition by deer with farm animals for food and damage to agricultural production. I accept that there may be some in-precision in the term "competing with them for food" and I hope to deal with this point in a moment when another amendment is moved by my noble friend Lord Dulverton. But there is some real point in lines 24 and 25 in that damage done to agriculture by deer can go beyond the destruction of crops and pasture. For example, it can extend to the impoverishment of pasture, which can be evidenced perhaps by poorer lambing.
Lord Northfield: But that is already in the clause, in Section 6(1). There already appears in line 4 of Section 6(1):
"pasture, or animal or human foodstuffs."
So why repeat it?
Lord Glenarthur: I agree, and I said just now that, yes, there is a lot of complexity and perhaps unecessary complication in the wording of this section. I hope that I can explain a little further when we come to my noble friend Lord Dulverton's amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burton: Would it be possible for the two amendments to be discussed together? If we can hear what the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, has to say then we might be able to decide which amendment to concentrate on.
Lord Glenarthur: I am perfectly happy for the two amendments to be taken together, and so perhaps my noble friend Lord Dulverton would like to speak to his amendment as well.
Lord Dulverton: I was diffident about interfering with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in his amendment, but there is one point I should like to place before the Committee, in the wording I have suggested as an alternative to the five or six words in parenthesis. I quite take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that the words are somewhat repetitive in their sense with the words which appear in the 1959 Act. Nevertheless, I would advance the suggestion to your Lordships that there is some merit in them over and above those used in the 1959 Act, and certainly those used in parenthesis here in this Bill.
I have admitted to your Lordships that I am a member of the commission. I see how the commission work and the troubles they have with marauding, overgrazing and so on. On this point, as on many others which occur in this Bill, I have come to respect the judgment of the commissioners and of the staff by whom
64
they are served. Simply to say "damage to pasture" is very loose indeed, as we discussed in Second Reading; it does put an awful onus on the deer commission to interpret what degree of damage is required before action of a drastic nature is justified. There are, as I think I mentioned at Second Reading, a number of scientific papers which advance the thesis that grazings by different kinds of animals—in the Highlands probably sheep, cattle and deer—are to a great extent complementary and non-competitive. But there can arise a situation where there is over-stocking by one or other or all three of these species, and then is the time when action is really called for.
That is why I have suggested in my amendment the words, "serious over-grazing of pastures" and, "competing with farm animals for supplementary feeding", because that is a different sort of case. As we all know, things like cattle nuts, turnips, hand feed of one sort or another, are supplied by farmers in the winter months for cattle and sheep. In the case of sheep in particular there can be instances—there have been instances and there are instances—of a stag coming down off the hill; he weighs twice or three times as much as the sheep, and he will not have cast his antlers till the end of March, and he will see the sheep off and get the nuts or turnips or whatever it is. So I would suggest to your Lordships that the wording I have suggested here may have some merit.
Viscount Thurso: Before the noble Lord sits down, are we to take it that he is suggesting that if the ground is over-stocked with sheep you shoot the deer? Is that what the noble Lord is saying?
Lord Dulverton: If the over-stocking was purely by sheep and not by deer, certainly the Red Deer Commission would not countenance the shooting of deer.
Lord Glenarthur: There is merit in both amendments. I agree entirely that the wording here is very convoluted indeed. I also think Lord Dulverton's amendment to specify rather more accurately over-grazing of pastures and competing with farm animals for supplementary feeding, is a very good form of words. We have to try to define as precisely as possible the circumstances in which the commission may legitimately intervene. I would like to take both amendments away and look at the situation again and put something down on Report.
Lord Northfield: I am very happy with that assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Before we pass this clause may I make a few maverick comments on the attitude of the human species to animals. In the rubric here we see "Power of Commission to deal with marauding deer". It is true that that appears in the principal Act, but in this Bill this is the only guilt label fixed upon the deer. Most people have strong affection for the deer; the female of the species

65
is lovable and elegant to look at; the male is a noble beast, and people are thronging to the Tate Gallery at the present time to see Landseer's portrayal of a Stag at Bay.
It is a curious thing that if we human beings want to repel or destroy an animal we must first fix it with a guilt label. If it is a fox we call it a pest and that justifies hunting it, gassing it, snaring it, and destroying it. If it is a lower mammal we will call it vermin and that will justify painful death by toxic poisons and so forth. When Aneurin Bevan had a lapse and described the Tory Party as being lower than vermin the whole nation was shocked, especially the Labour Party; ill as they thought of the Tory Party they would never classify them as vermin. Poor Aneurin Bevan spent 24 hours pacing up and down wishing he had bitten the end of his tongue off. That is what happens when you fix the wrong sort of guilt label on the wrong sort of species.
These marauding deer have to be repelled or killed, but you must first classify them as being in the wrong: you must convict them of something. I do not know whether the original marauders were men or animals or whether they were all animals and they were all marauders. Since my noble friend Lord Northfield has been looking at his dictionary I have been looking at mine: to maraud is to make a plundering raid, to go about pilfering. Noble Lords who suffer from the depredations of deer may say that is just what they do and there could not be a more apt description of this malpractice, which must be repelled or punished.
But the deer are unaware of this guilty behaviour. They are going in search of food. Why cannot we then put in the rubric, "Power of Commission to deal with deer in search of food"? After all, that is what it is. If in their search for food they are doing serious damage to agriculture and taking food out of the mouths of human beings, or even sheep, that puts them in the wrong and has to be punished. If they were elephants we would probably say, "to deal with rogue elephants". I know that some Members of Parliament have been described as "rogue elephants" at times, which has usually meant that they have a mind of their own and do not do what they are told, which probably applies to rogue deer as well as the marauding deer.
There is a serious note here despite this apparent levity on my part. I thought that the Wildlife and Countryside Bill had lifted the relationship between mankind and the animal kingdom to a much higher level than before. We had some most elevating debates on the relationship between man and the animal kingdom. Therefore, I do not think that merely to bring forward in this Bill the out-of-date guilt label on deer of the 1959 Act is satisfactory. I think we should have an uplifting description of the deer, even though it might be in the wrong. However, I have said enough. I think it is as well that we should reconsider at a later stage of the Bill whether we remove the one guilt label which is put upon the deer. We put it upon the deer when it is in search of its basic requirements, because man of course drives the animal off its habitat, cultivates the land and uses it for his own purposes, and then when the deer comes back for food they say it is maurauding.
It is all a matter of balance. There are equal rights
66
here. There is a relationship which has to be acknowledged and put on a somewhat higher plane. That is the situation. I hope that later I shall be able to find a form of words which will eliminate the rubric "maurauding deer".
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Further power of Commission to deal with marauding deer]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The next amendment is Amendment No. 15. I must tell your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert—
("(1) Where the Commission are satisfied that substantial damage has been caused by deer to agricultural land or to woodland they may, with the consent of the owner and occupier thereof, for the purpose of preventing further substantial damage, kill such deer of species other than red deer or sika which their servants may encounter thereon in the course of their duties.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 15. I am not quite certain, but I think that if this amendment were accepted it would not be necessary to call Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 or certainly one of them. Also, when we gave way just now to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on the question of "serious" or "substantial", I thought that we might run into further difficulties. This amendment contains the word "substantial" but the question of "substantial" in this connection is a fairly minor one and clearly if the amendment were accepted, then at some later stage we would want to substitute "serious". What also has to be added is the owner. He is not mentioned and I feel that it is important that the owner should be consulted as well.
I should also like to say at this point, that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made a most opportune intervention, because he said that the animal must first be guilty. If we look at the wording in the Bill, it says:
"are likely to cause damage".
They do not in any way have to be guilty at the time: it is just that they thought that they might be going to do damage. My amendment takes that out, because at least they must be guilty; it must not be thought that they might be guilty. Therefore, I beg to move my amendment, which I think contains very much better wording than that in the Bill.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support the amendment. I presume that the amendment applies to roe deer and fallow deer. There are not many fallow deer in Scotland, but there are a tremendous number of roe deer. Roe deer in a mature forest cannot do any damage, but they can do a lot of damage in young plantations. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Burton has brought the owner in here because, as I said earlier, the owner comes out of this rather badly. I can see no reason why this

67
amendment cannot be accepted. I shall be very interested and pleased to hear what my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has to say about it.
Lord Glenarthur: The whole question of owners is something which we discussed previously and will come back to again. But new Section 6A of the Bill is, in a sense, complementary to Section 6 of the 1959 Act. It is designed to come into play in conditions where the commission's staff, already in the field, are operating under Section 6. I believe, therefore, that, on reflection and in the light of the amendment that we have seen, the terms of new Section 6A should be made as similar as appropriate to the existing Section 6. My noble friend's amendment in fact goes some way in that direction. It would qualify damage as "substantial" although we have now agreed to call it "serious". It requires that damage should actually be occurring rather than merely likely to occur, and it makes some reference to the interests of the owner, albeit not in the same terms as are found in Section 6. If my noble friend would agree to withdraw his amendment, I would be happy to take the matter away, reconsider it, and perhaps draft another amendment in the light of those considerations.
Lord Burton: I shall have great pleasure in withdrawing the amendment. I am delighted that at long last we have found something on which we largely agree. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 16 has already been discussed.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 32, after ("cause") insert ("serious").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos.17 and 18 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The next amendment is Amendment No. 19. I think that this was debated with Amendment No. 9.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission shall give to the onwer of the agricultural land or woodland concerned such notice of their intention to kill deer under this section as may be practicable.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19. Where the Commission take action under Section 6 of the 1959 Act they are required to give to the owner of the land such notice as may be practicable. The point has been quite fairly made that the owner has no less interest in action under the new Section 6A. This amendment is intended to achieve that effect. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: If my noble friend had ended his amendment at "section" and left out "as may be practicable" then I would have been quite happy. However, what I am concerned about here is that the commission would be out, they would find some roe deer about, and they would shoot them and then they
68
would say, "Oh well, we could not notify the owner. We had seen them in the wood and we have shot them. We are now notifying the owner after the event has taken place". It really depends on what is "as may be practicable". It could well be an excuse for not giving prior notice to the owner.
Lord Glenarthur: I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but in point of fact, the owner will be aware, under Section 6, that the Red Deer Commission are there anyway. I do not think that one can cast aspersions at the Red Deer Commission in that way. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Burton: I should like to draw attention to subsection (2) where it says: "and 23(1)". This would permit the Red Deer Commission to shoot roe deer at night. From what your Lordships said on Second Reading, I got the impression that most of your Lordships were very opposed to roe deer being shot at night. I should like to draw attention to this matter, because I think that perhaps we should look at it again on Report.
Lord Glenarthur: We shall be coming to Clause 8 in due course, which deals in detail with the whole question of night shooting. Therefore, perhaps we could leave the matter until then.
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Chairman of Commission]:
7.19 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, leave out lines 26 to 29.
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21. This amendment deals with the question of the chairman of the Red Deer Commission. I feel here that the problem is that the chairmanship of the Red Deer Commission is a part-time appointment and that it is desirable that it should remain such, an appointment that is suitable for somebody who has a wide and active connection and experience with deer. I think that it is important that it should not become a job of a professional nature which is given to somebody whole-time; he should not expect to hold it a long time and then be pensioned at the end of it.
One of the great successes of the Red Deer Commission has been the way in which those interested in deer in one way or another have been brought together because of the fact that they are not solely professional people; they are experienced people and they are not merely serving time and hoping for pensions at the end of the day. I think that it weakens the position of the chairman to make him appear different from the other members of the commission in this respect. I agree that he has to be paid because he has to give up his time, but I think that it would be wiser to leave out his pension.
Lord Glenkinglas: I should like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on this amendment, One of the great dangers of the modern age is the proliferation of index-linked pensions. If we are to bring all the Quangos into it on the ground of uniformity, before long the taxpayer in this country will be in a very miserable condition. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that it is essential for a chairman of a deer commission to be fairly young, because he has to be active, get about and look in the forests and the hills, and not just take everything for granted Secondly, it is highly desirable that the post moves around the different people concerned with deer. Therefore, to my mind, a five-year or a six-year appointment is perfectly adequate. At the end of that time the person concerned may well be 20 years away from being pensionable, and the whole idea of index-linked pensions at that age is entirely abhorrent. I shall not go on to my amendment, which is rather more wide-ranging, until we have dealt with this one, but I entirely support this amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like very strongly to support this amendment. Speaking from memory, in the year before last the percentage increase in index-linked pensions in relation to inflation was £398 million for Government servants. I do not have the figures for last year, but I presume that they will be about £450 million; they may even be approaching £500 million. What they will be for this year, heaven knows!—perhaps £600 million. Therefore, on the grounds of economy, I most heartily support this amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: It is rather difficult to know whether noble Lords are against a pension or against an index-linked pension.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I am not against a pension; I am against an index-linked pension. I am not against the old-age pension.
Lord Glenkinglas: I am against a pension.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I thought that the amendment related to the pension rather than to an index-linked pension. If you oppose and get rid of the pension, it does not matter whether or not it is index-linked, it is not in the Bill. I also raised this matter on Second Reading because I am interested in it. Let us face it, this clause is a Government clause. No Private Member puts this in without having taken the advice of the Government. Indeed, I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur: one of the matters that tend to hold up Private Member's Bills when they reach another place is that they require a money resolution. That will not be a difficulty for the noble Lord, but it will he a difficulty for the person who he persuades to do the kind of work that he innocently undertook in relation to this Bill on behalf of whoever it was who persuaded him.
The Bill states that:
"The Secretary of State may make such provision"—
there is no great promise for the chairman of the Red Deer Commission here. It goes on:
"if any, as he may"—
70
that is, the Secretary of State—
"with the approval of the Treasury".
All these hurdles are erected, and I feel sorry for the poor chairman of the Red Deer Commission. The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that the effect of the Bill on public expenditure is expected to be minimal. What kind of pension is this to be? The suggestion is, or may be,
"…if any, with the approval of the Treasury".
A few of us here have experience of the Treasury and, of course, as far as the Treasury is concerned, it will be minimal. But the suggestion that has been made, that this is coming into Bill after Bill, is always one that surprises me. I do not know whether it has anything to do with the usual business nowadays that everyone has to be either in a Government pension scheme or something equivalent to a Government pension scheme. There may be some adequate explanation for it, but it is the kind of thing that certainly does not please me, and I tend to favour this amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I do not see any reason at all why the index-linked pension should be thrown into this discussion. There are probably more index-linked pensions received by noble Lords here than by those in other institutions of which we know. All people on national insurance retirement pensions are on index-linked pensions. So we must not disparage the index-linked pension and hang our prejudice upon this poor Red Deer Commission chairman, who does not even have his pension yet. So, whether or not it will be index-linked, we do not know.
I must declare an interest in that I am the recipient of an index-linked pension. Of course, my trade union instincts would lead me to suggest that those of us who have index-linked pensions are probably in danger, and that it is desirable that there should not be any more of them. After all, this is how we all feel; do not let us have too many. The more there are, the greater the danger; so let us keep it as a kind of closed shop. But not in this Bill.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, ought to confess to your Lordships' Committee who prompted this. The voice may be the voice of Jacob, but the hand surely is the hand of Esau. As my noble friend Lord Ross said, who put him up to this?
When we come to look at Clause 5 in its broader context, we shall want to know what sort of chairmen of the Red Deer Commission there have been in the past that we need a Clause 5 like this to safeguard the Realm from all sorts of malefactors and incompetents. Heavens above! I should have thought that anyone who might fall into any of these categories was scarcely fit for employment at all, much less as chairman of the Red Deer Commission.
However, I support the amendment because I do not think that the chairman of the Red Deer Commission will be long enough there to justify a pension. He ought not to be there long enough to justify a pension, especially—as the noble Lord said a few moments ago—if he is young and active. He must get around and see deer, especially marauding deer; he must look at them very closely indeed; he will probably have to chase them to know what they look like. In those circumstances, he will be there surely only for the best years

71
of his life and he will not be thinking of a pension at all. He will probably earn one later on in a much easier appointment. I think that we ought to delete the pension from the clause, and when we come to the clause itself, we might think of deleting a bit more.
Lord Burton: On this occasion I think that I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The current chairman is very fit and active, and we hope that he will be there for many years yet.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): As this is a matter of Government policy, perhaps I should seek to justify it. It is perfectly obvious from the debate tonight that the Red Deer Commission is such a well-known body in Scotland, and no doubt to many noble Lords who are on it, who have been on it or who know many people on it, it has a sort of Corinthian, I might say amateurish, air. But really that does not justify, in my submission to the Committee, the meanness of spirit that has been exhibited. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said that to pay the poor chairman a pension actually weakens his position, rather in the same way as noble Lords in your Lordships' House, when expenses were first mooted, rejected them because it might weaken their position. When I was at the Bar it was proposed that the minimum fee should go from 1 guinea to 2 guineas, and I remember that that was considered something which really no gentleman should talk about, and anyway it would weaken our position.
If we have any statutory body with a full-time chairman, I do not suppose that anybody would argue that his terms of service should be any less favourable than those of any other public servant. If, on the other hand—and one gets this with certain Quangos—we have a chairman whose duties are purely formal and whose role is to preside over meetings of his particular body and thereafter not to have to do anything, then I do not suppose one would expect that he would get anything beyond his expenses and possibly some kind of an honorarium, and that happens in a number of cases. But here we have a part-time chairman who may he, and frequently is, called on to act between meetings and he is paid a salary.
His salary is based on the assumption that he devotes on average two days a week to commission business. This is a substantial proportion of a man's time. The policy of successive Governments has been, so far as possible, to standardise the conditions of chairmen and members of public boards of all sorts. The particular rule of thumb that has been adopted is that a post that is remunerated on a basis of two days a week or more should, in principle, be pensionable. Those are the terms that are applicable to members of the Crofters' Commission and also to members of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which are two local and comparable examples.
What this part of the clause is designed to do, and indeed what Clause 5 does—and I dare say we shall come on to it in minute—is to bring the chairman of the Red Deer Commission into line with his peers; with the chairmen of other, similar bodies. The fact that he is not already in a position similar to his peers is an anomaly, and if the amendment of the noble
72
Viscount, Lord Thurso, is agreed to it will merely perpertuate an anomaly, and I wonder whether the Committee means to be so ungenerous as that.
Viscount Thurso: What the Bill does not say is that any member of the Red Deer Commission who works two days a week, or more, will become pensionable. It merely mentions the chairman. In the case of the examples quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, any member of the Highlands and Islands Development Board or any member of the Crofters' Commission, other than the chairman, who works two days a week, or more, becomes pensionable. That may, or may not, be a good idea, but here the chairman is being singled out.
There are a lot of local councillors who work for something approaching two days a week. In fact, I can think of chairmen of district councils who are also on regional councils who do every bit as much as this. Are we going to pension all of them I do not think that it is an anomaly. Here we are talking about somebody who is strictly part-time and he is remunerated for his time on a basis of two days a week, but I do not see why he should acquire a pension as a result of that. I hope, in spite of what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will be able to accept this amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: I must declare an interest as an ex-chairman of the Forestry Commission. I have a small pension. This two days a week usually develops into three and sometimes four. I know that the present chairman of the Red Deer Commission is a very good chairman, indeed, and has done a lot of work—as do a lot of chairmen who have these positions, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, mentioned. I see no reason why we should be different from anybody else. After all, if I remember rightly—and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will put me right—we pay a subscription from our salary for this pension.
On Question, amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.36 p.m.
Lord Glenkinglas: This is where we get into more interesting fields. We have had the pleasure of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, as a trade unionist saying that he wants to have a closed shop, and we have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, warning my noble friend Lord Mansfield what happens if you have a money resolution in the House of Commons. Having suffered on many dozens of occasions from Lord Ross of Marnock's very detailed examination of money orders in the House of Commons, may I say that of course he is quite right.
I am sorry to say that I entirely disagree with my noble friend Lord Mansfield on this point. The Deer Act laid down that the Secretary of State, if I remember the phrase, could pay such salaries and expenses as was thought fit. This is what it should be. I do not believe in any of this. It should be a comparatively short-term appointment. You should be generous and you should pay a good salary to the person doing the work, but I do not believe in a mass of pensions being built up for part-time people.

73
As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, there are a vast number of people in the Highlands working for two days or more a week who not only get no salary but get no pension either, and they work very hard in a number of ways. There is no reason why the Secretary of State should not continue, as he has been able to do very well for the past 13 of 14 years, to find most suitable people; paying them, I should think, not really enough, but there is no reason why he should not pay them more; and then changing to somebody else who will perhaps be equally good. So far as I know, we have had no difficulties at all with the chairmen of the Red Deer Commission. The system as laid down in the 1959 Act is easy to follow, and we simply do not need this clause, and I shall stick to keeping it out.
The Earl of Mansfield: I hope so far as the salary part of this is concerned that I do not need to go into it at great length. Members of the Red Deer Commission are not paid salaries. The only person who is paid a salary is the chariman. Whatever the inclinations of the Secretary of State—and I have one former one in front of me and another behind—the Treasury are never going to allow them to distribute largesse with a very free hand.
I come now to the rest of the clause. I explained on Second Reading that Clause 5 is in effect a tidying-up operation. What it does is to take advantage of this Bill to insert a number of what are now standard provisions relating to the chairmen and members of Quangos. Of course, the Red Deer Commission is a Quango. If it is said that this Bill should not be used for this purpose, my answer is that it is difficult to get legislative time and one has to seize what opportunities there are. It was thought, rightly, I am still convinced, that if one was to have tidying up and consistency, one must use whatever vehicle came to hand, so to speak—and what better than this little Bill?
None of these provisions is obligatory. Each is permissive. Each may or may not be used by the Secretary of State according to his judgment and discretion. I have to say again that if we do not take this opportunity to bring the Red Deer Commission into line with other Quangos, it will be out of line, and while noble Lords may say that that is no bad thing, one must have some sort of consistency of treatment in our body of legislation, and I should have thought that this was logical.
It must be remembered that the new provisions cover a miscellany of items relating to the chairman, including his dismissal on grounds of mental incapacity, bankruptcy and so on, and the payment of compensation otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office. I do not think I can help the Committee further. I have dealt with the question of pension; nobody will serve as chairman of the Red Deer Commission for a lifetime and therefore any pension he gets will be extremely modest. I suggest that it would be a pity not to allow the clause to stand part, when all it is doing is not introducing anything startling but merely bringing this Quango into line with other Quangos.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: You Lordships' House is a suitable place for us to take a high moral line and probably not be too concerned with the squalid details of conditions of service. The main task for the chairman
74
of the Red Deer Commission is that he should look after deer, especially marauding deer, and see that no ill befalls too many innocent deer. I wonder, however, from the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for how long the chairman is likely to have to hold office to qualify for a pension, become an alcoholic, goes bankrupt, falls flat on his face or whatever disability must be taken into account. Does the noble Earl really mean to say that the Secretary of State cannot remove the chairman of the commission unless as set out in the statute, considering what can befall a man to make him quite incapable of doing his job, such as being absent from meetings, being ill physically or mentally, in trouble with his creditors or in any other way being unable or unfit to discharge the duties of his office? Cannot the Secretary of State get rid of him without a statutory authority classifying the nature and degree of the delinquency of this person? Is he to be afraid of a claim for wrongful dismissal going to an industrial tribunal? Do all chairmen of Quangos have this kind of protection? I am mystified. No wonder there has been a lot of trouble with quangos in recent times, if that is how they work.
Probably we should delete the whole clause and let them deal with it in due course in another place. After all, we are not to be trusted with the money box; we are not allowed to open it or touch it or even write figures on bits of paper. We are, therefore, not really fit to deal with the conditions of service of the chairman of the commission. We are above—or maybe below—all that sort of thing, or we are incapacitated from dealing with important matters such as conditions of service. Therefore, we should let another place do the job. The Government would be dealing with the reality of politics if they reintroduced the clause in another place. After all, we do not know what mood the other place will be in after tomorrow. The noble Earl says we should not be ungenerous. I do not think we should anticipate the generosity of another place in present circumstances. We are too uncertain of the mood they will be in.
I suggest, with respect, to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that he should have said when this matter was first put to him, "No; deer are my business, not the conditions of the chairman of the Red Deer Commission". But he was not strong enough to resist the seductive advances of the Government, and the noble Earl has just confessed that when you want to do something, you choose whatever vehicle comes to hand, and Lord Glenarthur is being used now. That is not consistent with the dignity of a new noble Lord who made a wonderful maiden speech, who has established his position in your Lordships' House and who is now introducing a Bill of considerable content and nobility of purpose. He should rise to his feet straight away and say he accepts the amendment, and then let the Government find their vehicle somewhere else, not in your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Mansfield: Is the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, saying that your Lordships are so mentally incapacitated—no doubt through age or other infirmity—as not to be able to deal with this matter of the Secretary of State having a discretion over the chairman of the Red Deer Commission, who may have been

75
driven so dotty by the people with whom he must deal that he is no longer fitted for the position?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I should have thought the Secretary of State, who makes the appointment, should have the power to terminate it. He should not need all this rigmarole to give him statutory authority to do a common sense thing, something which is clearly within his statutory duty.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Unfortunately, it is not within his statutory duty. The Secretary of State can do many things—indeed, is expected to do even more than the things outlined in statute—but the one thing he cannot do under the 1959 Act is act in the case of a chairman of the Red Deer Commission who really should not be holding that position. I am rather surprised at some of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Houghton. Can he imagine what would happen to his marauding deer if the chairman was incapacitated by reason of mental illness? He might then describe all the deer as marauding deer and send people out to deal with them. Then the first man to stand up in your Lordships' House and proclaim that something should be done about it would be my noble friend. Would he deny the Secretary of State his justifiable right to take action in such circumstances? So far as I know, we have already decided on subsection 2(c) because the Committee agreed to accept that part of the clause. Thus, our whole argument now is about subsection (2)(a) and (b).
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, will recall occasions in respect of particular persons in particular positions when he discovered that he did not have power to remove them. He will remember the tact and patience that had to be used, but still nothing was done, and certainly it was not always to the benefit of Scotland that such people remained in their positions. I can recall other legislation when provisions such as are contained in subsection (2)(a) to (d) were included, and they were included because of experience. That being so, it is right they should be in this measure. That being so, my noble friend Lord Houghton would, I am sure, be the last person to deny a humble Secretary of State for Scotland, treading carefully, as he does in all ways, to have the vital powers contained in this clause should everything else fail.
Clause 5 agreed to.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Shooting from vehicles.
After subsection (2) of section 23 of the said Act of 1959 there shall be inserted the following new subsections—
"(2A) Subject to subsection (2B) below, if any person discharges any firearm, or discharges or projects any missile, from any mechanically propelled vehicle at any deer, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2B) Nothing in subsection (2A) above shall make unlawful—

(a) anything done by, or with the written authority of, the occupier of any enclosed land where deer not in the wild state are usually kept and done in relation to any deer on that land;

(b) anything done with the written authority of the Red
76
Deer Commission in the exercise of their powers under section 33(4A) of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: After some amusing talk about "vehicles", we shall now come to some real vehicles. This amendment contains a provision against poaching and by way of preliminary remark I wish to say that in considering the Bill as at present drafted I do not think that its anti-poaching provisions are strong enough. I hope at Report stage to be able to move into the Bill some tougher anti-poaching provisions, as well as provisions to give the police wider powers over poaching.
The second point I want to make is that the amendment, which tries to prohibit the use of vehicles in connection with the shooting of deer, is not a slavish copy of what is in the English legislation. I gather that I have been accused of wanting to make the Scottish legislation identical with the English legislation; but I recognise the differences that there are in Scottish conditions, and I am not in any sense trying slavishly to copy what has been enacted in the English legislation. This amendment is one good example of my willingness to depart significantly from what is contained in the English Acts.
Under the English Deer Act 1963, which applies only to England and Wales, it is an offence to discharge any firearm or project any missile from any mechanically propelled vehicle. It is also an offence to
"use any mechanically propelled vehicle for the purpose of driving deer",
except in a deer park. So the English legislation is fairly swingeing on this matter. However, the amendment that I am now moving, is, I believe, more appropriate to Scottish conditions, though I gather that I am now being criticised in Scotland for it not being tough enough. I am now trying to compromise by providing in the amendment that it shall be an offence to shoot at deer from a vehicle, but it shall not be an offence to use a vehicle for driving deer. That is an important first difference from the English legislation. As I say, I am told that that is not tough enough and I am now under pressure from the other end to strengthen the point. Secondly, my new clause provides for the use of vehicles with the permission of the Red Deer Commission in the case of night shooting. So in two very important respects this is a much more lenient approach to the use of vehicles than is contained in the English and the Welsh legislation.
I do not know whether I need stress too much the point about vehicles and poachers. I shall give two quotations simply to strengthen the kind of case that was mentioned on Second Reading. The first quotation is from the Shooting Times of 21st January this year. I think that the remark in the article is slightly exaggerated, but it is still worth quoting. It reads:
"Motorised poaching gangs using machanised transport have swept up whole deer populations in remote Highland hinterlands which were traditional deer sanctuaries".
I should like to give another short quotation from the Shooting Times of last June, when it stated:
"…spotlighting from a vehicle at night is now the most widely used method employed by the commercial poacher. Its vulnerability at the moment is that any member of the public witnessing the probing finger of a spotlight used in the dark of night can be reasonably sure that it is used in poaching and so take measures to report it…".
I do not need to develop the case. It is surely accepted in the Committee, and in your Lordships' House, that vehicles are now the most important tool of the poacher. The problem that faces us is to strike a balance between the need to cut down and deter poaching and what I know to be a need in some situations—using vehicles in more legitimate circumstances by those shooting deer. It is said that sometimes it is convenient to shoot from the back of a stationary wagon, and you get a better shot at some of the deer. That might well be so. But what are we trying to do? We are really faced with an epidemic of poaching from vehicles, and it seems right to err on the side of outlawing vehicles in order to get at the biggest aid to poaching that we know; namely, the use of vehicles.
So my new clause makes it clear that it would be an offence to shoot at a deer from a mechanically propelled vehicle, but subsection (2B) qualifies the provision by stating that it does not apply to deer parks, so that would be excepted. Secondly, as I said earlier, it allows the use of vehicles with the authority of the Red Deer Commission in exercise of its powers under the provision concerned with night shooting. So there are important qualifications and differences compared with the English legislation, yet I hope leaving a new clause which ought to be acceptable to the Committee.
This is a very important issue. I understand the feelings about it, but I hope that the Committee will look at it from the point of view of deterring poaching as strongly as we can, even if we have to make some slight inroad into the freedom of legitimate people wanting to kill deer from vehicles. We must stretch the point as far as we reasonably can in the interests of trying to stop the poaching epidemic that is now sweeping across Scotland and which is a huge industry on a grand scale. I beg to move.
Lord Dulverton: I should like most emphatically to welcome the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for the reason that he has eloquently propounded to us. I am not greatly worried about his not including a provision on not being able to round up deer with vehicles because on the Highland landscape, at any rate, one cannot do that. There have been cases where deer have been rounded up by helicopter, but that is another matter. However, there is one question I should like to ask. Subsection (2A) of the amendment refers to,
"any person discharges any firearm, or discharges or projects any missile, from any mechanically propelled vehicle…".
I know of several cases where, quite legitimately, with due authority from the Nature Conservancy and the veterinarians, wild deer have been darted for capture outside enclosed land, on open hill ground. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is very thorough and I should not be surprised if he has looked into this point and has a very good answer to it. I wonder whether he has hoisted in (if I may use the expression) that possibility in relation to the words he uses in the amendment, "projects any missile…."
Lord Burton: I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, talking about the powers of apprehension of poachers, since clearly these are sadly lacking in the Bill. I had made a note to mention the point later, but he has beaten me to the gun.
78
However, I feel some hesitation over his amendment as we have it before us. It is already illegal to shoot from the public highway. It is also illegal to take a vehicle off the public highway—I think it is five yards, or some such distance; I might not be quite correct about that—without the permission of the owner. It is contrary to the Road Traffic Act, but does not seem to be widely known. So in fact there is already a penalty for a poacher, if you can catch him; but that is another matter.
I think the thing most needed in this type of amendment is something to deal with helicopters, which my noble friend behind me mentioned. I wondered whether it might not meet the situation if, instead of having the amendment worded as it is, it said "from a moving vehicle", which would cover helicopters. I do not think it could be quite added into the wording here, but that is the intention. I suspect that that would effectively debar helicopters from being used. But I think there are occasions, such as the Nature Conservancy Council darting their animals and control at various times, when it is really preferable to use a vehicle. I know it is not a sporting thing and that it should not be used for sporting purposes, but I think there are times when it could be useful in control.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has made some very valid points about the provisions in the Bill which seek to curb poaching. I look forward to the amendments which he proposes to move later in the Bill's passage to tighten up these provisions still further, where possible; but there are defects in this amendment. I think the point which was picked up by my noble friend Lord Dulverton about the projection of missiles is certainly a point which redounds to some extent on his argument. It is already an offence to shoot with anything other than a firearm in any case; but darting is something which is occasionally required.
I am a little curious about paragraph (a) of subsection (2B), which seeks to ban the practice in the open while allowing it, for example, on deer farms. There seems to me a lack of logic to some extent there, if it was a deer farm to which he was referring. I am not sure if that was the point he was driving at, but if it is more humane to animals to shoot them from a vehicle in close conditions then why should it be less so when they are elsewhere? So there are really two objections. First, it could have the effect of banning shooting from a stationary vehicle; and, as other noble Lords have said, there are cases when it can be very prudent to fire from the back of a vehicle. That is because the person who is firing will perhaps be firing nearer, and he will have a better view of the stag or the animal at which he is shooting. This is particularly so in woodlands, where tailboards or the roofs of landrovers provide a very good vantage point.
I can only add that I feel very strongly, as other noble Lords might as well, that shooting from a moving vehicle is a different matter. I take with some interest the point made by my noble friend Lord Burton about helicopters, because I do have another interest, and that is in helicopters. The other point about helicopters, of course, is that they can come to a hover and therefore remain stationary.

79
I hope the noble Lord might see fit to withdraw his amendment in the light of the fact that there are certainly occasions on which it is only prudent to use a vehicle as a platform. So far as the question of driving deer is concerned, I understand that there are no known occasions of deer being driven in Scotland except by poachers.
Viscount Thurso: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, if he does withdraw it, could the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, give us an assurance that he will enter into some discussions about a possible new clause to deal with this matter? Because I think we have here uncovered a practice which we do not want to encourage and which can be misused. I think it would be a pity to lose the opportunity of this passing vehicle, the Bill, to produce some legislation on this subject. So could the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, at least give us the assurance that he will enter into some discussions on this?
Lord Dulverton: May I add another point to what the noble Viscount has just said in relation to asking my noble friend to give further thought to this, with particular reference to helicopters, with which we know he is expert? I have known of cases where a helicopter has been used to move deer in not very satisfactory circumstances or for very satisfactory purposes. On the other hand, I have known them to be used very usefully in cases where red deer have somehow broken into forestry plantations in their young stage, and where it is frightfully difficult to move them out again, even if you take a bit of fence down, by the use of men or dogs, because the deer nearly always break back. But I have known instances where a helicopter has been used most successfully in driving red deer out of a planatation to which they have just gained access.
Lord Glenarthur: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for his suggestion, and, Yes, I think there is merit in what he says and that we ought to take it away and look at it again. This I will undertake to do. Before I sit down perhaps I may refer briefly to what was said by my noble friend Lord Dulverton. I have done many things with helicopters myself, but I am ashamed to say that one thing I have not done is anything in the way of driving deer or even taking a census of deer from the air. But my noble friend makes a good point. He makes a point which I have made here on more than one occasion, which is to try to enhance for everybody's benefit the versatility of helicopters. He makes a good point, and I am happy to take the amendment away and to look at it again.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Before the noble Lord sits down, as he is going to look at this thing again, could he tell us anything about this epidemic of poaching? It is a phrase which requires clarification and should be substantiated by a little more, I think, than just a couple of excerpts from some journal. It is the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, Lord Glenarthur, whom I am asking.
Lord Glenarthur: It was the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who used the word "epidemic". It was not my word.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is quite correct, there is an epidemic of poaching. The big venison dealers in Scotland have said that last year the amount of venison exported to Germany legally was £2 million worth, and the amount exported illegally from poachers was to about the same value. There is an epidemic of poaching. I have seen quite a bit of it on my own land. There is a real epidemic.
Lord Ross of Marnock: If the noble Viscount has seen a bit of it on his own land, I take it that he then prosecuted, because in this case the word of one witness is enough. Is this epidemic that we hear about supported by a number of cases, or is this great epidemic something which escapes the law entirely?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: In the last case on my land it was a police prosecution, but they were fined very little so they will do it again. They shot nine deer, which they would have probably sold for £700 or £800, at least, and they were fined the usual trifling amount.
Lord Burton: I had not expected to enter into this realm tonight because this question of the apprehension of poachers is not dealt with particularly in the Bill, but without the authority of the landowner the police cannot pursue a poacher on to someone's land and apprehend him. Equally, the landowner or his staff cannot apprehend a poacher; they are not allowed to arrest him. Clearly this is something you can do in England. The law is very much stronger in England; and this is something which wants to be taken into account. On the other hand, there was a prosecution in the Kirkcudbright sheriff court (which is, after all, a little nearer the home of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock) only a fortnight ago in which a poacher, who they all knew had been at it for some time, got three months in gaol for shooting seven red deer, I think it was, with a shotgun.
Lord Ross of Marnock: One case does not make an epidemic.
Lord Burton: No, but that was just one a fortnight ago.
Lord Northfield: I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am slightly surprised that my noble friend on the Front Bench has not yet heard about this escalating (if he does not like the word "epidemic") amount of poaching going on. The sort of figures which have been quoted in the newspapers were used at Second Reading by several noble Lords, and, indeed, I used some myself. The sort of figure which is given as a reliable estimate is that about as much poached venison leaves Scotland as is exported legally—about 1,300 tons of each. It has got to that proportion, equalling the legitimate trade, with a worth of about £2 million at present-day prices. When one considers that gangs make £10,000 easily,

81
with individual carcases worth over £100, it is not surprising that, in the absence of real deterrent provisions, it is becoming an epidemic.
On the substantive points about the clause, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, for drawing my attention to the point about projecting any missile. I will think about that. On the point raised by Lord Glenarthur about exempting deer farms, the point is that poachers are hardly likely to be there. It on enclosed land and probably they can keep poachers out. Therefore, it was thought that, in the interest of management of deer, that might sway the argument in favour of allowing the use of vehicles.
I will not deal with more detailed points of the proposed new clause. There has been a general welcome for the principle. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for asking whether the sponsor, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will discuss with me more suitable drafting, and grateful to him for saying that he would. With all that and the assurance that he has given, I am delighted at the outcome of the debate and beg leave to withdraw the new clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 23:
Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption of deer farms from close seasons
. The following subsection shall be inserted after section 21(3) of the said Act of 1959—
"(3A) This section shall not apply to deer on a deer farm.
In this subsection, a deer farm means land enclosed by a deer-proof barrier upon which deer are being reared for the production of venison by recognised methods of animal husbandry and for the production of live animals and upon which all deer are externally marked by ear-tags or collars.".")
The noble Lord said: I hope that this is just a probing amendment. The position regarding the deer farms is not very satisfactory; and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, mentioned the possession of deer. Someone who has deer in a park and is breeding them, would like to hope that he is the owner. But that is another point. It requires United Kingdom legislation. There are a lot of complications in this. There is the question of deer parks, zoos and so on which are interrelated. Before going further, I wonder if my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to say that we will have United Kingdom legislation for deer farms. If that is so, then I need not waste the time of the Committee further. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: As my noble friend has said, in effect, this is a matter on which the Government wanted to get as wide a reaction as possible. That is why it was one of the matters in the consultative paper which my department published last year. The idea got a mixed reception as far as deer farming is concerned. There was a good deal of concern, particularly among some sections of the public, who felt that if deer are to be farmed at all they should be subject to special protection. This is something which we would wish and on which we have started to consult the Farm Animal Welfare Council before taking any legislative action.
I can tell my noble friend that the council has started to pay attention to certain aspects of deer farming but has not yet reached any conclusions. Bearing in
82
mind, as my noble friend has said, that this is something which, like all other farming welfare matters, should be done at least on a Great Britain basis and not merely on a Scottish basis, it therefore seems preferable to wait until we come to a considered view as to what should be done and then do it in the form of a United Kingdom Bill. It should not be done in the context of a Private Members Bill and on an occasion like this.
Lord Burton: I am sorry that my noble friend has not been able to give more of an undertaking that legislation is pending rather than saying that the Farm Animal Welfare Council are getting round to it. Could he not expedite this? I think that it is urgent now. There are lots of complications arising. Deer farmers are anxious to get something in and they have approached me about this. If my noble friend is not able to give an assurance of something forthcoming in the near future, I shall try to put something into this Bill later.
The Earl of Mansfield: Your Lordships may have noticed that all those that have the welfare of animals at heart tend not to keep their remarks concise, to the point and able to be digested by an audience and embodied either in a Green Paper, a White Paper or legislation, easily or at all. In those circumstances, what is a complicated and difficult matter is being considered by the body which advises the Government on these things. We want to get it right. I cannot give an undertaking in respect of possible legislation which is not going to see the light of day until we have received the advice and the Government have had the chance of making up their mind. If the noble Lord thinks I am not going far enough, that is a matter for him. I am being realistic and honest. It is of no use the Government legislating until they have the expert opinion—and they have not got it yet.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Now the noble Earl is using this Bill as a vehicle to attack those who have the welfare of animals at heart. He must be careful not to misuse the vehicle he is given to express his prejudices about those of us who have animal welfare at heart. I understand the Minister's view upon the need for more comprehensive treatment of deer farming than is suitable or possible in this Bill. I am not going to make a long speech. I am merely suggesting that it is desirable not to let practices of deer farming become widespread and established before dealing with them; otherwise we shall have a repetition of what has happened on a previous occasion; merely, that vested interests become firmly established, capital is invested and all sorts of difficulties are then raised against humanitarian methods of dealing with animals.
At the present time, a deer farm is not covered by the slaughterhouses Act. As far as I am aware, no one who kills a deer needs to have a licence to do it in a deer farm so long as he is using slaughterhouse equipment and so on. There are problems here which will need attention. One cannot be more precise in dealing with some of the problems here than to suggest that whatever they are they need examination without undue delay. We were led to expect great things from the Farm Animals Welfare Council. I am sure that it is doing a lot of work and producing results although they are not all that conspicuous at the present time. This has

83
been referred to them and we must look to that, and for the moment be content with that.
I feel that the warning is justified. The mistake we have made in the past is taking too little notice of what was happening until it was so firmly established that we were told that commercial interests, employment and profitability of enterprises and all the other desirable things in our economic situation are in peril if we introduce measures which might conflict with practices that already have grown up.
I will forgive the noble Earl for his attack on me and on others with animal welfare at heart and warn him not to misuse the vehicles—not moving ones; this is a stationary one—when they come to hand.
The Earl of Mansfield: Perish the thought that I should make an attack on the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. If I sent a bonnet sailing into the air and it happened to land on Lord Houghton's head and it fits, that is not my fault. Behind the noble Lord's droll sense of humour, I agree with a great deal of what he has said so far as the matter is concerned. I can assure him that there is no delay and I take his point that one does not want deer farmers to invest too much money and gain too much expertise, which may lead to practices which will have to be altered in the light of a forthcoming Bill. We do not want to go too far down that road before we have the legislation.
Lord Burton: I welcome the last remarks from my noble friend Lord Mansfield, in particular his remarks about the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I was going to say that I am sorry if he had a guilty conscience. This must be one occasion when the Farm Animal Welfare Council would be welcomed by the farmers. I hope that, having drawn this to his attention, there will be effort to get them to co-operate with the farmers and try and get some suitable legislation at an early date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 33, at beginning insert—
("( ) Subject to the provisions of this section and section 33(1) of this Act, if any person uses for the purpose of taking or killing any deer any firearm or ammunition mentioned in Schedule 2A to this Act, he shall be guilty of an offence.
( ) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason of the use, for the purpose of taking or killing any roc deer, of any rifle having a calibre of not less than 0.218 inches (5.54 millimetres) which is loaded with—

(a) a cartridge or load so designed that, when it is fired in a rifle, the bullet discharged has a muzzle energy of not less than 1,094 foot pounds (1,483 joules); and

(b) a cartridge purporting to contain a bullet which weighs not less than 50 grains (3.24 grammes) and is an expanding bullet designed to deform in a predictable manner and thereby increase its effective diameter upon entering tissue.

( ) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason of the use, for the purpose of taking or killing any deer on any arable land, garden grounds or land laid down in permanent pasture (other than moorland and unenclosed land) forming part of that land or on enclosed woodland, as the case may be, of any smooth-bore gun of not less gauge than 12 bore which is loaded with—

(a) a cartridge containing a single non-spherical projectile weighing not less than 350 grains (22.68 grammes); or

84

(b) a cartridge purporting to contain shot each of which is 0.203 inches (5.16 millimeters) in diameter (that is to say, size AAA),

if—

(i) he has reasonable grounds for believing that deer of the same species are causing, or have caused, damage to crops, pasture, vegetables, fruit, trees or human or animal foodstuffs on that land; and

(ii) it is likely that further damage will be so caused and any such damage is likely to be serious; and

(iii) his action is necessary for the purpose of preventing any such damage.").

The noble Lord said: This is a weighty amendment, taking up quite a space on the Marshalled List. It deals with prohibited weapons. This was the subject of some exchanges between myself and the noble Earl during Second Reading. In effect, the Bill as at present drafted leaves it all to the Secretary of State to provide as he may think fit by order for the definition of any weapons that should not be used in the killing of deer, whereas I said at Second Reading, and repeat now, that it is appropriate to put in the minimum requirements in this matter into the Bill in relation to prohibited firearms and ammunition, and to profit from the exchanges, debate and final agreement that we reached on this matter in debates on the recent Deer Act which applies to England and Wales.
At the end of those debates there was a consensus about the weapons which hould be allowed and those that should be outlawed. Those are broadly copied in this present amendment. Experience may show that provisions should be modified in some way or other. For example, because there might be a new design of weapons or cartridges. The Minister would then still have the powers to vary what is proposed.
I should state that, with the leave of the Committee, we are discussing not only Amendment No. 24 but also Amendment No. 27, which goes with it, and, more important than that, Schedule 2A which is on page 16 of the Marshalled List. It would be by order that the Minister would be able to modify the minimum provisions which are laid down particularly in Amendment No. 24 and the new schedule which goes with it.
One of the objections to Clause 6 of the Bill as at present drafted is that if the Minister simply retains the power to make orders, the House is always in the difficult position that it cannot amend any such orders. It can only reject or accept such an order. If the Minister comes forward with what we think are inadequate or technically deficient matters in the proposed orders that he brings, we are in a difficulty. We shall be told: "You are stopping some small steps in the right direction by objecting to such an order". There will always be an argument for saying, "Take your quarter loaf or half loaf and do not keep asking for the whole one". The difficulty is that we do not know what it might be that the Minister will be offering as a minimum. That is why I return to the point that it is not satisfactory to let him do all that is proposed by order, and we ought to state the minimum provisions first and let the Secretary of State have power to vary afterwards.
Secondly, in this amendment and the proposed new schedule it will be seen that I have been persuaded that there is a case for allowing certain smaller calibres of rifles for killing roe deer in Scotland. The ballistics that are in my amendment are the result of advice from

85
a number of people who can be regarded as experts. The minimum calibre of rifle that I propose, 0·128 inches, allows the ·222 cartridge to be used. This I think has the right foot pounds energy at 100 yards. That is one way of meeting Scottish conditions.
The third part of the amendment is based on provisions now in force south of the Border and reached after long consultation with the National Farmers' Union which are most co-operative. It refers to the restrictions or the exceptions to be made for the use of the shotgun which is of course first outlawed in the schedule but allowed to be used in the exceptions which are in the latter part of Amendment No. 24. These were the exceptions on which consensus was reached in the debates on the English and Welsh legislation.
It will be said that the shotgun cannot be outlawed in a preliminary way as I propose because chief constables will not give people firearms certificates. I hope that we can put this argument to rest once and for all. When the Deer Act was going through the House I read out—and it is all on the record—letters from chief constables making it quite clear that they had no reason to believe that this was so. They are quite happy to issue firearms certificates in appropriate cases where there are deer to be kept under control in a proper way. Indeed, some of the letters I read out made it clear that they would prefer this so that they have a better control of what is going on in the countryside. I hope that that silly argument is not going to be raised all over again, meaning that we have to write yet again to chief constables to get them to put this on the record. I hope that we shall not enter into a long argument about ballistics. If I have the ballistics slightly wrong, that is something we can put right at the Report stage of the Bill.
Last of all it will be said that the crofters need all these powers. If we are going to legislate for the crofters, let us remember that when we dealt with the English legislation we were dealing with an equally large number, an equally strong lobby, of very small farmers in England and Wales. I do not see that any special exception on the shotgun issue has to be made because of the size of crofting in Scotland when it is not dissimilar from the size or the numbers of small farms that exist south of the Border.
I repeat that the main principle is to get minimum provisions which the House has discussed and agreed on as a consensus on previous occasions, as a starting point for the gradual outlawing of the less reputable ways of killing deer. I know many members of the Committee are horrified that we are so far behind other countries in this matter of gradually outlawing the worst weapons in our own countryside. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: I greatly prefer the wording of the Bill to that of this amendment. I much prefer that this matter should be one for the professional advice of the Red Deer Commission and for adjustment from time to time with professional advice which is what is provided for in the Bill.
There is one obvious difference between the approach of the Red Deer Commission to this matter and that of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. That makes me more confident in leaving the matter in the hands of the Secretary of State rather than trying to legislate
86
precisely on technical matters and hoping that these matters will be adjusted from time to time. I know that the Red Deer Commission prefer to talk in terms of striking energy rather than muzzle energy. There is a considerable difference between the two. One has to maintain a fair amount of flexibility because new weapons are constantly coming in and new weapons are constantly being produced. New bullet shapes may produce different striking energies in bullets.
The way that the Bill has been drafted in this particular aspect is excellent, although I have a probing amendment following this one on this very subject. I do not know whether your Lordships feel I should speak to it at this stage, but my probing amendment which follows is merely to make sure that the Red Deer Commission are the principal advisers of the Secretary of State in matters of weaponry. But certainly I would much prefer that your Lordships stayed with the provisions of the Bill rather than with this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think I would take up exactly the same point as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. When it comes to the matter of outlawing arms, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that we in Scotland, and particularly in the Highlands, are very familiar with the outlawing of arms even for our own protection by the English, following, I think, the 1745 Rebellion; so we are not always all that willing to listen to the advice we are given on the outlawing of arms by an Englishman, although probably with the best will in the world on this occasion the noble Lord thought this was right to put into the Bill. I know the arguments very well, but I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland will probably know fairly well the circumstances in relation to Scotland, and certainly to that part of Scotland where we are concerned about the use of firearms in respect of deer, and will be in close touch with all the organisations concerned.
When the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, spoke about and dismissed aspects of the crofters, I do not know how familiar he is with them or with the whole history of crofting or, indeed, with that celebated occasion when the crofters on Lewis actually took over the whole of the deer forests, lit fires all over the place and roasted deer in order to draw the attention of the country to their particular problems. Of course, there were arrests, and so on; but as far as he is concerned I am perfectly sure that the small farmers in England have nothing at all to do with the whole tradition and attitude regarding deer in Scotland. It was the crofters who were driven out to what were delightfully called the "heavily populated areas" and they were governed by the "congested districts" legislation thereafter. Venison was their food until they were driven out and the sheep were put in. Then, of course, the profitability and the market for sheep fell and back came the deer. Then they were all branded as poachers.
That is why I am concerned about this amendment. That is also why I want a lot of proof about commercial poaching, and no infringement of the rights of the small farmers and crofters. Therefore, I think he was going far too far, in dismissing the National

87
Farmers Union of Scotland, from whom no doubt he received a letter. He has to bear in mind:
"In addition, we realise the shortcomings of the use of shotguns against deer but they are the only firearms available to many members and so the right to their use must be retained."—
and, of course, retained under very strict control. So, much as I agree with many of the things that the noble Lord said, I do not think that he is entirely au fait with the circumstances and the whole traditions of the Highlands of Scotland.
Lord Northfield: Before my noble friend sits down, may I point out to him that the amendment in fact authorises the use of the shotgun by crofters in the circumstances, as he says, with strict controls; so I do not know what he was really criticising.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I was criticising the whole attitude of the dismissal and I hope we do not have the arguments all over again. We must only have the arguments in respect of an English Bill. When it comes to a Scottish Bill, please shut up and let us get on with it! I wish the noble Lord had been a member of the Scottish Grand Committee in 1959 when we discussed the original Bill, and there to withstand the spate of the honourable Member for the Western Isles, Mr. Malcom Macmillan, at that time. I can assure him he would be standing here for hours on the subject and letting people know just how the people in the Highlands felt about deer, and the taking of deer.
Lord Dulverton: Although during Second Reading I expressed regret that this Bill could not have contained provisions for the regulation of proper weapons with which to shoot deer, on further thought I have come to the conclusion that we are much better to leave it as it stands in the Bill, although I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in his expressions. But I hope he will accept the advice which has already come from various parts of the Committee that perhpas he might leave it to the Secretary of State whom the Bill charges to undertake consultation with certain interested parties.
I do not want to detain the Committee because it is getting late, but we had some very serious talks in the Red Deer Commission about rifles. We even got to talking about rifles and roe deer, and whereas the treble-two delivers a foot pound energy of 700 or 750 at 100 yards, there are people who loose off at roe deer at 200 yards and then that figure is a gerat deal lower. I mention that in reinforcement of my feeling about this amendment, and I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it and leave it to the Secretary of State to give the matter further and full consideration, and that right soon.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: This is a stage in the Bill in which the English are made to feel somewhat inferior. I recall that Mr. Macmillan once said:
"The English should remember that they are a subject people".
I think there is probably some truth in that, but the Scots did have the opportunity of taking their deer and a great deal else into their own bosoms and their own legislature, which now stands empty and ill used in
88
Edinburgh. We in your Lordships' Chamber should not have been troubled, of course, with these matters at all if the Scots had accepted the opportunity. But there were not enough Scots who wanted it that way and so we are left with Scottish Bills in the Westminster Parliament, which often means that we either keep out of debates altogether or, if we go into them, we have to listen with good grace to the sort of criticism that we do not understand, that we have not been there or that the conditions faced by the small farmer in England cannot be compared with those existing in Scotland. I think we have to accept this with good grace and good humour, as I do. Nevertheless I want to inquire whether it was the regulations in connection with Clause 6 of the Bill on which Lord Glenarthur ventured the opinion that the Secretary of State was almost ready with those regulations. I have not looked it up in the Official Report, but I believe that I said that if they were nearly ready would it not be a good thing if we knew what they were, so that they could be incorporated into the Bill?
I accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has said about changes in weapons and in the mechanics of killing. Bills are very often difficult to amend in parliamentary time, and regulations are easier to introduce. Nevertheless, the cruelty aspect of the whole deer business depends a great deal on the weapons which are to be used to kill them, and from time to time we are rather horrified to read of the kind of carnage which goes on in all parts of Scotland. I think that so long as we are the United Kingdom cruelty is indivisable and we have to be concerned with it wherever it may occur.
I am in two minds about this. I should like to see the amendment in the Bill, and I am wondering what possible advantage there can be in leaving it to the Secretary of State, if consultations have taken place and are now sufficiently advanced for us to hear what the regulations might be. If they will be very much like the amendment, there is probably no reason why this should be held back. However, if in this flexibility there will be a good deal of licence in certain circumstances to use a shotgun, then we ought to know more about the circumstances in which that would be permitted. This is a difficult one, and the Government ought to help us on this rather more, if they are ready, or nearly ready, with regulations. If much consultation still has to take place, that is rather a different matter.
The Earl of Mansfield: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, put a great deal of thought and careful work into these amendments and, I have no doubt, a lot of research as well. If the Bill becomes an Act in the form that I should like to see, I am fairly sure that, when the Secretary of State comes to make his first batch of regulations, a lot of the noble Lord's careful work will be reflected in them. But I am bound to say that I do not think the noble Lord has fully appreciated the differences between Scotland and England and the fact that we have different ways of doing things and, dare I say it, even a different NFU which takes a decidely different view of small farmers from the English one.
There are considerable differences of view over this matter of weapons. Some people would like an outright ban on shotguns. Some people have doubts

89
about self-loading rifles. Automatics are, of course, already banned in Scotland. Some experts would like to see ammunition defined in terms of striking energy, rather than muzzle energy. All these questions would have to be gone into by the Secretary of State before any regulations came to be tabled. I have no doubt that the Red Deer Commission and such bodies as chief constables and, possibly, local authorities, as well as the welfare associations, would play a considerable part in such discussions. But I am quite sure that the way that is proposed in the Bill—and, if it helps the noble Lord, I may have good news for him when we come to Amendment No. 30—is the right way to do it.
The only other thing that I would say to the noble Lord is this. If his amendment were accepted, it would make the use of a shotgun—and I bear in mind the safeguard of the single-ball cartridge—conditional on the farmer establishing that damage has been caused and that further damage is expected. I know that this exists as part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but in Scotland it would establish a new principle and would be deeply resented by the farming community. If we are to debate such a provision, we should do it when we come to Clause 8 and not on a matter such as this.
I have listened to the debate, and particularly to what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said, but for all those reasons I am convinced that we are going about this in the right way—the Scottish way. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, and I are poles apart politically, but I acknowledge without reservation that he has a definite feel for things Scottish. It is not really my Bill, but I am still going to ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northfield: I am very grateful for the courtesy of the noble Earl. It is in contrast to the remarks of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I must say to him that, during all the proceedings on the English Deer Bill, we never complained that it was mainly Scottish Peers who were doing all the debating, and I am surprised that, in the reverse sense, he now raises that old one on my amendment.
But the most important thing which the noble Earl said was that the kind of attempt we have made to define weapons in this amendment will be considered by the Government when they come to make orders under the Bill as drafted. That is a very heartening and helpful statement for him to have made. In those circumstances, I shall not detain the Committee. The noble Earl has been extremely helpful and I should like to think over what he has said. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 33, at beginning insert ("If so advised by the Red Deer Commission,").
The noble Viscount said: I said that this was a probing amendment and, on reflection, I feel that the Secretary of State will obviously take the advice of his adviser and I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
8.46 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4) of this section,").
The noble Lord said: Having heard what my noble friend on the Front Bench has just said, I am even more apprehensive about this question of weapons. The intention of this amendment is to make any order on weapons an affirmative order rather than, as is the case in the rest of the Bill, a negative order which would have to be prayed against. The affirmative order would have to be brought to Parliament for approval. I would hate to think that this important matter of weapons should be left for someone to see, wherever it is published, and to pray against it here if that were necessary.
I have no doubt that my noble friend and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State are well acquainted with weaponry, but one must bear in mind that from time to time a future Secretary of State and Minister of State may have little knowledge of weapons, and may well become subjected to pressures which are not in the best interests of the objects of this Bill. Although my noble friend on the Front Bench knows a good deal about weapons, I am a little apprehensive about some of the pressures to which he has already been subjected.
Clearly one does not want lengthy discussions in Parliament on the various calibres, foot poundages and so on. That is why the working party decided that there should not be a schedule to the Bill, like the English Act, but that the matter should be decided upon after consultation with the Secretary of State. However, it is important that this is looked at by Parliament and does not just slip through on the nod. The affirmative order has been used in a number of places in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Therefore, it is an appropriate type of order to use in this case. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My noble friend will know that any orders or regulations made under the 1959 Act are subject to negative resolution. The same would normally apply to the provisions of this Bill. This amendment would, therefore, make an exception in the case of firearms which would be subject to affirmative resolution. It is right to say that one must pay attention to the fact that there will be considerable consultations in Scotland before an order is made. It follows from that—Scotland being a small country, and the number of people who take an interest in matters of this kind being limited—that everybody will know and appreciate what is in the wind, long before it actually comes to the Table of your Lordships' House and to the other place. So that there is no question of anything slipping through on the nod, without people, who might well object to the provisions of such an order, having the chance to get in touch with somebody in either House and have the matter discussed.
My difficulty about this is that the other place is already quite incapable of dealing with its ordinary business, because of time constrictions. I feel very hesitant about proposing to my noble friend that he should accept this amendment, if by accepting it he is in any way likely to prejudice the future progress of the Bill. Perhaps I could get the feeling of the House on this amendment. If there is very strong feeling about it, we will take it away and have another look at it.
Lord Inglewood: May I support my noble friend's amendment. I know all the arguments as between a negative and a positive resolution, and in my day have had to argue them. I think that the speech which we have just heard is very much common form. On the other hand, the substance of this section is not common form; it is the wider use of firearms and their control at a time when most of us would like there to be less use of firearms. Therefore, I feel that with regard not only to the general principle but to the timing, too, it is important that this House should have closer control over what is proposed in this section.
The Earl of Mansfield: If I give to my noble friend an undertaking that I will think about it, perhaps he will consider withdrawing the amendment for the time being.
Lord Burton: With your Lordships' leave, on that undertaking I have great pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("and ammunition") and insert (", sights of such weapons, ammunition and other equipment").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I might also speak to Amendment No. 29. There is concern that weapons and ammunition may not cover the sights of weapons. Many innovations have been introduced as a result of modern technology. There is an image intensifier which allows one to see at night as well as one can see during the day. There are also heat finding sights. These may be appropriate in Northern Ireland, but if they were to be used in our woods one might find a couple at the end of one's sights rather than a deer. This sort of thing should not be allowed. I am a little worried about the fact that we shall be restricting the Secretary of State if we refer to the weapons themselves and to the ammunition therefor. I am not altogether happy with my wording, which refers to "and other equipment". These new pieces of equipment are coming into being and they ought to be covered. If, therefore, better wording could be devised, I should be very happy if it were incorporated.
Lord Glenarthur: We ought to be wary of the argument that if it is to be used by poachers it should be banned, which I think is the broad thrust of the noble Lord's argument. To take the argument to its logical conclusion, we should not then kill any deer. There is another point of view: that if one is going to shoot in the dark (this comes into the Bill later, though my noble friend is talking about it now) it is best that at least the most efficient method possible should be used. This could include light-intensifying, image-intensifying sights. If my noble friend would agree to withdraw his amendment at this point, we should be prepared to take it away, obtain advice on it and come back to it later.
Lord Burton: I am trying to increase the area in which the Secretary of State would have powers to make orders. This is the important side of the argument. I am not saying that these sights should or should not be used. However, new devices are coming along all the time. Therefore, it is important that we should look
92
at the matter widely. If the amendment is going to be looked at again, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 42, after ("to be") insert ("interested in or").
The noble Lord said: I understand that this amendment is acceptable. It would widen the groups of people who would be consulted before orders concerning weapons were made. It would allow those interested in and not simply those affected by the proposed orders to be consulted. This would be a very helpful improvement which is in line with other, similar legislation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I agree with what the noble Lord has said and I would ask my noble friend to accept the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: I accept it.
Lord Northfield: I am much obliged.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful to use any smooth-bore gun for the purpose of killing any deer.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very important amendment, because so much cruelty can be involved. The reply which I receive on this amendment will probably be that it ought to be left to the Secretary of State, as in the case of the other weapons. But this is rather a different matter from straight ballistics. We have already banned weapons like the crossbow. The smoooth-bore gun is a totally different weapon and must be considered completely separately. I do not think we can leave this matter to the Secretary of State. My noble friend on the Front Bench has already implied that he has come under pressure from certain interests and that the shotgun might very well not be banned.
During our Second Reading debate I told your Lordships that I personally have twice had to shoot stags which had been blinded by shotguns. It is a disgusting performance. The shotgun, of whatever calibre, is not a suitable weapon to use on red deer. Many people say that it is not a suitable weapon to use on any deer, even with big shot. But certainly on red deer it is not a suitable weapon to use. If one is going to use a shotgun, one must get very close to the animal. Unless you have organised drives, which is not what the NFU is talking about, you will not get close enough, apart from at night. We should not allow all and sundry to blaze away with shotguns at night when there is a very grave risk of wounding animals and causing a great deal of suffering.
The theory is that we must leave this in, because various people cannot get firearms certificates. I do not need to deal with that point. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, raised this matter earlier. People can get firearms certificates. Indeed, in the north of Scotland there are too many firearms certificates. Anybody who has a reasonable excuse can get one, because the chief constable is frightened that there

93
may be an appeal to the sheriff who would overthrow his authority, which might open the floodgates to even more firearms certificates. This is not a valid excuse for causing extreme cruelty. If one is going to use a shotgun throughout the day, the probability is that one will be unable to get close enough to the animal. If it is in the middle of a field eating turnips, you will certainly not get close to it.
Apart from this, there have been a fair number of animals—I cannot give statistics—going to the venison dealers with shotgun pellets in them. These animals have been wounded, and I do not think that we should tolerate it. It is wrong of the NFU to say that we should have this, because it is not extensively used. I have telephoned most of the game dealers and have asked them what animals they have had on their premises which have been shot with a shotgun. Two of the dealers said that they would not take them, because they thought it was extremely cruel if they had been shot with a shotgun. Another dealer said that he had seen an animal which had been shot with a shotgun. When he was asked about this he said that he had not seen it within the last three years: it must have been about four years ago. That was the nearest I got to getting any red deer shot with a shotgun. Therefore, for anybody to say that this is extensively needed is absolute nonsense. We cannot tolerate such cruelty, merely for a supposition.
I have asked the NFU to give me instances of when it is essential and necessary for any of their members to use a shotgun. They have been unable to provide one single instance. But cruelty is taking place. I mentioned just now the case of a poacher who shot several with a gun. This was at night. At last he was apprehended and he will not be doing it again for another three months. This is an entirely different matter from the calibre of weapons and I feel so strongly about this, as I am sure a number of other noble Lords do too, that whatever the NFU says—and if they are going to make these allegations they must produce evidence—we should turn it down. It is great cruelty and should not be allowed.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support my noble friend very strongly. My noble friend only has to come to the Isle of Mull to see my deer larder and the amount of stags which do have shot in them. I have seen half their jaws shot away. That happens when the poacher uses solid slugs. To kill a mature stag with a shotgun one has to be incredibly near—no further away than 15 yards, and one would have to do it by light at night. But it is an extremely cruel practice. The RSPCA may complain about it, but why do the anti-blood sport people not do anything about it? They are just not interested in that kind of thing. It is incredibly cruel; it should not be allowed and should be legislated against.
Lord Northfield: I applaud the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and the sincerity with which he moved this. We have had this argument many times in this Chamber in recent years, concerning deer legislation, and I have never heard a voice raised in defence of the use of the shotgun on large species of deer. The amendment goes much further than my own amendment, upon which my noble friend on the Front Bench poured scorn. Indeed, my amendment would have
94
allowed continued use of the shotgun by occupiers needing to protect their crops. This amendment would outlaw it completely. Once I have heard the kind of support which one gets in this House for a campaign against the shotgun. I must wonder whether my amendment went far enough in the first place.
I do not believe it is likely that this amendment will be accepted. I would be very glad indeed to have an assurance from the noble Lord the Minister that this would be one of the first things to be considered under the powers given to the Minister; to begin by defining classes of weapons which are not to be used. That would be a very helpful step forward. Otherwise we will have the long business, as we did in England and Wales, of convincing farmers—small farmers in particular—of the cruelty involved. We are pretty well the last country to outlaw this desperate weapon and it would be very helpful if we could have an assurance that some campaign will be mounted gradually to convince farmers that they do not need this and that it should be outlawed as soon as possible.
Lord Glenkinglas: I would like to say a word or two in support of this amendment. I know perfectly well that the NFU is very keen that we should not remove shotguns. The reason is quite simple. If one goes round the crofting counties and the areas where crofters are, almost everyone has a shotgun but coparatively few people have a rifle. They know perfectly well that they are not going to kill the deer in 99 cases out of 100, but it gives them some satisfaction if there is a deer in the field to go out and fire a gun at it. This is purely a "Get off my ground" attitude which they can take and get away with. It is entirely cruel, it is entirely ineffective, and it should be stopped.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I wonder whether my noble friend who has introduced this Bill has sufficiently pondered the difficulties of policing the provisions under this and certain other clauses? Scotland is a large place, but the population is very thin on the ground. The members of the police force are stationed at very wide intervals and therefore there is ample scope for people of ill-intention to poach. They are able to use almost any weapon they like with only the smallest likelihood of being caught and checked. Unless and until there can be quite a different enforcement pattern in Scotland (the only pattern I can see is that the Special Constabulary should be greatly increased in these areas), I believe there is going to be a great deal of additional poaching under this Bill and very little check on it.
Lord Glenkinglas: If I may say so, my noble friend who has just sat down got the problem slightly wrong. It is not the poachers who are asking us to keep the shotgun; it is the NFU. They are asking for this for quite the wrong reason.
Lord Inglewood: I was being tactful.
The Earl of Mansfield: There is great strength of feeling in the House on this matter. It seems only but a minute since I was sitting where the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is seated now and was gazing across at the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, as he was propounding this over the English legislation, which I as a Scot was perfectly happy to debate.

95
The fact of the matter is that this amendment goes a great deal further than the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield as he has very properly said. I have to repeat that what this amendment would do would be not just to curtail the present right of occupiers but would absolutely, in a black and white fashion, forbid the use of the shotgun. I have no doubt that many noble Lords would say, "And a very good thing too". Unfortunately, we have to be realistic on this matter. I have absolutely no doubt that if this amendment was put into the Bill by one means or another, it would be killed stone dead—in which case we would all go back to the 1959 Act, and all the things which so many of us want to do by way of reform would have to wait for another legislative opportunity—and I do not know when that would come.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, very much to heart. We do have to go at this in a way which will commend itself to many divergent views. We cannot just dismiss the many thousands of crofters who have over the years adopted the shotgun and have used it, as my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas has illustrated, in the same way that my noble friend Lord Burton uses his winking lamps—which I hope he does not purloin from the nearest roadworks—as a warning. I hope that on reflection the House will accept what was the general consensus on the more far-reaching amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that it is really up to the Secretary of State to take the view of everybody and every organisation which will be affected and then to lay the necessary order.
I think that the great virtue of taking power as opposed to writing it into a Bill is that the Secretary of State, can as public opinion develops, take several bites of the cherry. I think there is a lot to be said for that. I think one of the results of the banning of shotguns—I take my noble friend Lord Inglewood's point, although I am not sure it is the one he was making—would be the proliferation of rifles in scattered rural communities in Scotland. I am not sure that that would not lead to more poaching from farmers who could see a very much better way of using the rifle hanging on the wall to increase the cash flow.
All these are matters which the Secretary of State will have to go into. For myself, I would hope that very quickly we can get to a stage where we can introduce the sort of rules by virtue of orders which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and indeed all your Lordships, would like to see. But for the reasons I have given, not least because we do want this Bill to make progress, I cannot recommend the Committee to accept this amendment tonight.
Lord Glenkinglas: When my noble friend is thinking about these things with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, would he bear in mind that he is putting this House in a pretty difficult situation. What, in effect, he is saying is that if we ban shotguns it infuriates the NFU and they will stop the Bill at Second Reading in the other place; whereas if we accept them, all those people who feel very strongly about cruelty may well stop it in the other place also. If that is the sort of situation we are in, I think it is high time the Government took over the Bill as their own.
Viscount Thurso: I think we must recognise here that we could not suddenly ban the shotgun and hope that things would be under control. It would have to be phased in, first of all choosing proper ammunition and that kind of thing, trying to work it so that there was better control of marauding by the Red Deer Commission and so on. Many things can create the climate in which ultimately, it would be possible to ban the shotgun, but it could not be done by consent simply by laying it down in this Bill.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken. There are a number of things that have to be taken into account, somewhere, sometime, before we can be sure that what we do will bring in legislation which will prevail. I think the problem here is that the farming community go on assuming that their word is going to be the last word, without taking into account the changes in public opinion in society today towards their treatment and many other people's treatment of animals. I resent the easy thought that if you mention the NFU you are mentioning an authority, an opinion that must be respected and held almost sacred; whereas if you talk about trade unions, which, after all, the NFU is, you get all the prejudices against union power. NFU power is just as objectional as Transport and General Workers' Union power, and they both must be assailed where they are being misused for the protection of particular interests, and not taking full account of public opinion and the public interest.
These small farmers we hear a lot about, especially in England, we know have shotguns, and they tell us that they cannot afford rifles. The idea, presumably, is that a shotgun is a general use weapon whereas a rifle is a particular use weapon. Shall they have expensive rifles to shoot deer humanely, or can they still use shotguns inhumanely? I was very glad indeed to hear some passion in the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Burton. There is far too little passion in your Lordships' House on matters of this kind. I know the noble Earl on the Front Bench thinks that animal welfare people are woolly-minded and not precise in their approach to particular methods of reform, but the emotional case here can sometimes be translated into practical action. This is what it is all about.
I would be more comforted by the smooth words we have listened to from the Minister if I knew what sort of status these regulations will have in our procedure. Will it be the negative procedure or the positive procedure? If these regulations are there to be prayed against, we know that there will be great difficulty in getting the time to do it. A prayer in another place cannot get time for debate unless the Government Whips of the day are prepared to give it. The opportunity for debate while the regulations are still in a draft stage is unlikely to come. I am not sure of the procedure in your Lordships' House. But at any rate, if we had the positive procedure subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament—and that is an amendment down on the Order Paper later—I think that we could feel that we would be in control of the situation in the ultimate, even if it meant rejecting the draft orders that were presented to us if they were not satisfactory.
Without some assurance of that kind we shall be

97
in the hands of the Secretary of State, and he will be in the hands of the Scottish Farmers' Union. We had all this in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. We heard all about the farming interests. They are, of course, very important indeed, but they are not paramount in dealing with animal life. There are other principles upon which the community must insist.
If the farmers want more help to be less cruel—all right, give it to them. I would provide rifles under the National Health Service or any other scheme, or state aid in order that small farmers could not plead poverty when it came to using humane weapons. What has the Minister to say about draft regulations? Who will have the ultimate say about them? This is very important.
The Earl of Mansfield: I gave an undertaking to my noble friend, who has already proposed that these regulations should be by the affirmative resolution procedure, that I would think very carefully about it. I shall think even more carefully following the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
Lord Burton: Apart from the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, was one of the few who spoke against the amendment. He spoke about the matter being phased in. This occurs hardly at all. There is absolutely no need. There is no question of phasing it in. It is used on so few occasions anyway except, as has been said, it has been used for wounding deer. I do not think that we should allow this to continue.
As regards what my noble friend on the Front Bench, and, I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, have said, we cannot be dictated to here by a small section of the community. It is not the whole of the National Farmers' Union. Many people have the same views as we do. Many of them do not like the shotgun. But there is a quite small section that is frightened that they will lose votes the next time they have to vote for the presidency of the NFU. That is what it amounts to. They all say without exception, "Oh, we would not use the gun, but we have to allow for…". I say, "Allow for who?" They cannot tell me.
So we are between the devil and the deep blue sea here. We have the Minister saying that if we leave it to the order it will probably not go through because the NFU will not accept it. If we turn it down here we are being told that because we ban the gun we ban the Bill. This is a ridiculous state of affairs. If we put it through and it goes to the other place, I believe that the other place will have as many people there as we have here tonight who will dislike the use of the shotgun on red deer or any deer. The situation is such that I do not think that we can leave it. I do not see how I can withdraw what I think is a very important amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That Amendment No. 31 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Contents and the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division, therefore, cannot take place and, in accordance with Standing Order No. 50(3), which provides that no proposal to amend the Bill in the form in which
98
it is before the Committee shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
I have to point out that if Amendment No. 32 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 33 or 34.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert—
("(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, a person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both.
(4) Where an offence under this section was committed in respect of more than one deer the maximum fine which may be imposed under the last foregoing subsection shall be determined as if the person convicted had been convicted of a separate offence in respect of each deer.
(5) In this section "roe-deer" means deer of the species capreolus capreolus.".").
The noble Lord said: Once again, I am very grateful for the courtesy of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, because on Second Reading he agreed that the issue which is the subject of my amendment was an unfortunate omission from the Bill; namely, that the offences shall be in respect of each deer in the case of this part of the clause. Therefore, I hope that my amendment, or the one that is substantially like it in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur—Amendment No. 34—will be acceptable.
Lord Glenarthur: I think that I am at one with Lord Northfield's intention in his amendment. However, I believe that it can be achieved by a shorter amendment. Additionally, my amendment picks up the consequential point that just as an offence against Clause 23 attracts stiffer penalties under Clause 24, where two or more persons are involved in acting together, the same possibility should be open for offences against the new Section 23A. Therefore, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment and perhaps we could then accept mine.
Lord Northfield: I am most grateful. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I shall look at what his amendment will do to the Bill and consider whether it needs any further amendment at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 4, after ("£500") insert ("in relation to each deer killed or taken or attempted to be killed or taken").
The noble Lord said: I think that I probably covered this when I spoke to Amendment No. 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in that my amendment is shorter and probably more efficient. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert—
("(2) In section 24 of the said Act of 1959, for "either of the two" there shall be substituted "any of the three ".").
The noble Lord said: This is the same amendment. It is really consequential on Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Burton Lord Burton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert—
("(4) No order made under this section shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment. Not moved.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
On Question, Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved amendment No. 38:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s. 25 of 1959 Act.
. Section 25 of the said Act of 1959 shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (2), for the word "twenty-two" there shall be substituted the word "twenty-one";

(b) in subsection (3), for the words "said sections twenty-two" there shall be substituted the words "said sections twenty-one";

(c) subsection (4) shall be omitted.").

The noble Lord said: This is a short amendment which I hope we can deal with briefly. This part of the Bill deals with Section 25 of the 1959 Act and subsections (2) and (3) thereof. It deals with people found in possession of deer or of firearms and ammunition in circumstances that can reasonably be suspected to be connected with poaching or killing at night. It provides that in case of either suspicious possession of firearms, or deer obtained by the use of such firearms, one can be charged with unlawful possession of those firearms.
I would suggest that this provision about firearms should apply not only to people suspected of poaching or killing at night, but also to those suspected of killing out of season, and that is the whole point of my amendment. If my amendment is accepted, it would apply to those killing out of season. Secondly, I would point out that paragraph (c) of my amendment is there not because I wish to delete the provision of conviction on one person's evidence, but because I want to make one person's evidence more widely applicable in the Bill by a later amendment, No. 66, and in that sense paragraph (c) is only a paving amendment for my later Amendment No. 66. The main point is the first one I have made, the extension of this provision to people caught shooting out of season I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I might deal with parts of this amendment separately. Paragraphs (a) and (b) assume that a breach of the close season is in itself a serious a enough offence to warrant a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm on suspicion. Those who framed the 1959 Act were clearly at pains to distinguish between the offence of shooting out of season and other offences. I am not convinced that we need a change now.
100
For example, I cannot possibly believe that for somebody to shoot a hind, perhaps 36 hours before the normal season for shooting hinds comes into effect, either on purpose or indeed accidentally, merits nearly such a severe penalty as one of actually being on the ground unlawfully and poaching, in the way that Lord Northfield's amendment would lead us to believe. For that reason, I do not think that I can really accept what he says.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment paves the way for a later amendment which purports to extend the range of offenders for which one may be convicted on the evidence of one witness. I shall have more to say about that when we reach it, as no doubt will my noble friend Lord Mansfield. Suffice it to say here that there are grave objections to that principle, and I hope that the noble Lord might withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northfield: I am not really satisfied because the Act, as it stands at the moment, makes this an offence in respect of shooting at night. I should have thought that what the noble Lord said about accidentally shooting one a few hours before the end of the close season can be said also about people who shoot half an hour before daylight. In other words, he is making a wrong comparison. The comparison that is needed to be made is why is it an offence to do this half an hour before daylight and not a day before the end of the close season. The noble Lord is being quite illogical over this. I hope he will reflect on what I have said and will see that he is making a totally wrong comparison. I shall think about it, as I hope he will, and we can discuss it privately. On the basis that I shall return to the matter on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur: I suggest that we have reached a convenient point at which to stop, and accordingly I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  REFUGEES FROM EASTERN EUROPE
  REFUGEES FROM EASTERN EUROPE
  IMMIGRATION ACT 1971: DEPORTATION
  IMMIGRATION ACT 1971: DEPORTATION
  INDIA OFFICE LIBRARY AND RECORDS: COLLECTIONS
  INDIA OFFICE LIBRARY AND RECORDS: COLLECTIONS
  EL SALVADOR: ELECTION OBSERVERS
  EL SALVADOR: ELECTION OBSERVERS
  GLOBAL NEGOTIATIONS: NEW DELHI CONFERENCE REQUEST
  GLOBAL NEGOTIATIONS: NEW DELHI CONFERENCE REQUEST
  EAST TIMOR
  EAST TIMOR
  NATURE CONSERVATION CIRCULAR: REVISION
  NATURE CONSERVATION CIRCULAR: REVISION
  SWANS: LEAD POISONING
  SWANS: LEAD POISONING
  NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL: GRANT-IN-AID
  NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL: GRANT-IN-AID
  WILD BIRDS: PROTECTION AREAS
  WILD BIRDS: PROTECTION AREAS
  HOUSING AUTHORITIES: NORTH WILTSHIRE SCHEME
  HOUSING AUTHORITIES: NORTH WILTSHIRE SCHEME
  IRISH REPUBLIC: U.K. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
  IRISH REPUBLIC: U.K. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS