Sitting of 21 October 1982

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON TRANSPORT (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
  To be considered upon Monday 25 October.
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL
  (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 26 October.
  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (SUSPENSION):
  That so much of the Lords Message [18th October] as relates to the Hampshire Bill [Lords] and the Nottinghamshire County Council Bill [Lords] be now considered.
  That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.
  Order for consideration of the Lords Message [18 October] read.
  To be considered upon Wednesday 27 October at Seven o' clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about the common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in securing a revised common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Spearingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the latest state of negotiations on a common fisheries policy of the European Economic Community.
    Sir Patrick Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the development of a common fisheries policy.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Since my right hon. Friend last reported to the House in July, the
    486
    Council of Fisheries Ministers met in Luxembourg on 4 October. No real progress was made because Denmark alone was not prepared to negotiate. The next Council meeting is planned for 25 October.
    Mr. Brotherton: I wish my right hon. Friend a happy Trafalgar Day.
    Mr. Foulkes: It should be Waterloo.
    Mr. Brotherton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern that is felt by the fishing industry about the failure to reach a solution to the problem? Will he give the House a guarantee that if by 31 December no solution is reached, foreign fishermen will not be allowed to fish up to our shores?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate my hon. Friend's good wishes. The one country that was holding out at the last Council meeting was not France, but Denmark. I wholly understand what my hon. Friend has said. The uncertainty in the fishing industry, not only in the United Kingdom, but in other countries, is extremely great. Therefore, there is a real incentive for all countries to find a solution. I assure my hon. Friend that no British Government—certainly not this Government—would tolerate fishing up to our beaches.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To remove any possible doubt and uncertainty, will my right hon. Friend assist the House by publishing in the Official Report the legal powers that would be used to exclude foreign vessels after 31 December in the event of failure to agree? Secondly, will he give us an assurance that, in the agreed position of the nine members, there is provision for the phasing out of historic rights?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With regard to my hon. Friend's first question, if he had experience of negotiations, he would not give away his negotiating position before he entered the negotiations. That applies to us in this matter.
    Mr. Spearing: Even if the Minister triumphs on the Copenhagen front and the Danes withdraw from their present position, does he agree that the EEC provisions are for historic rights to be exercised up to our beaches, but that those historic rights, with modern equipment, will put our fishermen's livelihoods at stake and so are unacceptable, irrespective of any Danish objections?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I emphasise that, in the proposals put forward by the Commission, there is no provision for any foreign rights within six miles. With regard to the six to 12 miles belt, the Commission has put forward a number of proposals that are based generally on the historic rights of other countries. That is the basis on which we shall negotiate next week.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that the continuing uncertainty places even greater financial pressure on the fishing industry? What recognition will he give in aid to the industry during this period?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am conscious of that fact. However, that is a separate issue from the vital and long term issue of settlement of the common fisheries policy. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the past two years we have shown our recognition of the problems of the industry in the present uncertainty by giving it £42 million in aid.
    Mr. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will greatly welcome his assurance that the Government will not tolerate a scenario that would permit fishing up to our beaches? Will he treat with considerable scepticism some of the proposals for local fisheries plans formulated by bodies not expert in the fishing industry?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I made plain the Government's position about fishing up to our beaches. A similar view is shared by other EEC Governments. There is provision for a fishery plan off the north-west coast of Scotland in the Commission's proposals which we shall be considering in the context of the negotiations.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware of the widespread suspicion among fishermen that the Government have delayed announcing the financial assistance until the result of the policy negotiations is known, so that it might be a sweetener at that time? The protracted negotiations and the uncertainty have not helped the financial state of the fishing industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman make an early announcement of the financial aid that the industry desperately needs?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We made the position plain to the industry, although it may not be plain to the right hon. Gentleman. There is no connection between aid and the settlement of the policy, as I said in answer to the previous question.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: With the negotiating pressure on the Minister by the threat of fishing up to our beaches, why does he not announce his contingency plans to stop it by the end of the year, draft in trawlers to protect our fishing grounds and make it clear that the partial settlements which have been so unsatisfactory to the British industry will not be the basis of the measures that he will enforce unilaterally from 31 December?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have not made such an announcement, because it would be foolish to give away our negotiating position. The hon. Gentleman shows his lack of appreciation of the situation. It was the Labour Government, in the Hague agreement, who caused the doubts about the powers that we have in national measures.
    Mr. Buchan: Has the Minister not already virtually sold out to the Common Market? Is he not telling us that he has retreated from the 12-mile exclusive and the 50-mile preference limits to a 6-mile exclusive and a 12-mile preference? It would strengthen, not weaken, our hand if he told us his contingency plans to save the industry if no agreement is reached. Will he follow the example of Lord Boothby, who stated that if we cannot get our terms we should come out?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In the same recent announcement the noble Lord supported the Government's efforts to reach a settlement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support him.
    I thought that the hon. Gentleman was more knowledgeable than he appears to be. We also have historic rights in other waters. Some third country waters have had to be negotiated through the Community, and that has enabled our fishermen to continue fishing elsewhere. We also have historic rights within the Community on a reciprocal basis. It is unrealistic to believe that we can enter the negotiations without taking account of such rights.

    Glasshouse Industry (Energy Costs)
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been achieved to date on the equalisation of energy costs incurred by glasshouse growers in EEC countries.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): Under the agreement between the European Commission and the Dutch Government, the preferential gas tariff to Dutch glasshouse growers is to be phased out on 31 March 1983. I am extending the aid to United Kingdom growers using oil at the maximum rates permitted under new guidelines recently issued by the Commission. This additional aid will be worth up to £1 million to the industry.
    Mr. Newens: I welcome the extension of the aid and recognise the Minister's stand. However, does he recognise the catastrophic position of many of our glasshouse growers because of the cumulative effect over many years of the Dutch advantage in fuel costs? Is it possible to make aid available to make up for the years when the disadvantage was greatest? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to implement the Select Committee's recommendations for the industry, as, without them, there will be many bankruptcies in the years ahead?
    Mr. Walker: The Government, in the absence of an agreement with the Dutch, negotiated that aid should be provided by national Governments. Britain, and perhaps one other country, has for a considerable time given the maximum aid allowable. I am continuing that right up to the moment when the Dutch gas subsidy is phased out.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In view of the long start that the Dutch had and the fact that the capital base of our industry has been eroded by what the Commission has proclaimed to be the Dutch Government's unlawful actions, could we not continue the aid until next autumn so that the creditworthiness of at least part of the industry can be restored after a situation that is not of this Government's making? Can we not at least do what is within our power to assuage the ill-effects of the Dutch cheating?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. Under pressure from the United Kingdom Government, the Commission negotiated to phase out the advantage that the Dutch had by a certain date and agreed that until that date aid should be provided. We are almost alone of all European countries in giving the maximum aid to our growers during the entire period.

    Butter and Cheese
    Mr. Knoxasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the United Kingdom is self-sufficient in butter and cheese.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Production of butter and cheese represented 57 per cent. and 70 per cent., respectively, of total new supplies in 1980, which is the most recent year for which complete information is available.
    Mr. Knox: Do not the figures show considerable scope for further expansion by the United Kingdom dairy industry? What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage that expansion?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The United Kingdom dairy industry has already responded to the stimulus that the

    489
    Government have given. We have seen an increase in production both this year and over recent years. Its marketing in the United Kingdom and abroad shows it to be an extremely lively and effective industry.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that many of us are worried about recent press reports that the French Government are to block the importation of New Zealand butter if sales of cheap butter to Russia do not go ahead? Will that not have a catastrophic effect on the New Zealand economy, renege on assurances given during the passage of the European Communities Bill and—most important to me, as I have an Anchor butter packing station in my constituency—mean a loss of jobs in Swindon and the surrounding area?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wholly share that anxiety, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will express his appreciation of our achievement this week in Luxembourg of 87,000 tonnes of butter for 1983. That was agreed at the request of the New Zealand Government, who have publicly stated that they welcome the Council's decision.
    Mr. Moate: Would we have the power to veto future arrangements that might reduce the importation of New Zealand butter?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The original protocol and special conditions agreed for New Zealand imports were on a degressive basis, which the New Zealand Government have accepted. I agree that, for a host of reasons, New Zealand butter is of particular importance. We shall continue to work in close co-operation with the New Zealand Government over what happens after 1983.
    Mr. Buchan: May we have a categoric assurance that the agreement for importing New Zealand butter is not contingent on the French demands to sell off rock bottom surplus butter to the Soviet Union? New Zealand is, after all, an old trading friend and Commonwealth ally.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I managed to resist the attempt this week by the French Minister at the Council of Ministers to make the agreement conditional on the sale of butter to the Soviet Union. Agreement has been reached in principle. Various procedures have been followed through. The agreement should go through simply as a "procedure" point at a future Council of Ministers.

    Marginal Land Areas
    Mr. Hicksasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current position for additional financial assistance to marginal land areas.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Discussions on the case for extending the United Kindom's less favoured areas have commenced with the European Commission, and the Government's present priority is to secure designation of the new areas.
    Mr. Hicks: I appreciate the progress that has been made on the recognition of marginal land in this country, but when does my right hon. Friend hope that the negotiations will be completed in Brussels? In the event of the submission being successful, when will tangible financial assistance be made available to our marginal farmers?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will understand that we must make our decisions when we know the exact
    490
    designation of the volume of land involved. We shall put on every possible pressure in Brussels to come to as speedy a decision as possible.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: is the proposed delimitation of marginal land in the United Kingdom, which has been published in the form of maps, final, or is it subject, to negotiation and modification?
    Mr. Walker: It is subject to modification and negotiation if the Commission considers that there is some justification in doing so. We believe that there is every possible argument for the maps that we have submitted. On all the assumptions and past criteria, we believe that those maps will be accepted, but obviously I cannot guarantee that the Commission will not query any of those maps.
    Mr. Wigley:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Welsh farmers, for whom this is an important matter, feel that progress has been extremely slow? Will he give an assurance that any settlement on marginal land will not result in any erosion of benefits for hill land?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain to Welsh farmers that the Government were unwilling to accept the procedures that were being adopted when we came to office, and we went to the Commission and asked for totally different procedures. Had we adopted the previous procedures, it would have taken another two to three years before we could have sent the maps. Therefore, we have done everything possible to speed up the process. I can only guarantee that we shall review the hill subsidies in terms of the problems of the hills themselves.
    Sir Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if this matter proceeds quickly, it will be the next major step forward in British agriculture and will be of particular importance to the South-West of England? Will he also bear in mind that, given the present tremendous loss of agricultural land, if we could re-use some of our marginal land for food production it would help not only British agriculture but the consumer?
    Mr. Walker: The importance of that is recognised in a number of areas. It is of considerable importance to Northern Ireland, Wales, the South-West and various other areas of the United Kingdom. That is why the Government have done everything possible, first, to prepare our proposals more speedily and, secondly, to negotiate them more speedily within the Commission.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman study the findings of the Arkleton Trust, which have demonstrated that, in the less favoured areas, British farmers have done far less well under the Community arrangements than have other Community farmers? Will he therefore make more financial resources available to compensate for that?
    Mr. Walker: That is undoubtedly why the Government have done superbly well in massively increasing the hill farm subsidy.

    Sheep
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep have been killed as a result of sheep worrying during the last 12 months.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): There are no figures for the last 12 months.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that one of the most sickening sights in the countryside is that of sheep that have been killed or savaged by packs of dogs? Why has the Government's only contribution to the problem been to stop collecting statistics rather than solving the chaos with the licence fee? Why do they not embark on a campaign to make all dog owners responsible for what happens in an effort to ensure that this practice ceases?
    Mrs. Fenner: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first concern about the damage that can be done. He has no doubt seen the graphic poster that we have produced as part of our publicity. The hon. Gentleman will know that we stopped collecting statistics because they were unreliable. Many incidents were not reported. We believe that education and publicity offer the most realistic solution to the problem, and our considerable efforts in that direction will continue.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In considering any legislative measure for the control of dogs, will the Government bear in mind the importance of all parts of the United Kingdom moving together in this regard, as there is obviously an important fiscal aspect in which there should be no differentiation between one part of the country and another?
    Mrs. Fenner: I note the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but there might well be different physical attributes.
    Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that recently in my constituency there was a grisly incident of sheep being murdered by dogs? In addition to the ghastly experience of the farmer having to clear up the aftermath, no compensation was available to him despite the fact that the dogs' owner was convicted of failing to look after them properly. Will my hon. Friend consider creating conditions under which a dog licence must be accompanied, either under the householder's comprehensive insurance or other insurance, by insurance against third party risks?
    Mrs. Fenner: The Government have at present no plans to increase the dog licence fee. Compulsory third party insurance is a matter for the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that this is a special problem in the Lakelands and that the National Farmers Union, both in the Lakelands and nationally, has asked the Government to increase the penalties? Will she make a statement on those increases?
    Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the question of penalties is for the Home Office.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now bring forward a contingency plan for the development of the British fishing industry in the event of failure to agree on a common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Not at this stage. Negotiations on a revised common fisheries policy are still continuing.
    Mr. Strang: As there are only two months to run of the 10-year derogation negotiated by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), is it not high time that the Government faced the fact that the industry now needs action, not words? Is it not clear that any settlement cobbled up before the end of the year will involve a sell-out of a fundamental British national interest? In the circumstances, will the Minister serve notice on other EEC Governments that the British Government intend to introduce a national plan to protect our waters from foreign vessels and to develop an onshore industry which will provide thousands of jobs in areas of greatest need?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my reply to question No. 1, he would have realised that Nine of the Ten are prepared to negotiate on a realistic basis. If he wishes to do a service to the industry, he will realise that we should not reveal our negotiating position in advance.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement regarding the three-mile limit up to the beaches. Like other hon. Members, he knows perfectly well that there was no fishing up to the beaches in 1973 prior to our entry into the Market. If, during the time that he is preparing his contingency plans, there is no common fisheries policy by 31 December, will he consider the restructuring of the fleet, as that will be necessary if we have to go it alone? I also hope that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had the question. The hopes can wait.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that in any contingency plan we shall make sure that the interests of the British fishing industry are looked after, and we shall also consult the industry closely.
    Mr. McNamara: What will be the legal position after 31 December? When will the right hon. Gentleman announce the Government's aid to the fishing industry? We were expecting it in July, but, according to a reply this week, the Minister said that he hoped to make the announcement shortly. How short is "shortly", because originally it meant last July?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I said "soon", and I stand by that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the articles of the Treaty of Accession, the Commission and Council have to come forward with proposals on access by 1 January 1983. There is, therefore, a responsibility on both the Commission and Council to reach a decision, and that is recognised in the Treaty of Accession.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: If they fail to do that, when will the Minister present to the House and the industry the necessary contingency plans? Is he aware that their legislative enactment, if required, will have the support of both sides of the House? The industry and the public at large need reassurance now, not soon.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If special contingency measures are necessary, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we shall bring them forward at the most appropriate time for the best interests of the British fishing industry.

    Straw Burning
    Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of straw were burnt during the 1982 harvest in England and Wales; and how many acres were involved.
    Mrs. Fenner: This information will not be available until January 1983, when I will be happy to send it to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I shall look forward to receiving that information. Does the Minister accept that all concerned agree that the burning of straw is a deplorably messy, dangerous and wasteful means of disposing of a potentially useful agricultural by-product? What have the Government done to assist the industries concerned to find a constructive use for the by-product?
    Mrs. Fenner: For several years my chief scientist's group and ADAS have played a major role in the Oxford straw utilisation conference, attended by farmers, scientists and potential users. My right hon. Friend will be addressing the next conference in November. Research into disposal and utilisation has continued in collaboration with the Paper Industry Research Association, commercial interests and the joint consultative organisation for research and development in agriculture and food.
    Mr. Haselhurst: From the information that may have been available to my hon. Friend's Department, can she say whether the number of complaints about straw burning this year has declined compared with last year?
    Mrs. Fenner: With the damp weather in 1982, fewer incidents of damage or nuisance were reported than in 1981. A few farmers still disregard the code, but most are well aware of the need to observe it. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate them on their responsible behaviour.

    Poultry
    Mr. Colin Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in maintaining health standards of the United Kingdom poultry flock.
    Mrs. Fenner: The health status of the national flock remains at a very high level. In particular, the freedom from Newcastle disease, which the measures introduced about a year ago were designed to protect, has been maintained. Following the recent judgment of the European Court on the import rules, introduced at the same time, revised measures have now been notified to the Commission and the other member States. Those measures, which will be implemented shortly, will ensure that our health standards are maintained.
    Mr. Shepherd: In view of the immense importance of sustaining the health of the United Kingdom poultry flock, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that nothing will enter Britain from abroad until the rules are fully defined and all are aware of what is required of them? How can we be sure that there will be proper enforcement of the rules, bearing in mind that the work on the enforcement—for example, the certification—will probably be carried out abroad? What time scale does she envisage in bringing all that into effect?
    Mrs. Fenner: The revised import rules are extremely detailed. In broad terms they are designed to safeguard the
    494
    stock, but would permit imports subject to certification. The press notice issued by my right hon. Friend shows that details of such certification are being sent to each of the member States, which will be asked to let us have specimens of their export documents. My hon. Friend asked how we could be sure that the rules would be properly enforced. We shall make the necessary administrative arrangements to implement the new measures and ensure that the rules are properly enforced. The time scale will be as soon as the countries have provided us with the certification requirements.

    Goose Farming Industry
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the state of the goose farming industry.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: United Kingdom goosemeat production is expected to be about 860 tonnes in 1982. This represents a 15 per cent. increase over the levels in recent years.
    Mr. Dalyell: In that case, what is the thinking behind the Minister's decision to despatch a goose ecologist to the Falkland Islands?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that he will boost the current good trend in goose production, for which the United Kingdom is responsible.
    Mr. Marlow: As it is possible to fatten geese on grass alone, would it lot be possible to persuade various nationalised industries and statutory organisations such as the roads, railways and so on, to make use of the grassland along their verges to fatten geese?
    Mr. Buchanan Smith: I understand that geese are also very good watchdogs. I do not have responsibility for nationalised industries, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have responsibility for such matters.

    Horticulture Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from horticulturalists about the state of the horticulture industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am in constant touch with the representatives of the horticulture industry.
    Mr. Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the news about the extension of adaptation aid will be especially welcome to that very hard-pressed industry? Will he maintain the vigilance that he has shown to ensure that fair and proper competition is maintained throughout the EEC?
    Mr. Walker: Our horticulture industry makes an important contribution to the economy of Britain. The research programmes and the ADAS advice service and the capital grant programmes have all been retained and, in some cases, improved. We shall continue with that.
    Mr. Newens: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the number of reports that are still coming in about lorries laden with produce coming to some of our east coast ports and selling produce on the roads, thereby evading VAT and health regulations? What is being done to stop that undesirable practice?
    Mr. Walker: We shall quickly follow up any information about such practices. One encouraging aspect of horticulture is that on a legal basis some of our exports are improving.
    Mr. John Wells: Can my right hon. Friend go further in his remarks about horticultural exports and give some indication of the recognition that he might give to those striving hard in that difficult area, especially bearing in mind the knock-on effect of an enlarged EEC? What steps does he mean to take to help the exporter?
    Mr. Walker: We shall do everything possible to encourage those trends. From a recent visit to retailers in Belgium and Holland, I realised that there was considerable scope for improving our exports to those countries.
    Mr. Maclennan: What principles will inform the Government's attitude to the difficulties that will be faced by the horticulture industry because of the enlargement of the Community to include the Iberian countries?
    Mr. Walker: We shall study the impact of that in the negotiations. It will be varied. In terms of the enlargement, there is considerable opportunity for improving exports of some of the Northern hemisphere products which are not produced in the prospective new EEC countries.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the level of bankruptcies and pending bankruptcies in the horticulture industry are disturbing? Is he aware that unless something akin to longer-term security in respect of the energy element is forthcoming from the Government, the basis of our horticulture industry could be destroyed during the next few years?
    Mr. Walker: I consider the horticulture industry to be sufficiently sophisticated to notice the difference in the way in which we tackled the Dutch subsidy problem as opposed to the method adopted by our predecessors.

    "Coal and the Environment"
    Mr. Heddleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the recommendations in the Flowers report "Coal and the Environment" which affect his responsibilities.
    Mrs. Fenner: Our general policy is to try to ensure that agricultural land losses are kept to a minimum and that the interests of agriculture and the coal industry are properly balanced. My officials are participating in the interdepartmental discussions on the recommendations in the report.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that farmers suffer a grave injustice because they cannot claim compensation for consequential loss in the event of coal mining subsidence? In the light of the Flowers report will my hon. Friend urge my right hon. Friend to amend the voluntary code at an early date?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern that those affected by mining subsidence should be properly compensated, but while I am concerned to safeguard the interests of the agriculture industry, compensation for subsidence is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, as my hon. Friend will know.

    Intervention Foodstocks
    Mr. Colvinasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the latest figures for stocks of intervention foodstocks in terms of the number of days of consumption.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Foodstocks—including animal feeding stuffs—held in intervention in the European Community in terms of days' consumption are:

    days

    beef

    6½

    butter

    14½

    cereals

    28

    olive oil

    82

    skimmed milk powder

    140

    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these stocks are not excessive in relation to the total consumption of the EEC, and that in this day and age it is better to have a surplus than to have a shortage?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. When one sees what is happening in other countries, one realises that consumers, in particular, always benefit more from surpluses than shortages.
    Mr. Spearing: At the same time, does the Minister agree that a more accurate and objective indication of a surplus would be in respect of the percentage of annual production? In that regard, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that throughout the EEC there is at least a 20 per cent. surplus of dairy products and milk production?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We are concerned about continuing surpluses in particular products. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken certain steps in recent price fixings to try to put some restraints on increases in production. I put the question back to the hon. Gentleman: would he rather have 5 million tonnes, as we have in intervention in the Community, in cereals, as against the 50 million tonnes shortage that Soviet Russia is experiencing?
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister expect the stocks to increase or to decrease over the next 12 months? As he has firmly rejected the export of surplus butter to Russia, where should the surpluses go?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If my hon. Friend understood a little more about agricultural production he would realise that this problem happens all over the world, and the effect on surpluses depends on world trade and prices. There are other factor, which are impossible to predict at this stage.
    Mr. Eastham: As the Minister accepts that we have these surpluses of foods, does he think that his Department can prevail on the Department of Education and Science to take advantage of them to help local authorities, which are in the shameful position of having to end school meals?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that this Department has negotiated support for school milk. I am glad to say that many local authorities have taken advantage of that.

    Commodity Prices
    Mr. Marlowasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a comparison between

    497
    the current United Kingdom market price and world market price for(a)wheat, (b)beef,(c)butter and(d) sugar.
    Mr. Peter Walker: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall publish the information in the Official Report; but my hon. Friend is aware that world prices fluctuate substantially—for example, only a short time ago the world price of sugar was 40 per cent. above the Community price.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree—we shall see later in the Official Report—that for most of these commodities the European prices are much higher than world market prices? Inasmuch as the United Kingdom is a net importer of European foodstuffs, is this difference in price not a heavy tax on the British consumer over and above our net budget contribution? Would my right hon. Friend—on a slightly different matter—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough to get on with.
    Mr. Walker: On the general scene of food prices, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that during the period of this Government farm gate prices have increased at only half the rate of inflation in general. With regard to the Community agriculture budget, whereas under the Labour Government this went up by more than 200 per cent. , under this Government it has gone up by only 26 per cent.
    Mr. Buchan: Has the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs drawn the Minister's attention to the publication known as "The Budget Problem"? Does he agree with it when it states that Britain
    "buys food from other member states at Community prices which are higher than world prices because of the price support mechanisms of the CAP and …the resulting cost to Britain is not matched by equivalent gains on the industrial side"?
    If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, why the hell do we not get out?
    Mr. Walker: I know that that has been the constant view of the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he should reflect on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) said. There may be many people in the Socialist economies of Eastern Europe who would prefer to have the surplus problems of the CAP to the shortages of the Soviet Union.
    Following is the information:

    £Tonne

    United Kingdom price*

    Estimated world pricer†

    Wheat

    113

    74·7

    Beef

    1,769·82

    923

    Butter

    2,307

    1,224·1

    Sugar

    405·9

    111·4

    Notes:
    *Average United Kingdom market prices for week ending 11 September 1982.
    Wheat: First hand buying price for all types.
    Beef: Certified cattle converted to deadweight using a killing-out percentage of 53·8
    Butter: First hand price for sweet cream, salted, 10 kg cartons.
    Sugar: Refined, granulated, in bulk: 50 kg paper sacks.
    †"World prices" have been taken as minimum offer prices of imports underlying the calculation of the variable levies and have been calculated by subtracting the common levy in ecus applicable on 16 September 1982 from the appropriate threshold or guide price in ecus. The beef price is
    498
    also adjusted for duty. These "world prices" have been converted from ecus at the market rate used for calculating MCAs on 16 September: £1·183075 ecus.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on any progress made to reform the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Peter Walker: A number of measures have been taken, and that is why under the previous Government, Community agricultural spending increased by over 210 per cent. , while under this Government the increase has only been some 20 per cent:.
    Mr. Evans: Since it is possible for us to obtain dairy products from other countries more cheaply than we have been obtaining them under the intervention price scheme, what is now the Government's attitude? Are they seeking to abandon the CAP or do they think that they can bring about some real reform in the next Session?
    Mr. Walker: Many measures and changes that have taken place have resulted in a dramatic improvement in cost savings. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to rely on the cheapest price that he can obtain in world markets for particular commodities, he should not argue in the same breath for full employment and stability. We have a stable food supply and a stable agriculture, and the contribution towards reducing inflation has been considerable.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with in nisterial colleagues and others. 1M addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Prime Minister satisfied with the disruption that her miserable Ministers, who are acting against the country, have caused to the police, Telecom workers and steel workers and the miners? Is not the right hon. Lady prepared to take some action against this disruption, and what will she do about the militants in her police force who disrupted the Home Secretary's meeting last night? Will she take time off today to listen to the new record "How does it feel to be the mother of 1,000 dead?". Will she take—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to the rest of the House.
    The Prime Minister: That is rather a lot of questions. The police have had a very good deal from this Government and I thought that the performance yesterday evening by the Metropolitan Police Federation was disgraceful. I do not believe that it will have found favour with the vast majority of the Metropolitan Police force, and I think that it have done it a great deal of damage The hon. Gentleman mentioned various other subjects With regard to competition, it serves the British consumer better than nationalised monopolies. With regard to steel, just a few moments before I came to the House I learnt that

    499
    agreement had been reached in the Community in Brussels on the limitation on steel exports to the United States. That is expected to take effect from 29 October. Once again our Ministers have done a good job.
    Sir Paul Bryan: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the recent reports that the Home Secretary is about to submit to the House new regulations regarding immigration? In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that no final decision will be reached before we have a full debate in the House on the matter?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the new immigration rules will be required when the new British Nationality Act takes effect. It is my right hon. Friend's intention to publish a White Paper next week, which will contain draft immigration rules. The White Paper, subject to agreement with my right hon. Friend the Lord President, will be debated for a whole day in the House. Final decisions on the new immigration rules will not take place until after that debate.
    Mr. Foot: In view of the statement that the right hon. Lady has just made about the steel industry, and in view of the mounting crisis in that industry, even if the agreement with the EEC forms the basis for a settlement with the United States, will it not still cause a big injury to the British steel industry? What steps will the Prime Minister take to assist the industry in its immediate crisis?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously if the EEC has reached agreement as reported, and countervailing duties are therefore not imposed, the situation will be much better than it would otherwise have been. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is still a great steel crisis the world over. We have to recover our home market, much of which was lost as a result of the disastrous 13-week steel strike in 1980, when those who had loyally purchased from the British Steel Corporation found that their source of supply was not reliable and had to go elsewhere for steel.
    Mr. Foot: Britain's home market is suffering more than any other from steel imports and yet the British Government do less than any other Government about it. What steps will the Prime Minister take to try to deal with increasing steel imports, which threaten to close further major plants unless something is done to stop them?
    The Prime Minister praises the agreement between the EEC and the United States. Will she confirm to me and the country that that agreement involves further injury to the British steel industry?
    The Prime Minister: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he objects to the United States taking steps against imports, and at the same time wants us to take steps against imports? The two do not add up. Britain acts with the Community on steel and we must continue to do so. We must learn to compete in terms of our home market and exporters. Strikes cost jobs and the right hon. Gentleman has been the strikers' friend.
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady must face the facts about an industry which she is steadily ruining. Does she not understand that there is a great difference between the position in the United States and here? In the United States about 1 per cent. of the industry is affected by imports, whereas here the figure is about 30 per cent. The United
    500
    States took some action to deal with the problem, but the British Government have taken no action to protect British industry.
    The Prime Minister: One-third of our gross domestic product is exported, so if we start protectionism in Britain as a general principle we shall lose jobs in every export industry in the country.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister find time today to study the speech by the director-general of NEDC, in which he called for a truce over the frontiers of ownership and instead a concentration on efficiency?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the speech. I wondered whether the director-general made the same speech when so many nationalisation measures were introduced. It would have been better if he had made the speech then.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports in today's papers about the Polish refugee, Josef Samek, who, after 41 years, was reunited with his daughter who lives in my constituency and who believed him to have died in a Soviet labour camp? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the period that Josef Samek is being allowed to stay in Britain has been reduced from six to three months? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he will be allowed to remain in Britain with his family for as long as he wants to?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we had a general rule that Polish people here at the time of the military takeover were allowed to stay and were not made to return to Poland, where they might have had a terrible time. If my hon. Friend provides details of the individual case, we shall consider it sympathetically.
    Mr. Beithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Prime Minister take time to keep up to date with the work of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights? Does she regard the convention as having an important part to play in guarding civil liberties now that it has stood so firm in defence of the three British Rail workers and seems to have persuaded the Home Secretary that he must extend to women citizens the same rights in relation to foreign husbands as men citizens enjoy in respect of their wives?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say earlier that a White Paper is to be issued next week, which will be debated in the House before final decisions on new immigration rules are taken. The closed shop case would not have arisen but for the disgraceful legislation by the Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman's party supported.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the TUC unions which are proposing another day of action in support of National Health Service workers would be better advised to say publicly that they will accept pay settlements lower than the National Health Service settlement? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the best way to help the low-paid and families is to increase child benefit by more than the rate of inflation?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to plead that cause. I agree that it would be

    501
    best if the National Health Service strike were ended now. That would be better for the patients, better for the reputation of the country and better for all those who hope to achieve orders from overseas and whose interests the strike damages.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Can the Prime Minister explain why we should believe that the economy will become much better with the fall in inflation when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for example, has been saying the same thing for the past two years and more and the situation has gradually worsened?
    The Prime Minister: Many right hon. Members in the Labour Government said that the most important aspect was a fall in inflation. We heard that again yesterday. We must have a fall in inflation if we are to compete with other industrialised countries, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He will be aware that in spite of being now much more competitive with overseas countries we have still a long way to go before output per man in Britain equals that in the United States, Japan, Germany and France.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does my right hon. Friend share my regret that the European Community should send so much of its butter to the Soviet Union at heavily subsidised prices when our own people cannot afford to buy it? Will my right hon. Friend use her considerable powers to influence our colleagues on the Continent to change the rule?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, Britain has voted firmly against subsidising food exports from the Community to the Soviet Union and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Raceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Race: Is the Prime Minister aware of the proposed closure of the Wood Green and Southgate hospital in my constituency, which takes patients from Finchley, and which is being closed because of the Government's refusal to fund one-third of the wage rise for Health Service workers this year? In the light of that closure and other closures being contemplated, will the Prime Minister give a categoric assurance to the House that the Government will fund the whole of any increase to Health Service workers next year from the Treasury and not decide, as Ministers are discussing, to fund none of it?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises two points. It came out firmly in yesterday's debate that the
    502
    resources available to the National Health Service as a whole are 5 per cent. more in real terms this year. Therefore, the only question is the distribution of that increase over and above what the Labour Government provided in accordance with priorities which all Governments must make and which every responsible person in the House and elsewhere should be prepared to make.
    Next year's public expenditure figures have not been published. It would be reasonable, however, to expect some increase in efficiency in the National Health Service in view of the encrmous increase in numbers employed in the Health Service.
    Mr. John H. Osborn: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that steel is a vital subject? Would it not be unfortunate if tomorrow's strike were to let in our competitors and take away our orders? Could the unfair competition from Spain be looked at again? Is the Prime Minister aware of the steel committee of the OECD? Will the Government refer our problems vis-a-vis Europe and the World to that committee following the meeting of the International Iron and Steel Institute in Tokyo, where the heads of the steel industry got together and provided much information for all Governments?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that if we have more strikes they will cost jobs. Strikes besmirch this country's reputation overseas. They stop investment and orders that would otherwise come here, and cost not only the strikers' jobs but jobs in other companies.
    We must continue to work with the EEC on steel. The best thing we can do is to buy more British goods, assuming that their quality and suitability are equal to that of overseas goods. If people bought more British goods many of our problems would be solved.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We were one minute late in starting. I shall allow one more supplementary question.
    Mr. Litherland: Will the Prime Minister explain why the Government are subsidising unnamed private steel consortiums, and giving vast sums of public money to buy out and close private steel firms such as Manchester Steel Ltd. in my constituency, with the loss of 810 jobs and a vital industry?
    The Prime Minister: While the steel market is falling world-wide, and we are not competing as well as we should, we have to make the best possible arrangements for jobs as a whole I believe that that is what is happening.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords
amendments to the Employment Bill.
Motions on the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 26 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Transport Bill.
Motion relating to the British Gas Corporation (Disposal of Offshore Oilfield Interests) Direction 1982.
WEDNESDAY 27 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Industrial Development Bill (Lords) which is a consolidation measure.
Motions relating to the Education (Assisted Places) (Scotland) Regulations, to the Education (School and Placing Information) (Scotland) Regulations and to the Meat (Sterilization and Staining) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 28 OCTOBER—The House will meet at 2.30 pm for Prorogation.
The new Session will be opened on Wednesday 3 November.
Mr. Foot: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman arranged the business before we had heard the Prime Minister's replies about the steel industry. Will he have further conversations, through the usual channels, to see whether we may have a debate on the steel industry next week? The Prime Minister does not seem to appreciate that the agreement that has been made between the EEC and the Americans—if it is concluded—involves a further cut in British steel exports to the United States of America and an intensification of the crisis in the British steel industry. It possibly threatens further jobs in that industry.
Tomorrow's strike is the result of the sense of desperation felt in the industry that is produced by the Government's policy and failure to do less than any other country in Europe to protect the steel industry. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to have discussions through the usual channels to seek a debate on that subject next week before the position deteriorates further.
I ask also for a statement next week on Britoil. There are conflicting stories in the newspapers and elsewhere about how the operation is to be mounted. The Amersham International precedent still leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will arrange for a statement on that subject to be made next week.
I do not know whether the Prime Minister proposes to make a statement to the House about her visit to the Far East.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): indicated dissent.
Mr. Foot: The Prime Minister shakes her head. After such visits, the Prime Minister normally makes a report to the house. There were many matters that arose during that tour that should have been reported to the House.
504
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall have a full six days for discussion on the Queen's Speech? A host of industrial matters are crowding for discussion. The steel industry is only one of them. Other industries are threatened by Government policy and the general position. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will allow the opportunity for a full debate on the Queen's Speech.
Mr. Biffen: I shall take in reverse order the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I acknowledge that there is great interest in having a full debate upon the Queen's Speech as it gives an opportunity to discuss a range of domestic economic issues, including the steel industry. I am happy to confirm that there will be a six-day debate as he requests.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given a written answer which sets out the points covered by her Far Eastern tour. I am certain that that answer can be supplemented during the debate on the Queen's Speech.
I take account at once of the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties about Britoil. Those anxieties are not confined to the Opposition. I shall do my best to ensure that a statement on that matter is made next week.
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to have a usual-channels discussion about the talks that have been conducted over the past 24 hours by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I know that the House will want to be apprised of what is decided. I shall certainly see what can be done.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman be putting down a motion to give more than one and a half hours for the consideration of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order in view of its great importance to that Province and the unique nature of the legislation? If he does not put down such a motion, does he understand that it will be taken as yet another instance of the cold and unremitting hostility of the Government to that Province and its people?
Mr. Biffen: The hostility is in the eye of the beholder. It is proposed that the motion shall be taken on Monday evening following the normal rules of procedure for a 90-minute debate. It is a matter which has been widely discussed by the Northern Ireland Office—
Mr. Powell: "Office"?
Mr. Biffen:—by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his Ministers with those in the Province. I am certain that there will be a constructive debate if there is a constructive attitude of mind.
Mr. Edward du Cann: Following the publication of the Treasury's comment on the report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on efficiency and effectiveness in the Civil Service and certain other much more controversial comments, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the Civil Service early in the new Session?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot make any such arrangement for next week, but I shall bear in mind my right hon. Friend's point.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Because of the evident anxiety felt by police officers about the sudden announcement of a 4 per cent. pension contribution

505
increase, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the prayer on that matter tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also make arrangements for the bound copies of Hansard to be supplied more regularly to the Prime Minister so that she can see that my party consistently opposed the closed shop provisions in Labour Government legislation and attempted to persuade the Conservative Party to do so?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look into the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot give such an undertaking for next week. On the second point, I am certain that the hon. Gentleman, as a political advocate, does not have to rely on bound copies of Hansard to secure his point of view.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In view of the controversy in Wales surrounding the possibility of health expenditure cuts, especially following yesterday's announcement by South Glamorgan area health authority, and in view of early-day motion No. 703 standing in the names of myself and of all four Opposition parties in Wales—
[That this House condemns the proposals outlined in the Welsh Office paper entitled 'Health Service Resources in Wales, 1983–84', dated 23rd August 1982, which implies cuts in health authority expenditure in Wales of £56 million; notes that the Welsh Health Authorities Chairmen Meeting, held on 24th September at Brecon, has reacted strongly against these proposed cuts, and has indicated that they would imply the closure of hospitals at such speed as would make the normal consultation procedure impractical, would dramatically increase waiting lists for in-hospital treatment, and would require the shedding of staff to an extent that would cause the deterioration of the health service in Wales; furthermore, this House expresses grave doubts as to whether the area health authorities in Wales will be able to meet their statutory duties if such cuts are imposed upon them or to limit the effects of the cuts to non-priority areas; and concludes that the cuts in area health spending outlined in this document are unacceptable to the people of Wales and instructs the Secretary of State for Wales to issue a clear and unequivocal withdrawal of these proposals.]—will the Leader of the House find time for a statement to be made next week by the Secretary of State for Wales on the status of the document "Health Service Resources in Wales, 1983–84" that the Welsh Office produced on 23 August?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
Sir Paul Bryan: does my right hon. Friend recall early-day motion No. 531, signed by 150 hon. Members?
[That this House welcomes the report of the Overseas Student Trust as a basis for an enduring policy for overseas students' fees; recognises its recommendations as a responsible balance between British interests and obligations, and the needs of overseas students; urges Her Majesty's Government to accept in particular the recommendation that students from British dependent territories should pay the home level of fees thus removing the anomaly by which a student from, for example, Hong Kong or the Falkland Islands, can be asked to pay up to
506
12 times as much for a course as a student from the European Economic Community; and supports the proposal that concessionary levels of fees should be considered for Cyprus.]
When will there be an opportunity to discuss this matter now that four months have elapsed since the report was made?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend, with all his skill and ingenuity, will be able to raise this subject in the debates on the Queen's Speech which will clearly include a range of topics such as this.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Since the Prime Minister's visit to Hong Kong caused dismay in the colony and damaged our relations with China, is it not incumbent on her to come to the House to make a statement and to answer questions on that subject?
Mr. Biffen: As I do not accept the premise, I do not accept the conclusion.
Mr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to whether there should be a statement or possibly a full debate on the expenditure of over £81 million of public money on the De Lorean car company, especially as its collapse has had such an impact on suppliers in the West Midlands and two companies in my constituency?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the news that the Public Accounts Committee is to examine this matter. I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House say when the Government's response to the recommendations contained in the Shackleton report will be published? Will the House have the opportunity to discuss the report and the Government's response?
Mr. Biffen: No. I shall, however, consider the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I shall be in communication with him.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend intend to allow the press to have a copy of the Queen's Speech in advance of its delivery with a "Stop" notice on it? If so, will he let me have a copy if I promise not to leak it?
Mr. Biffen: In the real world, I have a much more passive role in all these matters than my hon. Friend supposes.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to the request by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a debate on steel next week? It is not only a question of the EEC agreement concealing certain misunderstandings and even incipient threats to British steel from across the Atlantic. The chairman of British Steel is also expected to announce, long before the Queen's Speech and the debate on it, the conclusions of his current review. The chairman is not merely wrestling with demand, as the Prime Minister seems to think, or even the future configuration of British Steel; he AS considering whether there will be a steel industry at all.
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman speaks on this topic with all the authority of an hon. Member representing a

507
Sheffield constituency. He will understand, I am sure, that I cannot go beyond the answer that I gave the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Before the onset of winter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging a debate on fuel prices and fixed standing charges for electricity and gas as they affect the aged poor? These people are terrified about the prospect of another winter like last winter.
Mr. Biffen: I fear that I cannot offer the prospect of a debate next week.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow questions to run until 4 pm in the hope that all those wishing to put questions will be accommodated.
Mr. R. A. McCrindle: On the issue of trade policy, on a basis wider than that relating to steel, will my right hon. Friend arrange to have repeated in the House the statement made yesterday in the other place by the Secretary of State for Trade who seemed to imply that the Government were moving towards a change of policy in respect of the protection of this country's vital interests? Is it not desirable that his statement should at least be repeated if there cannot be a debate before the House prorogues?
Mr. Biffen: I am certain that my right hon. and noble Friend made a very important speech earlier this week. I cannot believe that a Queen's Speech debate can take place without a great deal of it being devoted to trade topics.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion No. 707 relating to the privatisation of the National Maritime Institute?
[That the transfer of the undertaking and assets of the National Maritime Institute to NMI Ltd., as set out in the Treasury Minute dated 30 September 1982, be not proceeded with until long-term arrangements beyond 1987 have been agreed with the Shadow Board of NMI Ltd. and with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants for the capital and revenue support for fundamental research into the areas of maritime technology, ocean engineering and civil engineering aerodynamics, that are of strategic national importance, on terms and conditions no less favourable than those enjoyed by competing foreign establishments.]
I appreciate that there is no obligation on the Government to have a debate on the issue on the Floor of the House. However, will the right hon. Gentleman draw to the attention of his right hon. Friends the immense importance of strategic research by that institute in key areas related to the long-term future of this country and see that arrangements are made for safeguarding it?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious, albeit contentious, point. I shall ensure that the appropriate Secretary of State is made aware of his views.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate into the horrifying death of Lucy Gates who lost her life while in the care of the local authority? Is he aware that the urgency
508
of a debate is magnified by the refusal of the council of the London borough of Bexley to publish the results of the inquiry that has been held into the little girl's death?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot give any guarantee of Government time for a debate on that subject next week. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to acknowledge that it is exactly the type of topic that can be pursued with success and vigour by a Back-Bench Member.
Mr. Richard Needham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion No. 705:
[That this House congratulates the Electrical and Engineering Staff Association, a section of the E.E.P.T.U., on its decision not to support the 24-hour strike in the steel industry on 22nd October on the grounds, first, that the strike can only damage the industry further and, secondly, that the TUC Steel Committee did not fully consult with members before calling for action; asks the Government to consider urgently the steps requested by the Electrical and Engineering Staff Association to help British Steel, notably, effective licensing and monitoring of foreign imports, tighter EEC Regulations and investigation of unfair subsidies; and urges the Trades Union Congress not to call for any further damaging national strikes without fair and secret ballots of all trade union members affected.]
It shows that many of my hon. Friends would also welcome support for a debate on the steel industry to show their backing for the brave stand of the Electrical and Engineering Staff Association in deploring the strike later this week that can only do even more damage to the steel industry. Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members would welcome a debate in order to point out that American steel workers cost an average of $amp;23 an hour and are earning four to five times more than a British steel worker, without, in many cases, any corresponding increase in productivity?
Mr. Biffen: I note my hon. Friend's desire for a debate on the steel industry. I admire the manner in which he has given a trailer of his speech, should he be called to make one.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recognise the urgency of obtaining a statement from the Home Secretary on Operation Countryman? Is he aware of the considerable public disquiet over remarks made by the former chief constable of Dorset, the first head of Operation Countryman, that there had been some obstruction over inquiries into allegations of corruption in the police force? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that a statement is made by the Home Secretary before the new Session begins?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tony Marlow: In view of what the Prime Minister has said, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the White Paper on the immigration rules to be issued next week will be more along the lines of a discussion document than a statement of Government policy?
Mr. Biffen: The description "White Paper" means that it is bound to be a statement of Government policy. That it will give rise to plenty of discussion I have no doubt.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Would it not be for the convenience of the House if the specifically and exclusively Scottish business set down for debate next Wednesday was referred to the Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh? Would it not also be for the convenience of the people of Scotland, who are suffering education cuts, to know that the Government intend to spend even more in support of private education?
Mr. Biffen: The decision to have Scottish Grand Committee sittings in Edinburgh is one of such delicacy that it is better undertaken as a result of widespread consultation and agreement in this House rather than as a result of unilateral action on my part.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Would it be possible to have a debate next week or subsequently on the intimidation of trade union members? People who stop three-year-old babies having operations may find that their branch gets a letter from the union, but those who choose to work when they have been told to go on strike find that the intimidation is much greater, more personal and comes much quicker.
Mr. Biffen: I note my hon. Friend's point. This is not the first time that he has made it. I have to tell him that there is no likelihood of Government time being made available next week for a debate of that character.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: May I add my voice to the request already made by two of my hon. Friends for a statement from the Prime Minister on her glorified Far East tour? Is it not a fact that when she went to Japan she found them in a financial crisis and left with a flea in her ear and that she left Hong Kong in a constitutional mess? After she turned her back on the Chinese, they started talking to the Russians for the first time in 30 years.
Mr. Biffen: I cannot helpfully add to what I said to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement next week about the chaos and demoralisation in the NHS following the most recent reorganisation? This has nothing to do with the pay dispute. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of senior nursing officers are still not aware, six months after the appointed day, whether they have a job. The demoralising effect runs through every hospital in the country. May we have a statement?
Mr. Biffen: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that yesterday's debate went wider than merely the industrial dispute. Nevertheless, I will ensure that his remarks are passed on.
Mr. James Lamond: Will the Leader of the House keep in mind, at least for the new Session, the fact that we have not had a debate on the United Nations special session on disarmament and that the Madrid conference on European security is about to reopen? It would be good for his party to begin to show a little interest in disarmament, because it is a very big vote catcher.
Mr. Biffen: I had not forgotten the topic and I knew that the hon. Gentleman would not let me forget it. May
510
I suggest, in a friendly spirit, that he makes his speech in the debate on the Queen's Speech. There is more likelihood of his being able to put his views on the record then than there is that we shall have a specific debate on the matter.
Mr. Timothy Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that there will be an opportunity to debate the recommendations of the Hunt committee on cable broadcasting before the Government reach a decision on the proposals?
Mr. Biffen: I am certain that it would he most appropriate for the House to consider that matter in the early stages of the general deliberations on the topic.
Mr. Stanley Newens: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, whatever may be his view of the effects in the Far East of the Prime Minister's pronouncements on the future of Hong Kong, a written reply on the matter is inadequate? Will he tell us the terms on which we are to expect the Prime Minister to make statements after such visits? In vew of her refusal to make a statement, what other opportunities will we have to discuss the important matters relating to the future of Hong Kong?
Mr. Biffen: I believe that the hon. Gentleman will find that there are precedents for a Prime Minister to report in a written answer on a visit undertaken during a recess. However, there will certainly be every opportunity in the debate on foreign policy, within the ambit of the Queen's Speech debate, for all these matters to be considered further.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Has the Leader of the House forgotten that the first Order of the Day for next Wednesday is the Second Reading of my Scottish Parliament Bill, which is in the hands of the printers and ought to be available in the next few days? As it is a fairly simple, straightforward Bill, will the Government grant time for the Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading on the Floor of the Howe next week so that we can have a Scottish Parliament passing Scottish legislation in the next Session, instead of the rubbish that has been passed by this Tory Government over the past three and a half years?
Mr. Biffen: When the hon. Gentleman commends something as being simple and straightforward, it is consensus politics at its most dangerous.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the De Lorean car company, in view of the recent serious developments? He knows that some of us have been following that matter for many years.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Secretary of State for Trade, will know of the anxiety felt throughout the textile industry about the multi-fibre arrangement. As he knows, 18 agreements have been made, 19 are outstanding and there are serious questions whether the mandate will be retained for the remainder and whether contingency plans are being made to withdraw from the MFA if necessary. The textile industry AS beleaguered and is anxious for a statement and a debate in the House.
Mr. Biffen: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I will pass his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

511
State for Northern Ireland. The MFA negotiations are a matter of great concern and could suitably occupy a place in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I will, of course, draw to the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade the points made by the hon. Gentleman.

Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Criminal Justice Bill

    Clause 1
    GENERAL RESTRICTION ON CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
    Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 2, line 14, at end insert
    "because it appears to the court that he is unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or because a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public or because the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified".
    3.58 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Clause 1 provides that no court shall impose a custodial sentence on a young offender unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate. The amendment elaborates on that provision by requiring the court to base its opinion on one of three possible grounds, which are the failure of non-custodial penalties, the need to protect the public, and the seriousness of the offence.
    Amendments on these lines were debated at considerable length during the passage of the Bill through this House. The Government have throughout sympathised with the intention behind the amendments, but we take the view that they place no further effective restriction on the passing of custodial sentences on young offenders. That is because they reflect accurately the existing principles by which the courts already exercise their sentencing jurisdiction custodially.
    Our preference would be to leave the courts to develop their sentencing practice according to the guidance that they will undoubtedly receive from the Court of Appeal on the basis of the application of the legislation to actual cases. Nevertheless, the Government do not seek to disagree with the Lords amendment.
    Dr. Shirley Summerskill: As there are 295 Lords amendments to the Bill, I should assure the House that the Opposition Front Bench will not speak on them all. However, it is important to speak on those that make significant changes in the Bill, and amendment No. 6 is one of the most significant.
    The Minister of State said that he had reservations about the amendment, and the Government voted against it in another place. So strong were their reservations that they became positive opposition. Fortunately, right prevailed and the Government were defeated on the first amendment debated in another place. Many other successes followed.
    It is an important amendment because, although the Opposition have taken the view throughout the passage of the Bill that no offender under 17 should receive a custodial sentence, we feel that the amendment will help young people who are put into custody.
    There must be a range of facilities, regimes and punishments—alternatives to custody—to provide education, training and preparation for the future. That will also

    513
    serve to reduce the numbers held in custody, which is still over 44,000. We want to save as much money as possible by keeping as many people as possible out of custody.
    Although the Government rejected the view that we should keep the under-seventeens out of prison and custody, the next best thing is to ensure, as I hope the amendment will, that unless the offence is extremely serious courts will take more time to satisfy themselves that the alternatives to custody will not be responded to by the young person concerned. The recidivism of young people who are sentenced to custody in borstals and detention centres is notoriously high. It is clear that for most of them custody is not a deterrent, because 76 per cent. of young people leaving detention centres, and 83 per cent. of those leaving borstals, are reconvicted within two years.
    We therefore welcome the fact that courts will now have to apply their minds—far more, perhaps, than they do at present—to the nature and background of the young persons being sentenced. It will not be easy to make this assessment and judgment, but surely it is worth making every effort to decide whether that person is either unwilling or unable, by his or her nature, to respond to non-custodial penalties.
    Let us put the first emphasis on non-custodial care and control and use custody only as a last resort when non-custodial penalties fail. That, after all, was the philosophy of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, with its emphasis on prevention and welfare. We hope that the amendment will put that into practice.
    In its reference to the necessity to impose a custodial sentence to protect the public, the Lords amendment echoes the view expressed by the Home Secretary, who said that custody and prison should be reserved for those who are a danger to the public. Among European Community countries, this country has the highest number of children and young people in custodial care. We lock up three times as many young people under the age of 17 as we did 20 years ago, yet there is no evidence that we are more successful than those other countries in reducing crime. The guidelines to the courts provided by the amendment could lead to a gradual shift from custodial to non-custodial care and a far more sensible approach to the treatment of young offenders.
    Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: The Minister and the House will be aware that, for the past 10 years or more, a fairly unanimous opinion has been expressed by all those who are concerned and knowledgeable about the penal system that we should shift the emphasis and resources away from custodial care to treatment in the community, and that that is particularly appropriate for young children and juveniles. Nevertheless, while making that commitment, the practice has been for an increasing number of younger and less delinquent young people and juveniles to be committed to custodial care.
    It was for that reason that I and some hon. Members from both sides attempted in Committee to lay down strict statutory criteria which had to be complied with before the courts could impose a custodial sentence. Throughout the Committee stage, the Government resisted such amendments. They did not argue against the terms or the principles of the amendments either here or in the other place. The amendments that we are now discussing, which were made in another place, were eventually accepted on a Division against Government opposition. Therefore, I
    514
    wholeheartedly welcome the amendments, which lay down detailed statutory criteria for the imposition of custodial sentences on young people, which were proposed in another place by members of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group.
    As I said, those amendments were carried on a Division against the wishes of the Government. It is fair to add that, although the Government opposed the amendments, they did not oppose them on their merits. They took the view that it was better for the Court of Appeal to lay down the criteria than to include them in legislation. Having lost the vote, the Government, to their credit, announced their acceptance of the principle underlying the amendments. If the criteria in the amendments are to be strictly adhered to in future and applied by the courts, they could have a significant impact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) pointed out, on the number of young people given custodial sentences.
    There is a myth, to which Government spokemen sometimes give credibility, that courts resort to imposing custodial sentences only as a last resort: that it is only when all other options have failed and all other alternatives have been explored and found wanting that the courts resort reluctantly and unenthusiastically to custodial sentences.
    The facts demonstrate that the practice is different. For example, Home Office studies have shown that more than one-third of young people received into borstals have not received a previot s probation or supervision order made against them. The percentages of those entering detention centres who have not had a previous probation or supervision order are even higher. The studies show that we are prepared to impose, and in fact do impose, custodial sentences on younger and less delinquent young people today than we did 10 years ago, even when we have not attempted to use non-custodial measures such as supervision or probation orders. The Home Office figures clearly demonstrate that fact.
    The figures also show that offenders who have not been subject to a previous attempt to deal with their difficulties or delinquency in the community are convicted of not particularly serious offences. For example, only one in five offenders under the age of 21 years given custodial sentences have committed serious offences involving violence, sex or robbery.
    It is common ground among all parties that penal institutions do not reform or rehabilitate. They are largely ineffective in turning offenders into law-abiding, positive and constructive members of the community. Again, the figures on recidivism bear that out, with well over 70 per cent. of young people sent to penal establishments committing further offences within two years of their release. The evidence clearly shows that putting young people into penal establishments does them no good. Nor does it do anyone else any good. The real way to deal with their problems and difficulties and to turn them away from their lives of delinquency and criminality is to deal with their problems where they have their roots—in the community.
    Thus, any measure, such as the one we are debating, that is designed to restrict the conditions under which a number of young people are put in custodial establishments is to be welcomed. These amendments should help to guard against what I believe is one of the greatest dangers in the Bill involving the new short detention centres. It is desirable in principle that young people may

    515
    be sentenced for three weeks instead of three months, but it may have the potential of ensuring that more young people who otherwise might receive a non-custodial sentence will now be given a detention sentence. At least these criteria may prevent that and ensure that fewer young offenders receive custodial sentences in future.
    Of all the changes that have been made to part I in this place and in another place, this amendment, in my view, is by far the most important and the only one which has any prospect of reversing the disastrous and inappropriate trend of the past 10 years of putting more young people in custody. For that reason alone, I welcome and endorse the amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 2, line 18, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 8, 246 and 273.
    Mr. Mayhew: These amendments give effect to an undertaking which the Government gave on Report in response to pressure to provide that a court should always and invariably consider a social inquiry report before imposing a custodial sentence on a young offender. That created difficulties, because there could sometimes be cases in which a rigid requirement of that kind would be inappropriate. Such a case might arise where, for example, the court, after a long trial, had a great deal of information about the offender and his circumstances and where the offence was so serious that a substantial custodial sentence was unavoidable.
    It would clearly be wrong if, in such circumstances, the court had to adjourn the case before passing sentence simply because that information did not happen to be in the form of a social inquiry report. After long debate, there was general agreement that a court should normally consider a social inquiry report before passing a custodial sentence on a young offender, but that it should be able to dispense with the requirement where, in the circumstances of the case, it thought such a report unnecessary. That is the provision which the new clause makes.
    We took the opportunity offered by these amendments to rearrange slightly the opening clauses of the Bill. The new clause incorporates the provisions which appear in subsections (6) and (7) of clause 1, and those are accordingly deleted by amendment No. 7. Clause 1 sets out the general principle that a court may not impose a custodial sentence on a young offender unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate. The new clause elaborates on that provision by providing that the court should usually consider a social inquiry report and that it must take into account any information before it which is relevant to the offender's character and his physical and mental condition. A magistrates' court must state and record the reasons for its opinion that no other method of dealing with the offender is appropriate and, if necessary, its reason for dispensing with a social inquiry report.
    516
    The clause improves and strengthens the Bill in a way that will be apparent to the House. I do not think I need say more.
    Mr. Matthew Parris: My hon. and learned Friend thinks that we should agree with the amendment, and I shall take his advice. However, I have one slight misgiving which I should like to take this occasion to express.
    When I was at university, a group of rowdies from the boat club got drunk, smashed up a restaurant and assaulted several people in the town. To everybody's surprise, they were sent to prison for a short while. That was an excellent idea. It helped to repair relations between the university and the town and it set a good example to other undergraduates who might have considered behaving in a similar way.
    A social inquiry report on those young men would probably have concluded that they came from good backgrounds, with supportive families, and that that was errant behaviour and that they were unlikely ever to offend like that again. Yet that seems to me to be a good example of where a custodial sentence is appropriate.
    I realise that if the courts think that a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public they can still impose such a sentence without a social inquiry report, but the Lords amendment goes even further than the Bill towards discouraging all but the most strong-minded of magistrates' courts from imposing custodial sentences in any circumstances. As I say, I have a slight misgiving about that.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.

    Clause 4
    CONSECUTIVE TERMS AND AGGREGATE PERIODS OF DETENTION
    Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 5, line 15, leave out from "that" to " ; and" in line 17 and insert
    "the only appropriate method of dealing with him is to pass a custodial sentence on him."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment harmonises the wording of clauses 3, 4 and 5. Clauses 3 and 5 require a court, in dealing with an offender, to be satisfied that
    "the only appropriate method of dealing with him is to pass a custodial sentence on him".
    Clause 4, on the other hand, expresses the same provision in the words
    "a custodial sentence would be appropriate for the offence."
    The amendment deletes those words from clause 4 and replaces them with the expression used in clauses 3 and 5, which are in negative terms.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 5
    YOUTH CUSTODY: OFFENDERS AGED 15 TO 20
    Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 6, line 19, at end insert—
    "(2A) If a court passes a sentence of youth custody on an offender because it considers that his detention in a detention centre would be unsuitable because of his mental condition, it shall certify in the warrant of commitment that it passed the sentence of youth custody for that reason."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 17.
    4.15 pm
    Mr. Mayhew: The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that where a young offender is sentenced to youth custody because his mental condition precludes a detention centre order, and that fact is recorded on the warrant of commitment, he may be held in a youth custody centre or remand centre but not in a prison. There are two limited exceptions. Power to hold in a prison for temporary purposes is retained and the amendments do not apply to people whose sentences are below 21 days. That is because they go to allocation units in local prisons after sentence. There will not be time to assess and transfer some of them to youth custody centres at all, and, by definition, others could go there for only a matter of days, sometimes travelling great distances to do so.
    Taken together, therefore, the amendments will exclude as many of those young people from prisons as is possible in practice. I should add that we undertake that those serving less than 21 days who do have to remain in prisons will be properly assessed by the medical officers concerned and placed in the establishments' hospitals where necessary.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I welcome the amendment, which provides that offenders who are given a short youth custody sentence because they are considered mentally unfit for detention centres should not in future be placed in adult prisons to serve their sentences.
    The Minister, on behalf of the Government, initially opposed a similar amendment which was proposed by members of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group. The Government now deserve credit for bowing to the weight of all-party opinion that was expressed in the House and in another place by agreeing to amend the Bill along the lines of the amendment then proposed.
    Under the original form of the Bill, it would have been possible for young, mentally ill people, whose mental state demands that they should receive the best possible nursing care and treatment, to be dumped instead in adult local prisons. The local prisons are institutions which are currently the most overcrowded, which have the most appalling conditions and where the resources and facilities for dealing with young people—particularly young people who have a mental illness or disorder—are wholly lacking. They are the penal dustbins of the whole penal estate.
    The amendments will prevent such young people being put in inappropriate locations and will therefore remove a serious imperfection.
    Mr. Charles Irving: I support the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). He paid tribute to the Government for what has been a remarkable week. Early this week we had a dramatic and radical Bill on mental health. That was a significant step, which should be applauded, and which Ministers and the Government have taken the initiative in promoting.
    We are now debating the Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. In his usual courteous way, the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the Government and I join him in his fulsome tribute to Ministers who have spent a great deal of time on the variety of views that have poured in
    518
    upon them from various organisations, some wanting this and some that. To compromise and to find a solution, as they have done, is commendable, and I say that not only as a Member of the House but as vice-chairman of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and chairman of the Stoneham housing association.
    I welcome any steps that are now being taken to help those who are suffering from mental disorders or youngsters who are in danger of spending a considerable time in adult penal institutions. I welcome any law that provides a stricter criterion for imposing a custodial sentence on a young offender. As the hon. Member for Ormskirk said, the amendment received overwhelming support from the all-party group and from the other place.
    It is valid to point out several factors involved in dealing with those young people who have mental problems. Many of those who spend much of their time in such work are disturbed by the ineffectiveness of custodial sentences on many young people. Each year. that ineffectiveness is dramatically illustrated by the reconviction figures published by the prison department. For example, over the past six years the reconviction rate for young adults leaving prison has risen from 64 per cent. to 69 per cent.; for those leaving borstals from 63 per cent. to 68 per cent.; and, most strikingly of all, for those leaving detention centres from 54 per cent. to 63 per cent.—an increase of nearly 10 per cent. in just over six years. Those are the overall reconviction rates for offenders under the age of 21.
    The figures for juveniles under the age of 17 are even more alarming. Indeed, 72 per cent. of juveniles leaving detention centres and 78 per cent. of those leaving borstals are reconvicted within two years. In December 1979., the former Minister of State, Home Office, now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, spoke in Derby and gave the main reason why penal establishments for young offenders had such high failure rates. He said:
    "our aim must be to leach the young offender to live freely in the community without indulging in unacceptable behaviour. And it is obvious, from common sense, from experience and from research, that teaching anyone to come to terms with the community in which he lives must for the most part better be done in that community than in an artificial institutional setting providing supports which will be removed as soon as the youngster returns to his own home."
    Sad to say, many of those in secure accommodation in prisons are there mainly because of mental disorders. We should provide constructive alternatives for non-violent offenders. The amendment will open up a new vista and remove—as the hon. Member for Ormskirk said—from the dustbins of our penal institutions those who should not be there and who could be better cared for and looked after elsewhere. Many constructive options are available to the courts, including community service orders, intermediate treatment, probation and supervision order, attendance centres, and so on. To those of us involved, they all appear to have a much better chance of helping young offenders than custodial measures.
    There is a further, very powerful argument for reducing the use of custody. The sheer cost of imprisonment is colossal. It never does any harm to remind ourselves that it now costs £177 per week to keep one person in prison, £180 per week for a borstal place and £156 for a place in a detention centre. For a residential home with secure accommodation it can cost up to £400 per week. In comparison a probation order with conditions costs about

    519
    £350 per year and a community service order costs about £400 per year. The annual cost to the Home Office of a place in a hostel run by the Stonham housing association—of which I am fortunate enough to be chairman—is about £1,200 per year. Such comparisons must surely impress the Home Office, the Home Secretary and, in particular, the Departments in which those involved are sadly having to scratch around for savings in their budgets. Alternatives make not only penological, but humanitarian sense. In addition, they must surely make economic sense.
    I shall refer later to any criticisms that I might have of the Bill. Indeed, if I have any criticism it refers not to what the Bill does, but, perhaps sadly, to what it is unable to do at the moment. We must ensure that a decisive switch away from custody and towards alternative measures is adequately funded. For example, probation orders must be supported by adequate resources, especially for hostels.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon >: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to make long, prepared speeches supporting an amendment from the other place that is approved of by the Government and that is not disputed by any other hon. Member? If so, our debates on the Bill will continue until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. There are 240 amendments.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not yet heard anything that is out of order from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), but perhaps I should take this opportunity to remind him and the House that it is not in order to debate the Bill. Contributions must relate directly to the Lords amendments.
    Mr. Irving: I said earlier that I would want to say more about the Bill generally. I am sorry if I have upset the hon. Gentleman, but there is nothing to stop him going home if he does not want to listen. However, I should be sorry to find him missing, because I seldom have an opportunity to look at him.
    My points relate not only to the mentally sick but to those suffering from temporary disorders. Most of the young people involved have committed offences against property, involving sums that are generally much less than £100. That fact must be related to the cost of custody. Probation officers have immense problems. Many of those young people who suffer from such disorders could be looked after properly in hostels provided by some housing associations. There must be options available to the court. Hostels and day centres play an important part but they are scarce and, in some areas, non-existent. The amendment rightly seeks to accommodate the growing numbers of those involved, but there are still far too few facilities available. It is particularly important to develop hostels and other forms of supportive accommodation so that we can meet the growing problem of homelessness among young people.
    NACRO has estimated that homeless young offenders are twice as likely to re-offend as those with a home, and, because it disrupts youngsters' ties with the community, custody itself helps to promote the very homelessness that so often leads back into crime. This makes the Home Office's decision—perhaps a slight word of discord here—to impose a standstill this year on finance for new
    520
    schemes run by voluntary organisations tragically shortsighted. The Home Office has found it difficult to take advantage of the opportunity to expand the number of hostel places for offenders presented by the availability of extra Housing Corporation finance. The standstill could well mean that 500 new hostel places which would have been made available this year—about half of them to be managed by the Stonham housing association—will not, or may not, be established.
    4.30 pm
    Parliament has not yet seen the public expenditure Estimates for the next financial year, and it is possible that there may be a small amount of money available, but it will not be easy to undo the demoralisation caused to local committees whose hard work and planning has been wrecked by this year's standstill. If we are talking about alternatives for youngsters with mental disorders and mental health difficulties, we are talking about voluntary organisations such as Stonham that can only be managed and run without astronomical costs to the community because they are supported and run by volunteers. In this one organisation alone, we are dependent upon 3,500 voluntary workers to keep our 180 local management committees going. In financial terms, this must be an immense saving to the State.
    Far worse, however, is the likely effect in the blighted lives of the homeless people who will unnecessarily end up in custody because of the lack of suitable alternatives.
    The cost to the Home Office of financing these extra hostel places would have been small in comparison with the massive resources that, it is proposed, will be devoted to the establishment of increased prison facilities. It would need a transfer of only a tiny fraction of the money devoted to the prison building programme, which will provide 5,000 new prison places by 1990 at a capital cost of £40,000 to £50,000 each, to provide more humane, effective and economical alternatives for many of those now totally and unnecessarily committed to custodial sentences.
    It is successive Governments' neglect of the penal system that has led us to the very sad and sorry position in which we now find ourselves, and Labour Governments must fully share the blame. Nor am I impressed by the behaviour sometimes of our own colleagues—Members of Parliament—who profess enlightenment in speeches in the House but betray their fine words by their actions in their constituencies when they return and find that they are being placed, so to speak, in the dock by the community because they are seeking to establish either a hostel or a home. That is so particularly in mental health matters.
    Let hon. Members who have not done so try to establish a small home with half a dozen psychiatric or ex-psychiatric places for youngsters in a residential community. They will find a problem. We have done it; we do it; but everyone must be prepared to stand up and be counted. Again, this is where we owe such great gratitude, not only to the probation and after-care service, but to the social services and to those dedicated people in the community who, often with not even a word of thanks, are ready to be among those who will stand up and be counted. I am glad to say that there are a number of good colleagues on both sides of the House who are prepared to take exactly that line.
    I am grateful for this opportunity to address a few brief words to the amendment. I support the amendment

    521
    although I consider, generally speaking, that the Bill still does too little. Nevertheless, it is a step forward and the amendment will contribute to it.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 9
    COMPUTATION OF CUSTODIAL SENTENCES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS
    Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 8, line 19 leave out "subsection" and insert "subsections".
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this we shall also discuss Lords amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 27, at end insert—
    "(6) The reference in subsection (1) above to an offender being committed to custody by an order of a court includes a reference to his being committed to a remand centre or to prison under section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 or section 37 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 but does not include a reference to his being committed to the care of a local authority under the said section 23",
    and the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), at end add
    "save where the offender is placed in accomodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty for the period or part of the period of commital to care, which period shall be treated as a period of custody for the purpose of subsection (1) above.".
    Mr. Mayhew: Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides that a period of imprisonment shall be treated as reduced by time spent in custody on remand before sentence. That provision does not apply to detention centre orders and sentences of borstal training. The announcement made in the White Paper on young offenders that time spent in custody on remand would serve to reduce the new young offender custodial sentences was widely welcomed.
    Clause 9 provides that section 67 of the 1967 Act is to apply to detention centre orders and youth custody sentences as it applies to sentences of imprisonment. Amendment No. 11 provides that when a juvenile is committed on remand to a remand centre or to a prison the time spent there on remand will serve to reduce a subsequent custodial sentence, but when he is committed on remand to the care of a local authority that will not count towards his sentence. The need for this amendment was discovered at a late stage of the passage of the Bill and it derives from complex statutory provisions with which I do not think it necessary to weary the House.
    When a juvenile under the age of 17 is remanded to the care of a local authority under section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 the local authority decides on the appropriate placement under the general powers applying to children in care. It may be placement in ordinary residential accommodation or in secure accommodation or it may be with a parent, guardian, relative or friend or boarded out. Although remanding in care means that the local authority takes over responsibility for the young person and may involve, to a greater or lesser extent, restrictions on his freedom, it is quite different from the position where a defendant is remanded in a custodial prison establishment.
    Whereas an adult held in prison before sentence has spent a period in custody, this does not apply in the case
    522
    even of a juvenile who is placed by the local authority, in the exercise of its discretion, in secure accommodation. Certainly the restriction on his liberty may be severe, but placement in secure accommodation is a professional decision taken by the local authority social workers. It is a decision that may be taken in relation to any child in care and it has in itself nothing to do with whether the young person is an offender or on remand. We do not, therefore, agree that placement in secure accommodation should count towards sentence, which is the policy advocated in the Opposition's amendment.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government do not agree that placement in secure accommodation is comparable with remand in a remand centre or prison, but does he not accept that conditions in local authority secure units are virtually identical to those in remand centres or prison? The hon. and learned Gentleman is nodding his head. I visited the regional observaticn and assessment centre in Fazakerley in my region only last week. There the secure unit accommodation is referred to as cells. There are bars. The rooms are locked. The whole plan is probably drawn analogous to the precise plans that were laid down for the Risley remand centre. In those circumstances, while the hon. and learned Gentleman may not regard the placements as comparable, the young boys concerned see no difference between that kind of custody and the custody of a remand centre or an adult prison.
    Mr. Mayhew: I shall cast my mind back as best I can to the question that preceded most of the hon. Gentleman's intervention and deal with it shortly. I was coming to that point. Of course I agree that secure accommodation is secure accommodation, and it imposes a greater restriction upon the liberty of the child in care than is imposed by the ordinary care order. But even the ordinary care order imposes some restriction on a child because he is not able to live in a way that conflicts with those conditions.
    Having said that it is a professional decision taken by the local authority social workers, I was going on to say that remand in care is not in itself a reason to hold a youngster in secure accommodation. We have to consider who is placed in secure accommodation. More often than not it is someone whose conduct is so unruly, to use the words in the Act, that an order is made by reason of unruliness and he is placed in secure accommodation. Therefore, it would be invidious to provide by law that a period spent in secure accommodation by reason, for example, of unruliness while on remand should count towards sentence, while other remands in care, where the remanded young person had behaved well, should not count towards the subsequent sentence.
    Having considered carefully what would be the best solution to the difficulty, the answer that we reached was that the place to draw the line in law was between custody on the one hand and care on the other. The placement in secure accommodation is used as sparingly as possible, and that is another practical and important point.
    In some instances juveniles are placed in secure accommodation for short periods—perhaps for only a matter of hours. When youngsters are kept in security they may spend part of their time outside the secure accommodation. That flexibility is an important part of the arrangement and it is very different from the custodial

    523
    accommodation and the custodial orders mentioned by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). Flexibility is a very important part of the arrangement.
    Therefore, we think that it would be wrong to base the legal calculation of sentence length on a distinction between time spent in residential care and time spent in secure accommodation. That is not to say that we propose to remove the distinction between the two. We think that it is highly desirable that the courts should know the circumstances of the remand in care and that, for the reasons I have given, it would be wrong for such time or part of it to count towards sentence automatically, but the courts ought to be able to take it into account in deciding on the right sentence. Accordingly, that is why we propose that the local authority should inform the courts of the placement of youngsters remanded to their care when they come up in court for sentence, so that the courts will always know whether they are dealing with a case where a youngster has spent some time in secure accommodation. We think that that will ensure that the courts will be able to take adequate account of the offender's circumstances on remand in deciding the length of sentence.
    4.45 pm
    It would be easy to make a long speech, but I do not think that I would make the distinction between the two sides on the issue—the Opposition's amendment and the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendment—any clearer by doing so. I entirely understand what lies behind the amendment, but I believe that the practical difficulties will be best met if we ensure, as we propose to do, that the courts will always know whether a child or other young offender has spent time in secure accommodation. We are satisfied, and I hope that the House will accept, that in practice it would be wrong and not really workable to make the distinction that the amendment seeks.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I detected a little bewilderment in the House when I called the amendment. Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to explain the rather complicated procedure. It will be in order to debate amendment No. 11, amendment No. 12 and the amendment to amendment No. 12. At the end of the debate the House will come to a decision on amendment No. 11. If the Opposition then wish to move their amendment to amendment No. 12, I shall give them an opportunity to move it formally so that a decision can be reached on it. I hope that that is clear to the House.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clearing up what seemed to me to be a procedural jungle. I shall address my remarks to the amendment to Lords amendment No. 12, which has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
    We welcome the provisions in the Bill which state that time spent by young offenders in custody on remand shall count towards sentence in regard to detention centre orders and youth custody orders. We have no hesitation in supporting those very sensible provisions. However, we do not agree with the Lords amendment which establishes that remands in care are not remands in custody, so that time spent in care, whether in ordinary residential accommodation or in secure accommodation does not
    524
    count towards sentence—in other words, there is no time off the ultimate sentence in respect of the period spent on remand in care. We think that that is discriminatory and unfair. The Opposition's amendment seeks to ensure that remands spent in secure accommodation shall be treated in the same way as other remands which deprive the defendant of his liberty and shall count towards his sentence in the same way.
    Our amendment deals with young people between the ages of 10 and 17. The deprivation of the liberty of someone that young, the curtailment of the freedom of someone that young, is the same to him in its effect whether his freedom is restricted as a result of being in secure accommodation or in a remand centre. The young person affected is most unlikely to understand the fine legal distinction between the two. He is unlikely to understand, for example, why a co-accused of the same age who is remanded in custody to a remand centre should be treated more favourably than himself with regard to remission. In our view, it could lead to an added sense of grievance and injustice at a very sensitive time in the young person's life. He will find it particularly difficult to understand why a young offender, whom he may well know, who has been sent to some place where the regime is more severe than secure accommodation because of his bad, unco-operative and unruly behaviour, should get a remission of sentence, whereas in his own case, although he had behaved well in secure accommodation, he will not be able to get it.
    The European Court of Human Rights has laid down that the same procedural guarantee should apply to someone in detention, whatever the circumstances of the detention. Perhaps that will cover the point about envisaging that the right to remission should be the same in the various circumstances of detention.
    I accept what the Minister said when he said that he intended that the court should be told of the fact that the accused, when he comes up for sentence, is in secure accommodation, so that the court should therefore be enabled to use its own judgment and take that into account when passing sentence. However, we believe that the matter is of such importance that it should be enshrined in legislation. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept our amendment to the Lords amendment.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12, which I welcome, make it clear that time spent on remand in local authority care does not count towards a custodial sentence in the way in which remand in custody does. In our report entitled "Young offenders: A Strategy for the Future." which we published in 1981, the parliamentary penal affairs group accepted that it would be inappropriate to equate time spent on remand in local authority care with time spent on remand in prison department establishments. We recommended that the courts, nevertheless, should be asked to take into account time spent on remand in care when determining their sentences. In Committee the Minister of State agreed to consider issuing a circular to that effect. When the amendment was tabled in the other place the Government announced that they would ask local authorities to give the courts details of the placements of youngsters who had been remanded in care and that, if necessary, they would amend the court rules to the same effect so that that would be taken into account when the

    525
    sentence was passed. That announcement and that amendment met the recommendations of the parliamentary group and they are, therefore, to be welcomed.
    I also support the amendment to amendment No. 12, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and spoken to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson). No one has used the word "child" yet. We are talking about individuals who are still legally children. The amendment provides that when a child is remanded in local authority care, any time that he or she spends in secure accommodation should count towards the later custodial sentence. Government amendment No. 12, which provides that remand in local authority care should not count towards a later custodial sentence, is reasonable. When a child is remanded into local authority care the authority can place him in a community home or with foster parents or it can leave him at his own home under supervision. Those circumstances are qualitatively different from a period spent on remand in a prison department establishment in prison department custody. We believe that the Government's view that time spent in those circumstances should not count towards a later custodial sentence but should instead be taken into account by the courts when passing sentence is right.
    However, when the young person has spent all or part of his time on remand in local authority care in a secure unit or secure accommodation, which is cell-like, that, as my hon. and learned Friend has argued, should be equated with remand in custody because the overriding feature of both is the physical deprivation of the liberty of the individual.
    As I tried to say in my intervention in the Minister's speech, when he supported Lords amendment No. 12, but opposed my right hon. Friend's amendment, those of us who have visited secure units either in local authority community homes or observation and assessment centres cannot but be struck by the enormous similarity of those secure units to cells in remand centres and prisons. I visited one last week, which was the last of many. The single accommodation is referred to as cells. Upon the walls is written "cell 1", "cell 2", "cell 3", "cell 4" and so on. The boys are aged 10 to 16. The cell doors are heavy metal, with a lock. There is a little spy-hole grill. The cell itself is bare and made of concrete. It has steel bars at the windows. By any definition that is a cell.
    Some 2,000 boys a year aged 10 to 16 are housed in those circumstances at the discretion currently of a local authority social worker, not the courts. They are held for an indefinite period—not days, but weeks. In the unit that I visited the period was months. Those are prison-like conditions. There is no way in which the Minister can pretend that somehow that is similar to placement in an ordinary open local authority home, a foster home or the boy's own home under supervision. In those circumstances the boy is allowed out. He is allowed to watch television, to go out with his friends to the youth club and to meet his girlfriend and other friends. He is allowed out into the streets. In secure accommodation, in a cell, he has none of those opportunities. It is wrong for the Minister to suggest that the conditions are comparable.
    My hon. and learned Friend is right. The House must agree with him that if we are to put young boys into cell-like accommodation in secure homes and if it is right that boys in remand centres in similar conditions will have that time spent on remand counted towards later sentences, it
    526
    is equally right that the time spent in secure accommodation in a single cell should be counted against the time given for a later custodial sentence.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: One of the arguments against remission for those serving in secure accommodation is that it would be invidious because the same would apply to anyone in care. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a much more marked distinction between the regime in residential and secure care than there is between the regime in secure accommodation and a remand centre?
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. That is a variant of the point that I made earlier. The point that I am making, which my hon. and learned Friend made in a different way, is that the single principle by which we must be guided is whether the individual is being deprived of his liberty. Is he being locked up? We accept that there are different forms of deprivation of an individual's liberty. The Minister tried to suggest that placing a child in local authority care in a foster home is a deprivation of liberty. It may be, but only at the margins. None of us is arguing that that is in any way comparable to holding someone under lock and key for 24 hours a day in a cell in Risley remand centre or, in the same circumstances, in a cell in an observation and assessment centre 50 miles down the road. The latter two are virtually identical. Therefore, the same conditions should apply to both.
    The Government's only real argument, which was adduced here and in the other place against the amendment, which is identical to the amendment debated in the other place, is that computing the time spent in secure accommodation would cause practical problems. I accept that. It is because children in secure accommodation are allowed out from time to time, either out of the cell into an association area or to visit their relatives or friends. That is different from remand centres. The difference is that they are allowed out of the secure unit only for hours at a time, certainly not for days.
    Whatever the problems, they are not insuperable. If we have the will they can easily be overcome. There is no reason why the fact that a child has been allowed out of a secure unit for a specific purpose for a minimal time needs to be taken into account when the court is informed that he has spent a certain number of days in security. Local authorities should be told that the time spent in secure accommodation can be calculated to the nearest number of days.
    5 pm
    We all agree that the physical conditions in the institutions are virtually identical. The Government wish to be considered compassionate. For them to say that they would like to make the change but they cannot because occasionally a boy in secure accommodation is allowed out for a few hours does not further that image. The hours are so few that they can be ignored, or, alternatively, the local authority can be told to knock off a few days. If the Government have the will, the difficulty can simply be overcome.
    Whenever society takes the grave step of physically depriving a child of his liberty, the period spent so detained should count against a later custodial sentence, whether he is locked up in a penal establishment, a remand centre or a secure unit within a community home system. Anyone who has talked to boys in such institutions—who

    527
    have often been in both types—know that they do not see the difference. They see it as unfair and unjust that the time spent in one institution does not count against time that they will have to spend locked up in another.
    I hope that on reflection the Minister will feel that he has made a mistake and will accept the amendment. If not, I hope that we shall be joined in the Lobby by hon. Members on the Conservative Benches.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment:No. 12, in page 8, line 27, at end insert—
    "(6) The reference in subsection (1) above to an offender being committed to custody by an order of a court includes a reference to his being committed to a remand centre or to prison under section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 or section 37 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 but does not include a reference to his being committed to the care of a local authority under the said section 23."
    Read a Second time.
    Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment,at end add
    'save where the offender is placed in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty for the period or part of the period of committal to care, which period shall be treated as a period of custody for the purpose of subsection (1) above.'—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
    Question put,That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 83, Noes 126.

    Division No. 316]

    [5.00 pm

    AYES

    Abse, Leo

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Alton, David

    Kerr, Russell

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Leighton, Ronald

    Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Beith, A. J.

    McCartney, Hugh

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

    McKelvey, William

    Bidwell, Sydney

    McWilliam, John

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Marks, Kenneth

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

    Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Morton, George

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

    Newens, Stanley

    Cook, Robin F.

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Palmer, Arthur

    Crowther, Stan

    Parry, Robert

    Cryer, Bob

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Dalyell, Tam

    Pitt, William Henry

    Davidson, Arthur

    Prescott, John

    Deakins, Eric

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Race, Reg

    Dormand, Jack

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Dubs, Alfred

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Rooker, J. W.

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Eastham, Ken

    Rowlands, Ted

    Faulds, Andrew

    Sever, John

    Field, Frank

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Spearing, Nigel

    Foster, Derek

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Foulkes, George

    Stoddart, David

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    George, Bruce

    Tinn, James

    Graham, Ted

    Wardell, Gareth

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

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

    Welsh, Michael

    Hardy, Peter

    Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Wilson, William (C'try SE)

    Haynes, Frank

    Wright, Sheila

    Hooley, Frank

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joan Evans.

    528

    NOES

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

    Ancram, Michael

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Loveridge, John

    Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Bendall, Vivian

    McCrindle, Robert

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Madel, David

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Major, John

    Blackburn, John

    Marlow, Antony

    Blaker, Peter

    Mates, Michael

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Mather, Carol

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Bright, Graham

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Moate, Roger

    Budgen, Nick

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Murphy, Christopher

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

    Needham, Richard

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Neubert, Michael

    Cope, John

    Newton, Tony

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Osborn, John

    Crouch, David

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Dover, Denshore

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Dykes, Hugh

    Rathbone, Tim

    Elliott, Sir William

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Rossi, Hugh

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Forman, Nigel

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Silvester, Fred

    Goodhew, Sir Victor

    Sims, Roger

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Gorst, John

    Speed, Keith

    Greenway, Harry

    Speller, Tony

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

    Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Stainton, Keith

    Grist, Ian

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Stanley, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Hawksley, Warren

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Hicks, Robert

    Thompson, Donald

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Trippier, David

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Viggers, Peter

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Waddington, David

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Ward, John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Warren, Kenneth

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Watson, John

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Wells, Bowen

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Wheeler, John

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Lang, Ian

    Wolfson, Mark

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Lee, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lester, Jim(Beeston)

    Mr. Peter Brooke and

    Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)

    Mr. Archie Hamilton.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10
    PROVISION OF PREMISES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 9, line 35, after "Sections" insert "5A,".
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendment No. 154.
    Mr. Mayhew: Amendment No. 13 is purely a paving amendment for amendment No. 154 and simply makes provision in the few clause for the post of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales. As many hon. Members will recall, the committee of inquiry into the United Kingdom prison services, presided over by Lord Justice May, which reported in October 1979, recommended that there should be a system of inspection of the prison service distanced as far as may be practicable from the prison department. It recommended that there should be constituted within the Home Office an independent department called the prison inspectorate with a senior rank. When the post of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector was first created following this it was agreed that the appointment should be made by the Crown on the advice of the Home Secretary in order to emphasise its status and the holder's special relationship with the Home Secretary.
    The appointments of the first Chief Inspector in England and the Chief Inspector of Prisons in Scotland were made in anticipation of legislation with the agreement of the Palace, the Civil Service Department, as it then was, and the Civil Service Commission, on the understanding that legislative cover would be sought at the next opportunity. This amendment is in fulfilment of that commitment. The amendment provides, separately for England and Wales and for Scotland, for a chief inspector to be appointed by Her Majesty. It sets out briefly the duties of the chief inspector and arranges that he should, as the May committee recommended, produce an annual report which the Secretary of State is to lay before Parliament.
    Amendment No. 13 merely seeks to add reference to the new section inserted into the Prison Act 1952 by the new clause in the new section 43 for which clause 10 provides.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 10, line 4, after "to" insert "detention in".
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This is a purely drafting amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 11
    ACCOMMODATION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS AND DEFAULTERS ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 10, line 8, leave out "the enactments mentioned in".
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This is a purely drafting amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 10, line 17, at end insert—
    "(1A) Subject to subsection (9) below, an offender aged 16 years or less who is sentenced to youth custody, other than an offender who falls to be detained in a youth custody centre by virtue of subsection (1) above, is to be detained in a youth custody centre or in a remand centre as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct unless—
    530

    (a) the term of his youth custody sentence is treated by virtue of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 as reduced to less than 21 days; or

    (b)he has been sentenced under section 15(6) below to youth custody for less than 21 days; or

    (c)the Secretary of State gives a direction for his detention in a prison under subsection (2) below."

    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21.
    Mr. Mayhew: The effect of the amendments is to restructure subsections (1) to (3) of the clause so as to restrict more narrowly the circumstances in which juveniles—that is, people under 17—who are subject to youth custody sentences may be held in prisons as distinct from youth custody centres or remand centres. Where a juvenile is not already subject to the main guarantee of placement in a youth custody center—as provided for in subsection (1) if he is serving between four and 18 months—he will, by virtue of these amendments, still have to be held in a youth custody centre or a remand centre. There are three limited exceptions to this: where the term of his sentence is reduced to less than 21 days by the counting of remand time in custody; where he has been sentenced for less than 21 days following a breach of supervision; or when he is held in a prison for a temporary purpose. Together, these amendments are designed to go as far as possible to meet the arguments put forward in this House—notably by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk)—to the effect that juveniles should not be held in prisons for the duration of their sentences.
    The effect of the last amendment is to go one step further in respect of juveniles serving very short detention centre orders, by removing altogether the power to hold in prison for the duration of their sentences those who have sentences shorter than 21 days. Those serving 21 days or more will already be excluded from prisons.
    The Government were able to accept this change, but not to go as far in respect of youth custody sentences, because detention centre trainees are committed direct from court without first going to allocation units in prisons.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I welcome Lords amendments Nos.16, 18, 19 and 20, which, as the Minister said, are the result of assurances given to me. I know that they will also be welcomed by the Magistrates' Association which, when the Bill was first published, asked for an assurance that juveniles sentenced to youth custody would not be detained in adult prisons. The undesirability of detaining 15 and 16-year-olds in overcrowded, local adult prisons where, as everyone acknowledges, conditions are the worst in the penal system, is self-evident. In any event, neither the institutions nor the staff are properly geared for their training. Facilities are not available to them to deal with the needs of juvenile offenders. For those reasons alone, we welcome the amendments.
    However, even with the amendments, it will still be possible for juveniles serving youth custody sentences to be detained in adult prisons on a temporary basis for certain purposes, including assessment and allocation. That is already the case under the present system for those sentenced to borstal training. They often have to await allocation to a borstal establishment in an inappropriate adult prison. I hope that we shall soon do away with that

    531
    practice by at least reallocating allocation centres and young offender establishments rather than having young offenders in adult prisons. I welcome the amendments as a step in the right direction. They are a considerable improvement on the original form of the Bill.
    I also welcome amendment No. 21, which was sponsored by members of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group in another place. It provides that juvenile offenders who receive detention sentences of less than 21 days should not be placed in adult prisons to serve their sentences, as the original form of the Bill would have allowed. Again, to detain juvenile offenders with detention centre sentences in adult prisons would be unfair both to the young offenders and to the courts and magistrates who, in sentencing them—especially at such a young and vulnerable age—would not usually have intended that, as an administrative convenience by the prison department, they should be dumped into the penal dustbins of adult prisons.
    The Government's original opposition to the amendment was regrettable. However, they deserve credit for having taken the time and trouble to reconsider their position and accept the amendment on Third Reading in another place.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments No. 17 to 21 agreed to.

    Clause 14
    RELEASE ON LICENCE OF YOUNG OFFENDERS
    Lords amendment: No. 22, leave out clause 14 and insert the following new clause B—
    "B.—(1) Subsection (5A) of section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 shall cease to have effect.
    (2) Where a yound offender has been released on licence and that licence has expired he remains under the supervision of a probation officer under the terms and for the period specified under section 15 of this Act".
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 23, the Minister's motion to disagree and Lords amendment No. 24.
    Mr. Mayhew: The amendments that the Government have tabled to clause 15 and schedules 13 and 15 give effect to the undertaking that my noble Friend gave on Third Reading in the other place that the Government would consider whether provision could be made in the Bill to give effect to the proposition that, when a young offender is released on parole, his parole licence should run only to his remission date, at the same time achieving parity between the period of supervision under licence of those released on parole and the period of supervision of those released in the ordinary way with remission for good conduct. I am glad to say that satisfactory amendments have been prepared.
    The House will recall the consideration that was given to this matter in Committee. The Government were anxious to ensure that those released on parole licence should not be liable to a lesser period of supervision than those released in the ordinary way. On Third Reading of the Bill in another place, the Government accepted an amendment moved by the noble Lord Mishcon, which,
    532
    although technically defective, would have met the Government's earlier objections by providing that a young offender released on parole licence should, after his remission date when his parole licence expired, be liable to supervision thereafter as if he had been released in the normal way.
    The Government's amendment now seeks to leave out Clause 14, which makes provision for the release on licence of young offenders, and substantially to recast clause 15, bringing into that clause, which dealt previously only with those released in the normal way, the provisions dealing with those released on parole. In the revised clause 15, those young offenders, who are neither granted remission nor released under parole, will have, under clause 15(3A), three months' supervision. Those released with remission will, under clause 15(3B) be supervised until the end of the sentence, with a minimum of three months supervision. Those released on parole will, under clause 15(3C) be supervised after their parole licence expires until the end of their sentence. There will be a maximum of 12 months supervision. Those provisions are subject to the period of supervision ending at the twenty-second birthday, if that intervenes before the supervision period is concluded. A short custodial sentence for breach of supervision will not attract a further period of supervision.
    I realise that all that sounds rather Byzantine. In fact, it is quite clear. I have worked out a way of making it much clearer, but I think that I might be wrong. Therefore, I shall not do so unless pressed.
    The Government have gone a considerable way in a short time to meet the views expressed by the Opposition in the other place, and by the National Association of Probation Officers, and I commend the Government's amendments and the consequential disagreement to Lords amendment No. 23 to the House.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman clarify one point? Am I right in thinking that a young person serving a 24-month sentence, released on parole after 12 months, will then be on parole for four months and on ordinary supervision for a further eight months? Will that be the consequence of what he has said?
    Mr. Mayhew: It is generally unwise to answer "Yes", or even "No", to such a question. I am prepared, subject to revision, to answer "Yes". If a young offender is paroled, the parole licence will run to remission date and then expire. We all know that remission for good conduct means that an offender does not serve the last third of his sentence, but his supervision as a young offender runs to the end of the sentence, with a maximum of 12 months supervision, or until his twenty-second birthday, if that falls earlier. That must be put into the equation.
    The hon. Lady did not say when the chap would be 22. If no remission or parole is applicable, there is supervision for three months. If there is remission, the supervision will run until the end of the sentence, with a minimum of three months supervision. I hope that is clear.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Amendments made in lieu of the Lords amendment last disagreed to:
    Leave out clause 14.
    In clause 15, page 13, line 29, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
    '(1) Subject to subsection (8) below, if subsection (1A), (1B) or (1C) below applies to a person under 22 years of age who is

    533
    released from a term of detention under a detention centre order or a term of youth custody, he shall be under the supervision of a probation officer or a social worker of a local authority social services department.
    (1A) This subsection applies to a person who was neither granted remission nor released on licence.
    (1B) This subsection applies to a person who was granted remission.
    (1C) This subsection applies to a person—

    (a)who was under 21 years of age when sentence was passed on him; and

    (b)who is released on licence; and

    (c)whose licence expires less than 12 months after his release.'

    In page 14, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'above' in line 14 and insert—
    '(3A) Subject to subsection (2) above, where subsection (IA) above applies, the supervision period begins on the offender's release and ends 3 months from his release.
    (3B) Subject to subsection (2) above and to subsection (4) below, where subsection (1B) above applies, the supervision period begins on the offender's release and ends—

    (a)3 months from his release; or

    (b)on the date on which his sentence would have expired if he had not been granted remission, whichever is the later.

    (3C) Subject to subsection (2) above and to subsection (4) below, where subsection (IC) above applies, the supervision period begins when the offender's licence expires and ends on the date on which he would have been released if he had never been granted remission or released on licence.
    (4) If the date mentioned in subsection (3B)(b)or (3C)'.
    In page 14, line 33, at end insert—
    '(9) In this section—
    "licence" means a licence under section 60 of the Criminal Justices Act 1967; and
    "remission" means remission under rules made by virtue of section 47 of the Prison Act 1952.'
    In schedule 13, page 101, line 3, at end insert 'and
    in subsection (5A), for the words "any of the preceding paragraphs" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph (a) above",'.
    In schedule 15, page 115, line 46, after '(5A)' insert
    (b) and '.—[Mr. Mayhew.]
    Lords amendment No. 23 disagreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 24 agreed to.

    Clause 17
    ATTENDANCE CENTRE ORDERS
    Lords amendment: No 25, in page 16, line 17, at end insert
    "where the offender is under 17 years of age, or 36 hours where the offender is under 21 but not less than 17 years of age."
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This amendment is about attendance centres. It increases from 24 hours to 36 the maximum period for which a court may make an attendance centre order in respect of boys aged 17 and under 21. As indicated in the White Paper on young offenders, the Government are extending the provision of attendance centres for young men in this age group. In 1979 there were only two. There are now 14. At all these centres the usual duration of a session is three hours, which means that a young man undergoing a 24 hour order—the maximum that a court may impose under existing law and the Bill as drafted—must attend on at least eight Saturdays to complete the order. The effect of enabling the courts to
    534
    make orders for up to 36 hours is to require a young man to attend the centre a minimum of 12 times. For young men of the age in question, at least 17 and under 21, the longer order is compatible with the aims of the attendance centre order as we see them, which are to vindicate the law by imposing loss of leisure and to teach offenders something of the constructive use of leisure. This was a constructive amendment proposed in another place, which the Government were content to accept. I commend it to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 20
    REQUIREMENTS IN SUPERVISION ORDERS
    Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 20, line 24, leave out
    "aggregate of any periods specified in" and insert
    "total number of day s in respect of which a supervised person may be required to comply with".
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 38, 40 and 41 together with the motions to disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 32, 35, 37 and 41.
    Mr. Mayhew: These amendments enable the courts to include a requirement, in a supervision order made in criminal procedures, or in a supervision order made on the discharge of a care order, to the effect that a young offender will be required to remain in a specified place for a specified time between six o'clock at night and six in the morning. This condition is to be known as a night restriction requirement. The House will recall that a proposal of this general nature was put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell), as a new clause in Committee. The proposal was extensively discussed during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. At that time, what was envisaged was a free-standing power, but I said that the Government had come to the conclusion that a free-standing power would not be an effective addition to the powers available to the courts to deal with young offenders, but that the Government saw more promise in a power forming part of a strengthened package of supervision that would come with a supervision order, and that if such a power proved practicable on investigation we should endeavour to provide for it in the other place.
    Directly after I made that announcement the Home Office consulted interested organisations. In the light of those consultations, the Government came to the conclusion that it would be possible to provide for such a requirement for juveniles within the framework of the supervision order. The Government accordingly decided to amend the supervision provisions of the Bill to enable a court to include in a supervision order a requirement that the young offender on whom the supervision order was imposed should remain in the place where he normally lived during specified hours on specified days, the requirement being carefully drawn to enable it to be added to the supervision order as part of a constructive package of additions and requirements. The necessary amendments to add these provisions to the Bill were made on Report in the other place.

    535
    The proposals are now included in clause 20 of the Bill. This amends section 12 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which is the section giving power to include requirements in supervision orders. The essence of the amendments is set out in paragraph (aa)which amendment 32 adds to subsection (3C). In summary, the court will be enabled, after consultation with the supervisor, and subject to certain consent, to require the young offender to remain at home for up to 10 hours between 6 pm and 6 am on up to 30 nights during the first three months after the supervision order is made. I should emphasise here the provision made for consultation with the supervisor. There are further safeguards to ensure that the requirement is not imposed in inappropriate circumstances by the court.
    There is a requirement to obtain the consent of the young offender, or if he is under 14, that of his parent or guardian. Then there is a requirement to obtain the consent of the parent or guardian or other person with whom the young person lives. Where appropriate the requirement may apply to more than one place. The young offender will not be confined absolutely to his home, he will be able to leave it during restricted hours if he is accompanied by his parent or guardian or by his supervisor, or by someone else specified in the order.
    I shall now explain why we have decided to include the night restriction requirement in the Bill. A major difference between the power as originally envisaged by my hon. and learned Friend and the power as it now stands is that it is not a free-standing power but one that may be included as an integral part of a supervision order. Whatever the criticisms that have been made of the concept of a night restriction order there is general agreement that this is a better approach. The Government recognise that a supervision order is designed with the positive aim of encouraging the child to take part in a wide range of activities, and clause 20 of the Bill is designed to provide a framework for extending the use of intermediate treatment. But the Bill has included from the start a power requiring the offender to refrain from certain specified activities, and subsection (3C)(b)is a development from that provision. For the court, it provides a specific power of restraint which can be imposed on the offender. By so strengthening the supervision order, the courts might now see the new power as a realistic alternative to custody in appropriate cases, which is something we all wish to do.
    The Government have been anxious that the courts should see in the strengthened supervision order a real alternative to the custodial disposal which they might otherwise be inclined to make, and I hope that the importance of that point will be recognised in the House. Our consultations with the Magistrates Association have made it clear that the night restriction order will be widely regarded as a useful addition to the powers available to the courts. It is rightly concerned about the behaviour of youngsters who get into serious trouble in the early or late evenings, when the temptations to offend, particularly when smallish groups gather together out of boredom, may prove too great.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the estimate given by the Association of Directors of Social Services, which should know what it is talking about, that if each of the 1,000
    536
    magistrates' courts makes only one curfew order a month, the cost will be nearly £3 million a year? If the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with that, does he not believe that we should use that money more effectively on other more proven methods of dealing with young offenders, such as intermediate treatment, which is kept short of funds by the Government? If he does not agree with that sum, what is his estimate of how much this inappropriate measure will cost?
    Mr. Mayhew: If such a calculation were to be reliable, we should have to take into account the number of those cases—one a month in 1,000 courts—that otherwise would be awarded a custodial sentence and then study the cost of the custodial sentences.
    I had already said, before the hon. Gentleman intervened, that it was our belief that a proportion of these can be used as genuine alternatives to custodial sentences. In other words, the offender would go into custody if it were not for the order. That has to be taken into account if we go in for the estimating business. We have to take into account whatever proportion we think is right of those who would go into custody, and what the cost of that would be. All that would be crystal-gazing.
    The Government have never held that the scheme will be appropriate in each case, or even in most cases. However, it is an alternative to custody that is worth trying. We agree that it is dangerous, but sometimes necessary, to send a young offender into custody. We all want to find alternatives. The Government make this proposal as an additional alternative.
    Some reservations have been expressed. I shall consider three main aspects—the role of the supervisor, the relationship within the family and the question of enforceability. The scheme requires the court to consult the supervisor as to the offender's circumstances and the feasibility of securing compliance with the requirement and to satisfy itself, having regard to the supervisor's report, that it is feasible to secure compliance with the order.
    I sympathise with the misgivings about enforcement of the proposal, which has come to be called the curfew order. Such an order is not capable of being enforced 100 per cent. , any more than is the offence of driving while disqualified. All that one can say by way of sanction is "If you are caught, you are in further trouble".
    It is important to bear in mind that the court must be satisfied that it is feasible to secure compliance. It must be satisfied on the basis of consultation with the supervisor.
    The Government believe that this consultation with the supervisor will go a long way to meet the concern that many of the organisations consulted have expressed about the importance of taking account of the supervisor's views, and we hope that it will allay the fear that the inclusion of a night restriction requirement in a supervision order might be detrimental to the relationship of trust and goodwill between the supervisor and the offender and his family. That is important and common ground. Of course, there is a reciprocal element. The clause provides that the court may not make a night restriction order unless the supervised person consents or, if he is a child, his parent or guardian, consents to its inclusion in the order. This is crucial. The Government believe that the supervisor can build on the fact that consent has been given to develop a constructive relationship with the family.

    537
    The Government have considered very carefully the views of those who were concerned about the effect of a night restriction requirement on relationships within the family. These fears have ranged widely. Some have doubted whether the response of the parents in consenting to the order could genuinely take account of its implications; others thought that where relations between the parent and the child were bad, the night restriction requirement might merely make them worse and increase tensions within the home. There has also been a basic objection to parents having a formal part to play in carrying out the order of the courts. The Government have taken the fears seriously. We are anxious to promote in this Bill measures which will strengthen and not diminish the sense of parental responsibility, because we believe that a more effective exercise of parental control can do much to pull a child back from delinquent or criminal behaviour.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am sorry to intervene again, but we are discussing an important matter. Will the parents of a child who is subject to a night restriction order be required or expected to report to the court any breaches by their child of the curfew order? If so, what are the likely consequences to parents who do not report breaches and to the relationship between parents and children if parents do report such breaches?
    Mr. Mayhew: Parents will not be required to report. The problem involves what one means by "expected". If a parent has consented to an order one may reasonably hope that he will co-operate in enforcing the order, but there is no obligation.
    We accept that in the case of a one-parent family, where there may be several children in deprived or difficult circumstances, a night restriction requirement will not have much to offer. In my lay opinion I think that only rarely would such an order be appropriate. Other examples can be thought of. That one can conjure up such examples does not invalidate the case for the power generally. They merely suggest that it is not right for every young offender. We accept that.
    5.45 pm
    The safeguards in the Bill will, in the Government's view, help the courts to identify those cases where the exercise of the power would be inappropriate. The judgment of the supervisor, with whom the court will work closely, and the consent of the parent or guardian in the case of a child, are essential here. In those cases where a night restriction requirement can with advantage be added, the parent will know that he is backed up by an order of the court. He will start with the knowledge that the supervising officer was able to satisfy the court that the night restriction order was feasible, and that thereafter he can turn to the supervising officer for support and assistance.
    The probation and social services have experience in ensuring that juveniles comply with the requirements of supervision, and their enforcement of the order will be supported by the power to take the offender before the court in breach proceedings if he fails to comply with the requirement. We have had that power for ages as a sanction for breach of probation. That, of course, would be pretty much a measure of last resort. Well before that stage, the supervisor would be able to consider what advice he could give to the family who were experiencing difficulties arising from the night restriction requirement.
    538
    If he came to the conclusion that it was clearly not working properly—perhaps for entirely acceptable reasons—he could apply to the court for its cancellation.
    We believe that the requirement in the form in which it is expressed is a useful addition to the non-custodial disposals available to the courts. As such it is well worth a try and may be safely entrusted to the hands of experienced justices. I commend it to the House.
    Dr. Summerskill: The night restriction requirement is a polite way of saying "curfew". We are discussing a totally new form of sentence which, in certain circumstances, can be imposed on children as young as 10 years old. It can certainly be imposed on children between the ages of 10 and 16. The Opposition consider that at best the proposal is unrealistic, ineffective and impracticable and at worst damaging and harmful. The principle of curfew met with no positive support by Opposition Members in Committee. It met with strong opposition from Labour Party members in another place. I cannot speak for peers from other parties. It has been criticised by several bodies of people who work regularly with juvenile offenders. We shall oppose the proposal tonight.
    The new form of sentence is fraught with problems, some of which the Minister appreciates. The problems centre around securing compliance. They involve the feasibility of requiring the co-operation of parents, the offender and the supervisors. The amendment is different from that which we discussed in Committee. It is objectionable for different reasons, mainly because of the enforceability problem.
    The proposal will create serious problems involving the relationship between probation officers and social workers and young offenders. The National Association of Probation Officers is strongly opposed to the proposal. That is important since it represents one of the professions which will have to supervise offenders in the new form of sentence.
    The relationship between a probation officer or social worker and an offender—if it is to be useful and effective—requires a build-up of mutual trust, and, as the National Association of Probation Officers has put it, a careful balance between the elements of help and control. If probation officer; and social workers are to influence offenders for good, the enforcement of this provision could become a barrier because it might prejudice the development of a good and useful relationship.
    Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Hemel Hempstead): I am grateful for the careful consideration that the hon. Lady has given to this matter. Clause 20(2), which I support, gives an important power to supervisors. They can tell a young offender where they shall live for a specified period or periods. They may have to present themselves to a person or persons—who may be the supervisor or somebody else—at specified hours. The supervisor may tell the young offender that he must participate in certain specified activities. The supervisor might have a great deal of control over the young person. That is not seen to be likely to damage the relationship. Why is it so different if the magistrates, after consultation, require the offender to stay at home with his parents with a supervisor being involved?
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk Mr. Kilroy-Silk rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Lady finished speaking?
    Dr. Summerskill: I have not.
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot have an interruption of an interruption.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) was making a speech.
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) has helped with the point that I was making. The relationship between the supervising officer and the offender has to be almost friendly and one of mutual trust. If the offender is supervised and controlled to the extent described by the hon. and learned Member, I do not believe that mutual trust will be built up. The same point was made by the Minister in Committee when we were discussing an amendment relating to the police. It was suggested that the police should have greater control than is provided for in this amendment. The Minister said that involving the police in curfew arrangements would not assist the buildup of trust with young offenders, because the police would be asked to play a role that would not be effective and useful in building up such a relationship.
    The supervisor will have to make random checks on the young person to see whether he is at home. How can that build up trust? Any breach of the curfew should be reported to the supervisor by the parents. How will that create mutual trust between the young offender and the supervisor, or the young offender and his parents, or between all three? That will not make for an effective and useful relationship between the probation officer or social worker and the child, who may be as young as 10, because we are talking about a sentence that can be imposed on a child aged from 10 to 16 years. The system is obnoxious, because for it to work effectively the social worker or probation officers would, in practice, be policing it. Their job is, and should be, to advise and assist offenders and not police them.
    Mr. Mayhew: As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) has pointed out, the probation order legislation requires a youngster to refrain from doing certain things or going to certain places. What is the difference in principle between that and this new provision?
    Dr. Summerskill: We are talking about a youngster being confined to his home—a child of 16 would be harder to confine than a child of 10—between 6 pm and 6 am. The supervisor could make random checks to see whether the young person was at home. That power does not exist at the moment—there is a curfew in connection with bail but that is totally different, and does not affect a child of 10.
    Extra resources will be required. If extra work is to be imposed on probation officers and social workers we should know where the man and the woman power and finance are to come from so that the scheme does not fail through shortage of people or money. At the Association of Chief Probation Officers' recent conference, Mr. Michael Day, the chairman, expressed his anxiety that the Government were not providing a grant to the probation service to implement any of the provisions of the Bill. It was estimated that the proposed range of probation orders—community service orders for 16-year-olds, supervised activity orders and others—would cost about £3·5 million to establish.
    Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does he hon. Lady believe that probation officers might be better disposed towards operating the provision if they were likely to earn more money?
    Dr. Summerskill: No, because they are not only worried about manpower and money. They are worried about some of the principles involved. The National Association of Probation Officers is strongly opposed to the proposal, because it feels that it will create serious problems between supervising officers and offenders. That is a far more fundamental complaint than the one about money, which could, presumably, be overcome if the Government were prepared to provide more money and recruit more officers. They are worried about the operation and enforceability of the proposal.
    The Bill says that it cannot quantify either the amount of money or staff needed for probation and after-care. That is a serious deficiency when we are discussing a new form of sentence. It would be wrong to introduce such a new sentence unless it can be properly enforced. It would undermine the authority of the courts and discredit the supervision order and the effectiveness of the new sentence. That is another argument against proceeding with the proposal.
    If there is a breach of the order the supervisor will have to take the juvenile back to the court, regardless of the views, discretion or judgment of the supervisor. Breaches of the order may, presumably, lead to the custody of the offender. We must hope that there will not be too many breaches of the curfew and too many offenders placed in custody, because, according to the Minister, we are trying to keep young people out of custody by giving courts that additional power. It would be unfortunate if we found that breaches of the curfew were so extensive that people were being put into custody.
    6 pm
    The question arises whether courts will be encouraged to impose supervision orders rather than custodial sentences. It is obviously to be hoped that in every case where there is an alternative to a custodial sentence courts will take it. We cannot be sure that this will happen. On the contrary, the courts could regard the order as an additional form of punishment and use it as a punishment when they would not normally have considered the matter sufficiently serious to merit imposition of an order. However, because the order is provided and Parliament has given the power, it is possible that some courts will use it as an additional punishment simply because it exists. It does not follow that courts will necessarily be encouraged to keep people out of custody.
    Will there be a reduction in juvenile crime? Here again it is uncertain that simply by keeping young people indoors at night there will be a reduction in juvenile crime. Juvenile crime can take place during the day. There is an assumption that in the evening a young person could be up to no good. On the other hand, he could be up to a lot of good. He could be taking part in positive and constructive pursuits. I do not see the fact that it is after 6 pm as a reason for shutting him up in his home.
    Mr. Lyell: The young person involved in a constructive pursuit is not likely to be before the court. It is the young person who has got into trouble doing something destructive who is likely to be there. It is upon him that the supervision order might be placed.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that young people get into trouble only between 6 pm and 6 am and that they should therefore be shut up between those times? Is it assumed that they will not get into trouble at any other time round the clock? Such questions show why the proposal is so farcical.
    Is it a punishment or is it a deterrent to crime? If the aim is to try to deter crime, it seems strange that the young person should be shut in his own home from 6 pm to 6 am and allowed free for the rest of the day to commit juvenile crimes. It is possible for even the worst offender to partake of some constructive pursuits. The assumption is that if he is shut in his own home with an inadequate, weak and unintelligent parent, he is far better off watching crime on the television with that parent than if he was outside following some constructive pursuit in a youth centre or taking part in a sporting activity, possibly accompanied by a supervisor or his parents.
    The conception that he will be the better for being put away in his home in the evening is difficult to comprehend. I hope that the Minister will say whether the purpose is to punish the young person or to deter him from crime. If it is to deter him from crime, he can certainly use the daylight hours to carry on his criminal activities.
    I come now to parental control. The Minister has already remarked, I believe, that parents differ and that parental control is unreliable. The Minister placed much emphasis on the fact that parents must consent where children under 14 years of age are involved. That does not get us out of the difficulty of the 14 to 16-year"olds where parental consent is apparently not required.
    Mr. Mayhew: I understand how the hon. Lady has become confused about this matter. It is necessary, in the case of a child under 14, for consent to come from the parent or guardian on behalf of the child. It will always be necessary for the consent of the parent to be obtained if the order states that the child, during the relevant time, shall be at home with his parents. In that instance, it will be consent on behalf of the parent himself.
    Dr. Summerskill: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman. The fact remains that, even if the parent does consent, parents are not perfect. Parental control could still be unreliable, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out in replying to an intervention. The parent could simply renege on his responsibilities, having given consent, and take no notice of what the child was doing. He might not care whether the child broke the curfew. There are one-parent families. It will be impossible for a probation officer or a social worker to assess, I would have thought, how a curfew order would affect the parent-child relationship or the sibling relationship in the family. The ideal answer, I presume, would be for the parent to report to the supervisor if the child absconded from curfew. I should have thought that this was extremely bad for the parent-child relationship. If a report was made, the child could be back in court facing the risk of being put into custody.
    The more this measure is analysed, the more fraught with problems it seems to be. There is curfew now as a condition of bail. It is only occasionally used. It is often broken. It is broken, I understand, not in pursuit of a crime but in pursuit of a football match, a disco, a wedding or something of that nature. This is an indication of the problems that would face society by trying to keep 10 to 16-year-olds in their homes in the evening.
    542
    Another difference between this curfew and the bail curfew is that the responsibility for keeping bail curfew lies only with the deifendent. In this case, a third party is involved. Some may say that this makes for easier enforcement. However, given the problems that I have mentioned, I should have thought it would make it harder. Taking all these factors into account, the Minister has certainly not persuaded me—I do not think that he will have persuaded the House—that the problems which he touched upon will be solved simply by good will, which he presumably hopes to find on all sides.
    This measure cannot succeed unless it involves the total commitment of all concerned. Anyone who has had any connection with juvenile offenders is extremely suspicious and doubtful of the possibility of achieving the total commitment of all concerned. There is serious danger that the measure will be unenforceable and even positively damaging. We shall vote against it.
    Mr. Lyell: I know that the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) has such a delightfully open mind that she is open to persuasion. If she looks at clause 20 as a whole, she will approve of most of it. I am sure that she supports the concept of intermediate treatment that involves a great many requirements to be attached to supervision orders. This clause emanates from the Magistrates Association. I emphasise that because I was amazed to hear the hon. Lady say that no one involved in the treatment of young offenders supported the proposal.
    The idea of such a restriction came from the Magistrates Association in a resolution passed last year. I am proud to be able to say that the idea initially came from a resolution of the Hertfordshire magistrates. I have discussed the idea with experienced juvenile court magistrates in my area and with other juvenile court magistrates in inner London who have special knowledge of the problems of young people in inner cities. The idea has their support.
    It is generally agreed that it is not only the supervisor—the probation officer—who has a part to play in the treatment of young offenders, particularly the 10 to 16-year-old offenders. The country takes the view that parents have an important responsibility for the maintenance of discipline among their children. The courts have not only a power but a duty to look carefully at the circumstances of each individual young offender who comes before them. In clause 20, we introduce the concept of the night restriction order, imposed by a court after careful consultation with the parents, whose agreement would be necessary, and with the supervisor, whose advice would be necessary. But before we got to that concept we put in powerful powers to enable probation officers to carry out intermediate treatment. I support those powers and I go along with what the hon. Member for Ormskirk said about the need to provide money to make intermediate treatment effective.
    However, that treatment does not have to be soft and gentle. I am in favour of gentleness where it is possible, but we must not have something weak and ineffective. One has had ample opportunities to read about and to witness schemes such as the university of Lancaster scheme and the Medway close-support scheme which get a grip on the young offender. They find out where the young offender has gone wrong and :hake sure that he goes to school and remains at school. When the youngster comes out of school at break, they make sure that he does not buzz off.

    543
    When school is over they pick the young offenders up and explain to them why they have gone wrong in the first place or take them to some constructive activity, perhaps a youth club, a leisure centre or a carpentry course. That is an excellent approach to the treatment of young offenders.
    The same approach is involved in the night restriction clause. It is an insult to parents to think that inviting their 10 to 12-year-olds to remain at home with them for the evening is something wholly negative and ineffective. It is true that some parents are hopelessly incapable of looking after their youngsters whether they be 10 or 16 years old. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said, a sensible court would not impose a night restriction order in such a case. But there are many other cases where the parents would be only too glad to be involved if the opportunity were brought to their attention. They would have the opportunity to bring their boy or girl under control with the assistance of the probation officer. That is the purpose of the order.
    After insisting that the juvenile court examines each case individually, the clause gives the court the power to say, for example, "Here is a parent who can and will cooperate and here is a young person going out on the streets late at night and getting into trouble." That young person will probably start off innocently, perhaps going to a disco, but then he may get into a group and perhaps cause some criminal damage, perhaps more than once. I am not suggesting that the court would necessarily use this power the first time that the youngster causes trouble, but after he has built up a record of unruliness and stupidity and it may be desirable to get him back in the home and to get the parents involved. There are a significant number of cases where such a power would be beneficial. I was glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend say that the power should be regarded as an alternative to custody.
    6.15 pm
    I owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who taught me a great deal during the passage of the Bill. I know how ineffective residential care can be and what a high rate of recidivism there can be even from local authority care that is non-criminal. For example, 66 per cent. of those in such places are likely to re-offend and come before the criminal courts again within two years. At borstals and youth custody establishments the figure increases to 70 per cent. or 75 per cent. We were told in Committee that it can cost £10,000 a year to keep a young person in residential care. That figure has been confirmed by those at the university of Lancaster and others with whom I have discussed the matter. Residential care establishments are expensive and frequently ineffective.
    The clause seeks, in suitable cases, to get a young person who has got out of hand to go back home and to stay there during certain limited hours. We talk about the hours from 6 pm to 6 am, but probably it will be important that a young person should be home by 8 pm and stay in until bed time, instead of hanging around the streets until 10 pm or 11 pm and getting into trouble. That is the sort of guidance that the courts can insist upon under this sensible proposal.
    I have confidence in our courts, particularly our juvenile courts, in the supervisors and probation
    544
    officers—in general—and in the parents whose children sometimes get into trouble, but who, if their duty is brought home to them, will play a constructive part. Putting them all together will be beneficial.
    My discussions with a number of senior probation officers do not reflect the apparent opposition of the National Association of Probation Officers. I was astonished to hear the notion of non-co-operation with the courts coming from such responsible people. I am sure that those connected with that resolution are not typical of the excellent probation service.
    I detected just a tinge of arrogance in the supervisors thinking that no one else could be beneficially entrusted with such great powers. I am deeply grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who has been pushed, sometimes importunately, by me, as I have had the confidence of being backed by the Magistrates Association, for pressing on and having extensive consultations on the matter.
    The proposal will not be the solution to every juvenile criminal problem. The fact that examples can be given where it would not be the appropriate remedy does not establish that it will not be a useful remedy in a significant, perhaps not huge, number of cases. I am grateful for the fact that it has found its place in the Bill and I hope that it will receive the support of the whole House.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) is the originator of the proposal, which has been much watered down, amended, qualified and honed since it was discussed in Committee. He spoke in support of it in an eminently reasonable and sensible way.
    I start by reaffirming what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) and I said in Committee. I do not oppose the curfew or night restriction order in principle. I oppose it because I have been persuaded by those who ought to know best—those who will have to supervise it—that it has a number of serious difficulties, inadequacies and drawbacks that will be counterproductive to the objective that the hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead and I share.
    The hon. and learned Member ended his speech by complimenting his hon. and learned Friend the Minster of State on the series of consultations which he conducted during the months since we served on the Standing Committee. The Government have consulted widely and extensively—as befits the introduction of a major new departure of this kind which gives additional powers to the courts for dealing with juvenile offenders—a massive range of organisations and individuals who have professional knowledge of the subject that we are discussing. Some of them opposed the scheme. I do not know of any organisation—apart from one—which endorsed it, thinks it a good idea, wants to see it on the statute book, or thinks that it will work. The hon. and learned Gentleman and the Minister quoted only the Magistrates Association. However, as they know, many individual magistrates, magistrates' branches and perhaps now a substantial majority of magistrates oppose this measure not in principle but on the ground that it is impracticable.
    Let us consider the organisations. I am talking about the organisations which will have to administer the scheme. All of them oppose it: the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Metropolitan

    545
    Authorities, the British Association of Social Workers, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, NACRO, the National Association of Probation Officers, New Approaches to Juvenile Crime, the Nation Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Nation Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations, the National Intermediate Treatment Federation, and the National Youth Bureau.
    The hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead guffaws. I do not know to which organisation he objects—the National Youth Bureau or the National Intermediate Treatment Federation. He alluded to the latter in an approving way. Whatever doubts his implicit comments cast on the credibility of those organisations, they have responsibility, knowledge and experience of the juveniles whom we are discussing this evening. They are the organisations whose voices should be heard with respect and deference.
    Mr. Lyell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have intervened many times this evening. I hope that this will be the last time.
    The hon. Gentleman read out a list of eminent bodies. I have had the opportunity of talking to some of them. However, does he not agree, from his own wide experience, that when a new idea emerges, particularly one which involves a small element of risk, getting such bodies to go on the line and commit themselves is not always easy? In private discussions one often gets much sympathy and constructive thought from them. I pay tribute to the constructive help that I have had from members of those bodies—or many of them—to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, the fact that they come out with a resolution in no way proves that the vast majority of their members take a particular view, especially when it concerns a new idea.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I cannot allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to get away with that. Indeed, he would not expect me to do so. We accept that he speaks for his constituents, because that is the system under which we operate. We must therefore accept, because we have no other evidence, that the Association of Directors of Social Services and NACRO—both of which, I assume, have circulated memoranda to every right hon. and hon. Gentleman—speak for their organisations. There is no evidence to the contrary.
    I do not object to the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal in principle. I wish I could believe that it would be an alternative to custody. That was largely the burden of his remarks. If I could believe that the night restriction order were a viable alternative to custody, I should be much more sympathetic towards it. However, I do not believe that will be so. Moreover, I do not think that the Minister believes it either. I imagine that, in practice, this power will be used simply as an additional restriction to what in any event will already be a non-custodial sentence.
    We shall see. We shall both table questions—of course, I shall still be in the House and the hon. and learned Gentleman will not after the next general election—to discover whether the number of juveniles going to penal establishments or local authority residential establishments actually declines after the commencement of this legislation and this restriction order. The hon. and learned Gentleman or the Minister may wish to take a small bet. Unfortunately, I never bet, but I am sure that this proposal will not in any way affect the numbers going to custodial establishments.
    546
    There are five major objections in practice to curfew orders. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said, in speaking to her amendment, they will have to be enforced by probation officers and social workers. By placing those people in the role of policemen, we shall damage the relationship between the juveniles and their supervising officers—a relationship which is crucial to their proper working together. I shall not quote, but the probation officers' brief says that its members are totally opposed to this proposal. It points out that they try to develop a caring relationship and that they do not want to have to act as social policemen.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman made great play in his speech, and when intervening in my hon. Friend's speech, of the existence of certain conditions under supervision orders. He is quite right. I am well aware that some of the intensive intermediate treatment schemes—for example, the Medway close support unit, which he cited—operate a form of curfew which is enforced as part of a contractual approach, but the approach is one of co-operation between the unit staff, the parents and the juvenile offender. That approach is quite different from what is suggested tonight, which is a requirement laid down by magistrates as a specific condition of a court order.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman may not know the difference, but I suggest that there is a fundamental difference between a mutually co-operative and agreed set of rules and procedures obtained under the intermediate treatment scheme currently being operated in Kent and the new requirement that he suggests. In any event, the schemes that we already have do not require that the child remain at home during the long hours envisaged in these arrangements. At best, they usually require that the child be back in the parental home by 10 o'clock in the evening.
    Secondly, as my hon. Friend said, NACRO has argued that the curfew requirements are likely to be violated frequently, that detections will be virtually impossible, and that the scheme will be almost unenforceable. We should therefore be in danger of bringing the law into disrepute with young impressionable people who will make it almost a point of honour to get out at night and be seen by their friends to be breaking the curfew. If we wish to engender respect for the law in young people, as I assume we do, this is not the right way to do it.
    Thirdly, the imposition of such a requirement—this has been pointed out, but the Minister did not deal with this argument adequately—is likely to increase tension and to worsen relationships within families, thereby placing children at greater risk in future than in the past. Parents who succeed in enforcing a curfew requirement do not need help. Parents who already have that kind of authority and concern do not need a legal requirement to keep their children home at night or to supervise them in other ways. The parents who reed that kind of support for their parental role, who need the court behind them saying "Your child must remain at home between these hours", are the parents who are inadequately equipped to enforce it in practice.
    6.30 pm
    The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot win. Both ways will exacerbate the family relationships and make them worse, not better. Parents will be able to connive in the child's breaching of the order. I do not want the parent to "shop" his child when he breaches the order, but unless

    547
    that is done the parent will be seen by the child to be conniving in his breach of the law. That is not a good position for parents to be placed in.
    Curfews will be extremely oppressive to parents, particularly conscientious ones. If parents are to make a serious attempt to ensure that their children abide by the terms of the curfew, they will be imprisoned in their homes with their children. How else will they fulfil their parental obligations and duties under the law to ensure that the child is at home? That will be an onerous obligation on one-parent families. It means that a single parent, whose child has been subject to a night restriction order, will effectively not be able to go out in the evening without running the risk of the child breaking the conditions of the order.
    The probation service, and indeed the social services department, will be required to devote a considerable amount of their manpower and financial resources deploying staff in the evenings for no better purpose than to enforce the curfew, using resources which would be far better and more constructively directed to areas where we know that proper supervision in the community or intermediate treatment will work.
    The amendments, passed in another place and sponsored by the Government, are unhelpful. They are objectionable, expensive and likely to do more harm than good. I hope that some hon. Members will join us in opposing them.
    Mr. William Pitt (Croydon, North-West): I disagree slightly with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). I am opposed to a curfew order on principle. It is a fundamentally wrong way to attack juvenile crime. I also object in principle to the euphemism "night restriction order". Whether we ask for their consent or not, we are putting a curfew on young people against their will by and large and, despite parental consent, against the parents' will. If this amendment is agreed to tonight we shall build up for ourselves a severe problem which may well become intractable.
    To examine the position logically we must ask ourselves several questions. First, will a curfew be enforceable? A curfew means that a restriction must be enforced. One can enforce a military curfew by ordering troops out to arrest or shoot on sight. I do not think any hon. Members would want to order the military out to arrest or shoot on sight 10-year-olds. In that sense the word "curfew" is ridiculous. We might also ask ourselves whether, if parents are to become the gaolers of such children, they could ask for rate relief on their premises because I believe that prisons have rate relief.
    How shall we handle a breach of the order? The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) brought out that problem. Will the children go back to the court if they are in breach of the curfew, and when? Will it be after the first, the second or the third breach? If they go back, what will the court do and how will it impose a custodial sentence?
    I must remind the House what I said on Report about new clause 39. I said that I was concerned how—especially in large conurbations where the curfew order would be used most—I am thinking particularly of cities such as Greater London, Manchester and Liverpool—a young offender who was breaking the
    548
    curfew order could be found other than by making large police trawls of the streets. Now we are told that the supervisors will make random visits to the homes. At a time of Government cuts and economic retrenchment, how will we find staff in the probation and social services of the local authorities who will be able to make such random checks? Will social workers and probation officers, who are already overworked, be even further overworked?
    I have concluded that a curfew order will not be enforceable. It will rely solely and completely on the good faith of parents and children, who may, by and large, volunteer to have a curfew order imposed upon them because it is an easy solution, and, a few weeks after the curfew order has been imposed, either the parent or the child will say "Blow this; I am fed up. I do not like the curfew order." The parents will feel a restriction upon them, as, naturally, will the child.
    What do we envisage parents will do if a child breaks the curfew order? This is the most appalling aspect of the matter. I am a parent of a mature child who is no longer under my supervision or in my house. If I had had to make a decision whether to report my child at the age of 10, 11 or 12—fortunately, there were no curfew orders at that time and she was sensible enough not to get herself into trouble—how could I? The hon. Member for Ormskirk laughs. My daughter is a sensible woman. However, that is beside the point.
    If I were obliged to make that decision, how would I react to telling the probation officer or the social worker that my child had breached the curfew order? I would be reluctant to "shop" my child to the authorities. That is another reason why the curfew is not enforceable. Parents will not "shop" their children unless they go in for that sort of thing. They will not consider it to be their responsibility. If a night restriction order is not enforceable by random visits or by depending on the parents to "shop" the children, the order will not be effective.
    Another point which stems from whether parents should be expected to report their children for a breach of a curfew order is that any good relationship between child and parent will be destroyed. Parents will be seen to be complying with the enforced curtailment of their child's liberty. The Government argue that regulations enable any blame to be transferred to the law and hence the law would be helping out parents. However, parents must accept that transference. I might say, although it is a point of little validity, that the transference of blame to the law in the family is an extremely woolly concept. I do not believe that it is possible.
    Night restriction orders will have a profound effect on family life. The hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) talked about proper family discipline and its enforcement. Those who have had children know a lot about that. I have no doubt that he does himself. If he does, he will know that proper family discipline comes from mutual trust between parent and child. It does not come from outside enforcement. It does not come from placing the parent in an almost Quisling situation whereby children are threatened that the police will be informed if the curfew order is not obeyed.
    The hon. Member for Ormskirk has given us some valuable information. I must pay tribute to him, as did the hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead, for his valuable contributions to the debates through all the stages of the Bill. We have been told that it will cost about £3 million a year to work an ineffectual system and to impose

    549
    what in many ways amounts to a voluntary custody order. That is against a background of economic retrenchment, when there are insufficient social workers and probation officers to carry out even their present duties. It is against the background of unwilling parents and of all professional bodies which are connected with the care of young offenders—other than the Magistrates Association—being opposed to the whole concept of a curfew order.
    I hope that the House will reject the amendment. We shall certainly vote against it.
    Mr. Matthew Parris: I apologise because, unintentionally, I missed the beginning of the debate.
    The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) said that family discipline came through trust. He is absolutely right. When I was a child I could trust in the fact that, if I was rude, I would get a smack in the mouth. To that extent, family discipline certainly does come from trust.
    It should not be necessary to repeat what has been said in Committee and in the House, but it is not an argument against this measure to put forward occasions when such a penalty would not be a suitable way of dealing with a young offender. In 95 per cent. of cases which come before the courts this course of action would probably be a most unsuitable way to deal with a young offender. However, there may be occasions when it would be a sensible and helpful punishment.
    The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said that there would have to be total commitment on all sides. There must be a good deal of commitment—perhaps not total commitment—on the part of the parents and the child, and to that extent I go along with the hon. Lady. It would be sensible to go ahead with such a punishment only if the magistrates felt that that commitment existed.
    I shall cite an example of a case in which such a sentence might appeal to a court. A young man may have got into trouble in the evenings because he has fallen into bad company. He may have been going round with a gang of people who are perhaps, worse than him. Let us say that he comes from a reasonably good family and is ashamed of what he has done. His parents will try to stop him doing it again, but all sides acknowledge that the gang acts as a lure and that he may want to join it again. What does the court have in mind when sentencing? It considers the need to sever his relationship with the gang, if possible, and to prevent him from going out with it for as long as possible. By fining him or his parents, the court will not sever his relationship with the gang. By sending him to some institution, it may curtail his relationship with the gang, but that might be the type of custodial sentence that we do not want. The court needs to punish him in a way that will prevent him from associating with such people, at least for a little while. In such a case the magistrates' court might find the proposed sentence attractive.
    A very persuasive brief was sent to us by the Association of Directors of Social Services. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) that such briefs represent the views of every one of the members. The hon. Gentleman said that we speak for our constituents. I speak for my constituents, but I certainly do not assume that I speak as every one of my constituents would wish. That is the case with every organisation. However, we received a persuasive brief from the association. Having read it, I am convinced that there may
    550
    be difficulties. It is not certain whether the measure will prove successful, but it is worth trying. The risks consequent on its failure are not great. Considerable advantages would attach to its success. Therefore, I believe that it is a brave, imaginative idea, and I am glad that the Minister has persisted with it.
    Mr. Alfred Dubs: The growth in the number of young offenders is frightening, and we must be careful before turning down any suggestion that might help to tackle a difficult and increasing problem.
    When this proposition was first put to us, I understood that it was a desirable aim that young people who had been getting into serious trouble and who were of school age should be kept off the streets late at night. It was said that this was not a new idea; that it had existed for some years as a condition of bail.
    On that basis, I was prepared to consider the arguments for and against introducing a curfew, specifically because it was argued that it would provide one way of reducing the number of young people in custody. There have been many arguments in the House and in the other place about the measure. I have had increasing misgivings about it. It may go much wider than an alternative to imprisonment and become another form of punishment when imprisonment is not an option. I see it being applied to those above school age. The original amendment put to the Standing Committee applied to those above school age. Even now it applies to young people up to the age of 17, at which stage they .are above the compulsory school age. It may be applied for much longer hours than originally proposed. Indeed, 6 o'clock in the evening is quite early, particularly in the summer.
    I can well understand why "curfew" has been changed to "night restriction requirement". The word "curfew" has unpleasant connotations. However, the change in nomenclature will not make the concept more acceptable.
    6.45 pm
    I have three main concerns about the provision. It is said that the proposal will be applied only with the consent of the parents and the young person. However, that consent will apparently be obtained under duress. I cannot imagine a parent or young person refusing to accept the proposition if the alternative is custody. Consent that is obtained under duress is no consent. To that extent it is slightly hollow to say that parents and children will have to agree. They are almost bound to agree because of the conditions under wh:Lch consent is being sought.
    Like other hon. Members, I am concerned about the position of the probation officers and social workers who will supervise the night restriction requirement. The Minister said that if parents noticed that their children were not conforming to the requirement, they would not be under any obligation or pressure to report that fact to the police or to the court. I listened carefully, but I do not think that the Minister made any similar statement about the role of probation officers or social workers. As they operate in an official capacity, I wonder whether they will be obliged to report such breaches. The Minister may suggest that they will not be obliged to do so.
    What would happen if such a breach were made known to the authorities? Would the police be obliged to arrest the individual, or would the court be obliged to reconsider the young offender's case? The night restriction requirement is apparently being imposed only as an alternative to custody, but I fear that the consequence of

    551
    breaching the order will be custody. The Minister may say that that is not so— that it is possible that the requirement is being imposed not merely as an alternative to custody, but for other reasons. Many of us have doubts on that point and I hope that the Minister will clarify it.
    I am afraid that this new requirement will encourage the police to spend more time stopping young people to see whether they are in breach of the requirement. That additional factor may worsen relationships between the police and the young. Inevitably the police will see the provision as the easiest way of stopping young people to check whether they are under the restriction. If for no other reason than that, the House should be very careful before giving its approval to any measure that may worsen the relationship between the police and the young.
    I have listened to the arguments before, and I have become increasingly doubtful whether the proposal is sensible. I am persuaded by the arguments from the Opposition Benches that it would be a retrograde step if, on the basis of the details suggested, the House were to approve the measure. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will be approved and this proposal thrown out.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I oppose the proposal because of a point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris). He said that he did not think it would do much harm even if it did not do very much good. It is that evaluation of the dangers implicit in the proposal which is the divide between us. One can think of cases in which a court might apply this type of curfew order where it might actually do some good. The important question however is "What is the balance?". That is always an important question in any type of punishment. Those of us who have taken the view that the balance is against the proposal will be proved right if the Government succeed tonight and this proposal goes ahead.
    The danger of the proposal is that it might increase the feeling that the police harass young people on the street. We have just removed "sus", and did so precisely for that reason. On this type of issue, the police may be acting properly according to their lights and think that it is right to stop young people to find out whether they are subject to such a supervision order and, in those circumstances, come up against innocent young people who bitterly resent being approached in this way. The upshot may be different from the view that the sponsor has taken from the beginning, that it is a modest item of law reform that might do good and would not do any harm. It might turn out to be like "sus", and do a considerable amount of harm.
    I have a technical question. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said that the parent had to be consulted. My understanding of the provision is that the parent has to be consulted only if the supervised person is a child and not a young person. Therefore, if the person is more than 14 years old, the parent does not have to be consulted and an order might be made that the child has to remain at home between 6 pm and 6 am at times and in conditions to which the parent might object strenuously. I cannot think of anything more detrimental to the natural harmony of family life than having a 14 or 15-year-old son at home who is not wanted there and who would much rather be out. It is true that the proposal contained in one of the amendments from the other place says that there must be a report stating that the
    552
    feasibility of securing compliance is accepted. No doubt the Government rest on that in saying that the parent would have to be consulted by the supervisor.
    That brings me to my third and major objection. The supervisors do not like the proposal. The probation service is opposed to the proposal. How will the Government make it work if the probation service, as the main agency, will not co-operate to make it work? I know only too well how final that can be. I have always believed that a social welfare report ought to be available to counsel before a trial even if the accused is pleading not guilty. The National Association of Probation Officers took a decision in 1972 not to allow that. When I was at the Home Office I protested strongly and tried to insist that it should be allowed because it is in the interest of the accused that his counsel sees the report before he decides what his plea will be. We were never able to reverse that decision because it was thought that since the probation service would not work with that edict, it was not worth trying to introduce it. I suspect strongly that the probation service will not work with this proposal. If the service refuses, it will not matter whether the court makes an order. The only people who will enforce it then are the police, which brings me back to the point that I made at the beginning—if the police have to go about trying to enforce these orders, there will be a serious deterioration in relationships, which are already all too bad in the inner cities between young people and the police.
    Mr. Mayhew: I do not know what it is that leads so many people in Britain to react with such extreme caution to any new idea, but whatever it is has had full rein in this debate.
    The proposal has never been put forward, by the Magistrates Association, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) or the Government when they came to adopt the principle of the night restriction order, that this was something that would necessarily, even in most cases, be appropriate when a court is confronted with the need to sentence a young offender. It has always been put forward as a promising alternative to the non-custodial options that are already available to the courts in such a case. So many of the objections voiced tonight, from the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) onwards, have concentrated only upon the circumstances in which it could go wrong. The hon. Lady said how sad it would be if there were many breaches of the supervision order. Of course it would be sad. Whether there are a high proportion of breaches will depend in large measure upon the skill with which magistrates and other courts weigh the possibilities of it being a success. It is in order to help them find the right answer that we require them to consult the intended supervisor. It is in order to help them find the right answer that we require them to obtain the consent of the child or the youngster and, similarly, the consent of his parent. It is not only in the case of a child that a parent, in the type of circumstances that we are considering, would have to give consent, because section 12 of the Children and Young Persons Act would require that the court would not include in such an order any requirement that would involve the co-operation of a person other than the supervisor and the supervised person unless that person consents to such an inclusion. If we are talking about

    553
    requiring a child to stay at home, that person would be the parent and so the parent's consent would be required in those circumstances.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: That is an interesting interpretation. Why does not the provision require that the consent is required in all cases?
    Mr. Mayhew: The magistrates or the court might not always wish the child to reside in a parent's home. That may not be a suitable place and therefore the provision is not put in that rigid way.
    An important consideration is how much confidence we have in the courts. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said in a speech today that it is a question of confidence; in the courts, in the probation officers, welfare and social workers and in parents. He said that putting all these together would be very beneficial. I agree that if we do not have confidence in any of those, either severally or jointly, the proposal is doomed to failure. If we believe that the courts are blind and deaf to what Parliament has said by way of guidance it will be doomed to failure. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) can take that line because he has been insistent on having guidelines written into the Bill so that the courts shall see in black and white how they are to exercise their discretion.
    The courts will see what the restraints or safeguards on this new jurisdiction are. It will be a matter for their experience and judgment whether they use it. Perhaps the most important of the restraints is that they have to consult whether it would be feasible for an order to be made, and they have to be satisfied that if they made the order it would be feasible for it to be carried out.
    A great deal has been said about the probation service not co-operating. I do not believe that the probation service as a whole would fail to co-operate if Parliament so asked but if a supervisor who was a probation officer or a supervisor who was a social worker made it clear that he was dead against it, I imagine that it would be rare that a court, notwithstanding that, would say that it would make the order and require that person to be the supervisor.
    7 pm
    I feel that this is a case of the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members treading a path on which they fear that every corner will be beset by tigers. I do not think that that is a wise or justifiable approach. The hon. Lady asked whether, if it is to be an alternative to custody, it will mean that, when offenders are brought back for breach of the supervision order, a custodial order will be made. The answer is "No". There is no provision for a custodial sentence for a breach of a supervision order. In those circumstances the court may impose a fine or make an attendance centre order, and it would not result in further custodial sentences.
    As for resources, we all want more resources for the probation services. We are not aware of the calculation that apparently is attributed to the Association of Directors of Social Services, but I think it could have been made only on the basis that additional probation officers would be needed for the purpose, and we do not believe that they would be needed in any significant number, if at all.
    cannot be sure about anything in this field, but, if for any reform of the law, any addition that one had to be absolutely
    554
    certain that in every case a successful result would ensue, that would be the best recipe that I can envisage for no reform whatever.
    We have a long way to go and I do not intend discourtesy to those whose points I have not dealt with. I believe that the provision is a useful addition to the law in what will no doubt be a minority of cases, and it is in that spirit that I hope the House will approve it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 31 agreed to.
    Lords amendment:No. 32, in page 2.1, line 17, at end insert—
    "(aa)to remain for specified periods between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.—

    at a place specified in the order; or

    at one of several places so specified;"

    Question put,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 75.

    Division No. 317]

    [7.1 pm

    AYES

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Ancram, Michael

    Madel, David

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Major, John

    Bendall, Vivian

    Marlow, Antony

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    Mates, Michael

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Mather, Carol

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Bright, Graham

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Mellor, David

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Moate, Roger

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Murphy, Christopher

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

    Neale, Gerrard

    Cope, John

    Needham, Richard

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Neubert, Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Newton, Tony

    Dover, Denshore

    Osborn, John

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Page, Richard (SW Hens)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Elliott, Sir William

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Renton, Tim

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Forman, Nigel

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

    Rossi, Hugh

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Greenway, Harry

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Grieve, Percy

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

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

    Silvester, Fred

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Sims, Roger

    Grist, Ian

    Speed, Keith

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Speller, Tony

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Stanley, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Stevens, Martin

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Stradling Thomas, J

    Hawksley, Warren

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Thompson, Donald

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Trippier, David

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Viggers, Peter

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Waddington, David

    Lang, Ian

    Ward, John

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Warren, Kenneth

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Wells, Bowen

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

    Wheeler, John

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Loveridge, John

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    McCrindle, Robert

    Mr. David Hunt and

    MacGregor, John

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    555

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Leighton, Ronald

    Anderson, Donald

    McCartney, Hugh

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    McNally, Thomas

    Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

    McWilliam, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Marks, Kenneth

    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

    Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton ltchen)

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Newens, Stanley

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

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

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

    Parry, Robert

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Pavitt, Laurie

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

    Penhaligon, David

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Pitt, William Henry

    Crowther, Stan

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Cryer, Bob

    Prescott, John

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Race, Reg

    Davidson, Arthur

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Deakins, Eric

    Robertson, George

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Dormand, Jack

    Rooker, J. W.

    Dubs, Alfred

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Rowlands, Ted

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Sever, John

    Field, Frank

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Skinner, Dennis

    Foulkes, George

    Spearing, Nigel

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    George, Bruce

    Stoddart, David

    Graham, Ted

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Tinn, James

    Hardy, Peter

    Welsh, Michael

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Whitlock, William

    Hooley, Frank

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

    Howells, Geraint

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Lamond, James

    Mr. George Morton.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 38 agreed to
    Lords amendment:No. 39, in page 21, line 32, at end insert
    "as to—

    (i)the offender's circumstances; and

    (i)the feasibility of securing compliance with the requirements,

    and is satisfied, having regard to the supervisor's report, that it is feasible to secure compliance with them"
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Clause 20 provides that a court should not itself include requirements in a supervision order on a juvenile offender unless it had first consulted the supervisor. Some concern was expressed in the House that that brief provision was inadequate. This amendment therefore makes more detailed provision. It specifies that the court's consultation with the supervisor must be about the offender's circumstances and about the feasibility of securing compliance with the requirements that the court has it in mind to include in the supervision order. The amendment also requires the court to satisfy itself, on the basis of that consultation, that it is in practice feasible to secure compliance with those requirements. That is the package that we have just been discussing in relation to the night restriction order.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I welcome the amendment, which follows an assurance that was given to me by the Minister on Report. If a supervisor is to enforce the requirements of a supervision order effectively, he must not feel that its
    556
    enforcement would be either impracticable or unreasonable. By giving a supervisor the opportunity now to comment on the feasibility or desirability of any requirement that the court may be considering, this provision should help to ensure that the partnership between the courts and supervisors is effective and constructive.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 40 and 41 agreed to.

    Clause 22
    CHARGE AND CONTROL OF OFFENDERS
    Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 25, line 40, after "that" insert
    "it is appropriate to exercise those powers because of the seriousness of the offence and that".
    7. 15 pm
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This amendment was accepted on Third Reading in the other place. It was moved after an amendment on slightly different lines had been withdrawn. In its final form, the amendment introduces an additional guideline for the imposition of a residential care order—the "charge and control" condition—on a juvenile offender. Such a condition can be imposed only when a juvenile is already in care as a result of an offence and commits a further imprisonable offence. Subsection (3) of the new section 20A of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 provides that the court shall not add a charge and control condition to a care order unless it is satisfied that no other method of dealing with the offender is appropriate. This amendment requires the court to be of the opinion that it is appropriate to exercise those powers because of the seriousness of the offence. The Government had, at an earlier stage, made clear their view that it would be best to leave it to the discretion of the courts to decide when custody could be avoided only by using this power to make a charge and control condition. But the form in which the amendment was ultimately proposed on Third Reading was acceptable to the Government. I commend it to the House.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Amendment No. 42 was proposed by Baroness Faithfull and others on behalf of the parliamentary penal affairs group in another place. I welcome it because it provides that, before making a residential care order, the court must be satisfied that it is appropriate for the seriousness of the offence. Like my hon. Friends, I retain the view that the residential care order is of monumental irrelevance to the needs of juvenile offenders today. According to the Government's estimates, the order will mean that several hundreds more children will be sent inappropriately, unnecessarily and ineffectively to residential care at a cost, on the Government's estimate, of about a further £6 million a year. That is when the consensus of the DHSS, the Home Office and those who are involved is overwhelmingly to the effect that we should move away from residential care towards methods of dealing with juvenile offenders in the community.
    We have debated the residential car
    occasions, in Committee, on the
    on Report. My hon. Friends and

    557
    is inappropriate as a way of dealing with the needs of juveniles. It is on the statute book only because of the Government's cosmetic desire to appease some elements of their own Tory law and order lobby and perhaps of the Magistrates Association. The Government do not believe that it is a sensible contribution to dealing with juvenile delinquency or young offenders.
    However, if this retrograde provision is to remain in the Bill it is important to ensure, as the amendment seeks to do, that residential care orders are not imposed in future for minor offences but are reserved for more serious offences and will be used as a genuine alternative to prison department custody.
    I welcome the Government's accepting the amendment. It is one means to mitigate the damage that the residential care order will inflict on the system of dealing with juvenile offenders.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause C
    CRITERIA FOR MAKING CARE ORDERS
    Lords amendment:No. 43, before clause 23, insert:
    "C. In section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969—

    (a)in subsection (7) (under which a court has power to make a care order where a child is found guilty of homicide or a young person is found guilty of any imprisonable offence) after the word "Subject" there shall be inserted the words "to subsection (7A) of this section and " ; and

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

    "(7A) A court shall not make a care order under subsection (7) of this section in respect of a child or young person unless it is of opinion—

    (a)that a care order is appropriate because of the seriousness of the offence; and

    (b)that the child or young person is in need of care or control which he is unlikely to receive unless the court makes a care order."."

    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment introduces into the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 criteria for the making of care orders on juvenile offenders who are sentenced in criminal proceedings. It was moved by my noble Friend on Report in the other place. It is not quite in the same terms as the amendment proposed, in Committee by the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, but its purpose is the same as that amendment.
    Section 7 of the 1969 Act already provides that the juvenile must have been found guilty of an imprisonable offence before a care order is made. Under this amendment, a court would not be able to make a care order unless it was of the opinion that such an order was appropriate because of the seriousness of the offence. In addition, it is necessary that the care or control test now used in care proceedings should be satisfied—that is, the court must be of the opinion that the child or young person is in need of care or control which he is unlikely to receive unless the court makes a care order. The 1969 Act provides that in the expression "care or control", "care" includes protection and guidance and "control" includes discipline.
    The amendment thus introduces a twofold test in terms which are consonant with the existing provisions of the 1969 Act and which, with its reference to the seriousness
    558
    of the offence, is in accord with the guidelines for custodial sentences which have been introduced into the Bill.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I welcome the amendment. In a similar way to the previous amendment it provides that before a care order is made in criminal proceedings the court must consider that the order is appropriate because of the seriousness of the offence and that the child needs care or control that he would not otherwise receive. The amendment was brought forward by the Government in response to a similar amendment proposed in another place by members of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, as the Minister said.
    As has been said many times, the system of care orders in criminal proceedings is one of the many injustices in dealing with young offenders. An increasing body of research evidence. much of it collected by Professor Norman Tutt and his colleagues at Lancaster university, some of which was referred to earlier by the hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell), demonstrates that most young offenders receive care orders to local authority residential establishments unnecessarily and inappropriately. Department of Health and Social Security research shows that most care orders made in criminal proceedings are for young people convicted of petty property offences with few, if any, previous convictions. About 40 per cent. are imposed on first offenders and 60 per cent. on first and second time offenders.
    The amendment will ensure that in future care orders are imposed not for minor offences, but only when there is a genuine need for care and control.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause D
    RESTRICTION ON MAKING CARE ORDERS IN RESPECT OF PERSONS NOT LEGALLY REPRESENTED
    Lords amendment: No. 44, after the words last inserted, insert:
    "D. The following section shall be inserted after section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969—
    'Legal representation
    (1) A court shall not make a care order under section 7(7) of this Act in respect of a child or young person who is not legally represented in that court unless either—

    (a)he applied for legal aid and the application was refused on the ground that it did not appear that his means were such that he required assistance; or

    (b)having been informed of his right to apply for legal aid and had the opportunity to do so, he refused or failed to apply.

    (2) For the purposes of this section a person is to be treated as legally represented in a court if, but only if, he has the assistance of counsel or a solicitor to represent him in the proceedings in that court at some time after he is found guilty and before a care order is made, and in this section "legal aid" means legal aid for the purposes of proceedings in that court, whether the whole proceedings or the proceedings on or in relation to the making of the care order; but in the case of a person committed to the Crown Court sentence or trial, it is immaterial whether he applied for legal aid in the Crown Court to, or was informed of his right to apply by, that court or the court which committed him.'".
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The Government were able to table this amendment on Report in the other place. It is almost identical with that which was tabled in Committee by the noble baroness Lady Faithfull.

    559
    The amendment improves the Bill. It ensures that a care order can generally not be made on a juvenile offender who is not legally represented before being sentenced in criminal proceedings. It is framed in the standard form set out in section 21 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The Minister did not say that the amendment was proposed on behalf of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group in another place. I do not know why everyone should be in such a hurry to get through our business tonight.
    Without the amendment we would have had the anomaly that no unrepresented young offender could be sent to a detention centre, even for as little as three weeks, whereas a juvenile could be sent to an institution under a care order for a year or even longer without being offered legal representation. The amendment is an important safeguard for the recipients of care orders in criminal proceedings. I welcome it.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause E
    RESTRICTION OF LIBERTY OF CHILDREN IN CARE
    Lords amendment:No. 45, insert the following new clause—
    "E.—(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 21 of the Child Care Act 1980—
    "Use of accommodation for restricting liberty.
    21A.—(1) Subject to regulations under subsection (2)(a)below, a child in the care of a local authority may not be placed, and, if placed, may not be kept, in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty unless it appears—

    (a)that—

    (i)he has a history of absconding and is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation; and

    (ii)if he absconds it is likely that his physical, mental or moral welfare will be at risk; or

    (b)that if he is kept in any other description of accommodation he is likely to injure himself or other persons.

    (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

    (a)specify—

    (i)exceptional cases where subsection (1) above is not to apply to children committed to the care of a local authority under section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969;

    (ii)a maximum period beyond which a child may not be kept in such accommodation without the authority of a juvenile court; and

    (iii)a maximum period for which a juvenile court may authorise a child to be kept in such accommodation;

    (b)empower a juvenile court from time to time to authorise a child to be kept in such accommodation for such further period as the regulations may specify; and

    (c)provide that the power conferred by virtue of paragraph (b) above shall be exercisable on the application of the local authority in whose care the child is.

    (3) It shall be the duty of a juvenile court before which a child is brought by virtue of this section to determine whether the criteria for keeping a child in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty are satisfied in his case; and if a court determines that the criteria are satisfied, it shall make an order authorising the child to be kept in such accommodation and specifying the maximum period for which he may be so kept.
    (4) On any adjournment of a hearing under subsection (3) above a justice of the peace or a juvenile court may make an
    560
    interim order permitting the keeping of the child to whom the hearing relates during the period of the adjournment in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty.
    (5) An appeal shall lie to the Crown Court from a decision of a juvenile court under this section.
    (6) A juvenile court shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section in respect of a child who is not legally represented in that court unless either—

    (a)he applied for legal aid and the application was refused on the ground that it did not appear his means were such that he required assistance; or

    (b)having been informed of his right to apply for legal aid and had the opportunity to do so, he refused or failed to apply .".

    (2) In the Legal Aid Act 1974—

    (a)in section 28(3)(a) and (6), after "1969" there shall be inserted "or under section 21A of the Child Care Act 1980"; and

    (b)at the end of section 29(1)(d)there shall be inserted "or (e)where a child is brought before a juvenile court under section 21A of the Child Care Act 1980 and is not (but wishes to be) legally represented before that court."."

    Read a Second time.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in subsection 21A(4) leave out 'a justice of the peace or'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 46, 250, 251 and 2.
    Mr. Newton: The Government amendment and the other Lords amendments, apart from Lords amendment No. 45, are all technical or tidying up amendments.
    I hesitate to say that Lords amendment No. 45 is one of the better amendments passed in the other place. That would imply a knowledge of the other 290 that I do not possess. But it is a good amendment. It embodies two sensible reforms and reflects a response to the views expressed by hon. Members and noble Lords and Ladies. That shows the working of Parliament at something approaching its best.
    The history is complex, and I shall confine myself to explaining the main purposes of the amendment. The first is to define in law the criteria on the basis of which young people would be admitted to secure accommodation. The criteria are tight. They are an improvement on the previous legal position and, indeed, the position at earlier stages of the Bill.
    I make one important qualification. Alongside the criteria set out in the amendment we have included the power for the Secretary of State by regulation to prescribe a qualification to enable children remanded to care to be kept in secure accommodation in certain circumstances.
    The second purpose of the amendment is a completely new provision for the judicial review of the placement of children in secure accommodation. It is achieved by giving the Secretary of State the power to make regulations specifying exceptional cases, a maximum period during which young people can be confined in secure accommodation without the formal authority of a juvenile court and a maximum period for which a juvenile court may authorise a young person being kept in secure accommodation. The provision also provides for appeals from decisions of the juvenile court to the Crown court and for legal aid to be granted to young people involved in the process.
    I hope that the House will consider the proposals satisfactory. They move us a long way towards more

    561
    stringent safeguards on young people being put into secure accommodation and on the way in which the process of their being kept there is sanctioned.
    Anxiety was expressed in another place about the fact that on judicial review the Secretary of State's regulation-making power was permissive rather than mandatory. That is no more than for reasons of convention. I give the House a categorical assurance that the Secretary of State intends to use these powers and that he will propose to the House that the regulations should be made as soon as possible.
    7. 30 pm
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am pleased to hear the Minister's categorical assurance, but can he be a little more specific about when he expects to be able to bring the regulations before Parliament?
    Mr. Newton: I can be a little more specific, although probably not quite as specific as the hon. Gentleman would like. There are two problems. The first is that we are still in the consultative phase on what the regulations should contain. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already committed ourselves to a broader review and reform of the community homes regulations as a whole, and that may take a little time.
    I hope that we shall be able to disentangle the making of these regulations from the wider issue of the community homes regulations and that that will enable us to proceed with considerable speed. Provided that the consultation process can be concluded reasonably quickly and we are able to disentangle these regulations from the wider issue, I hope that we shall be in a position by the latter part of next spring to bring forward the regulations in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Opposition warmly welcome these important and significant amendments that were introduced mainly by Opposition Members in the other place. The amendments have done a great deal to lessen the damaging effects of a residential care order on a child. As the Minister acknowledged, it is important that there should be proper safeguards in respect of young children who are enclosed within the child care system. At present, children in care, many of whom have not committed a criminal offence, can be there for indefinite periods at the discretion of the care authority and with no judicial review.
    I understand that this legislation is definitely no longer in breach of article 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There was some question that it might have been. It is reassuring to know that as a result of these amendments it is not.
    I am sure that the availability of a judicial review and the other safeguards in the amendments will ensure that greater thought and consideration will be given before care orders are implemented and imposed. That is what we have wanted throughout the passage of the Bill.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), I warmly welcome these amendments to one of the most important parts of the Bill.
    The Minister rightly paid testimony to the work that has been done in Parliament on this issue, both in this House and in the other place. It is a great testimony to the effectiveness of parliamentarians of all parties as well as to outside organisations such as NACRO and the Children's Legal Centre, both of which have been
    562
    extremely active in lobbying Members of both Houses, briefing them and drafting the amendments. These amendments are in response to those tabled by the Opposition which were drafted by the Children's Legal Centre, and in response to amendments along similar lines proposed by the parliamentary penal affairs group.
    Two reports published in the last 18 months have proposed that such statutory criteria should be laid down and that a system of judicial review of the detention of young people in secure accommodation should be introduced. The parliamentary penal affairs groups report "Young Offenders: A Strategy for the Future" published in 1981 and, more recently, the report of the Children's Legal Centre entitled "Locked Up in Care" have been profoundly influential in affecting our arguments and attitudes. I also hope that they have convinced the Government that what has been proposed by the Opposition and the parliamentary penal affairs group is necessary and desirable.
    Both reports express concern that secure units are currently being used for younger and less delinquent children that was the case several years ago. They both point out that the recidivist rate of young people in residential establishments is high and, most important, that such establishments seem to make younger and less delinquent children a more likely to reoffend than would have been expected from their offending records.
    The Government have also acknowledged that their failure up to now to provide a judicial review of the detention of children in secure accommodation probably placed us in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Even today, we are still in breach of that convention and we shall continue to be so until the Minister's assurance of the regulations coming before us in late spring is realised.
    This amendment was brought forward in response to Opposition amendments based on the Children's Legal Centre recommendations. It is reassuring that the Minister has gone further and given a categorical assurance that the regulations will be introduced in the late spring. He is on notice from now until then to ensure that the consultations are carried out with great speed and efficiency. There is no good reason why the regulations cannot be before us next spring. We are talking about 2,000 children a year being locked up in prison-like conditions without any proper judicial control, review or supervision. That has always been an offence to our criminal justice system and to our local authority system of care and welfare of young people.
    We are now taking an important step to put that right. The Minister can be assured that we shall be watching him closely to ensure that he follows this through to the bitter end.
    Mr. Newton: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should make it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman that my categorical assurance related to the making of regulations. If he reads what I said about the date in Hansard,he will find that it was slightly less categorical, but we shall do what we can to meet the tentative target that I have set.
    To avoid any misunderstanding, I should point out that these amendments have no relationship with residential care orders. They are concerned only with the placement of children in secure: accommodation. I am happy to join the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) in his

    563
    tribute to the many people who have played a part in bringing us to where we are today. Not least, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done.
    In fairness to my officials, I must resist the suggestion that the DHSS has been dragged along, kicking and screaming, by this process.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: They are an admirable bunch.
    Mr. Newton: I agree with that.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: It has been the Ministers.
    Mr. Newton: I do not think Ministers have been the problem, because I have not been dragged kicking and screaming—
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman is all right.
    Mr. Newton: We can all agree that we have been mutually helpful to one another. I merely place on record the fact that the first suggestion of a judicial review was contained in a DHSS report on children in care produced in February 1981.
    At any rate, we can all be pleased with what will be passed into law, and I am grateful to everyone who has played a part.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 46 agreed to.

    New Clause F
    POWER OF CROWN COURT TO GRANT BAIL PENDING
    APPEAL
    Lords amendment: No. 47, before clause 27 insert:
    "F.—(1) In section 81 of the Supreme Court Act 1981—
    (a) in subsection (1) (which lists cases in which the Crown Court may grant bail) at the end of paragraph (e) there shall be added—
    "or
    (f) to whom the Crown Court has granted a certificate under section 1(2) or 11(1A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 or under subsection (1B) below ;";
    (b) the following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection—
    "(1A) The power conferred by subsection (1)(f)does not extend to a case to which section 12 or 15 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (appeal against verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity or against finding of disability) applies.
    (1B) A certificate under this subsection is a certificate that a case is fit for appeal on a ground which involves a question of law alone.
    (1C) The power conferred by subsection (1)(f)W is to be exercised—

    >(a)where the appeal is under section 1 or 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, by the judge who tried the case; and

    (b)where it is under section 10 of that Act, by the judge who passed the sentence.

    (1D) The power may only be exercised within twenty eight days from the date of the conviction appealed against, or in the case of appeal against sentence, from the date on which sentence was passed or, in the case of an order made or treated as made on conviction, from the date of the making of the order.
    (1E) The power may not be exercised if the appellant has made an application to the Court of Appeal for bail in respect of the offence or offences towhich the appeal relates.
    564
    (1F) It shall be a condition of bail granted in the exercise of the power that, unless a notice of appeal has previously been lodged in accordance with subsection (1) of section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968—

    (a)such a notice shall be so lodged within the period specified in subsection (2) of that section; and

    (b)not later than 14 days from the end of that period, the appellant shall lodge with the Crown Court a certificate from the registrar of criminal appeals that a notice of appeal was given within that perod.

    (1G) If the Crown Court grants bail to a person in the exercise of the power, it may direct him to appear—

    (a)if a notice of appeal is lodged within the period specified in section 18(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 at such time and place as the Court of Appeal may require; and

    (b)if no such notice is lodged within that period, at such time and place as the Crown Court may require.".

    (2) In the Criminal Appeal Act 1968—

    (a)in section 11—

    (i)in subsection (1), for the word "An" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to subsection (1A) below, an"; and

    (ii)the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection

    "(1A) If the judge who passed the sentence grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal under section 9 or 10 of this Act, an appeal lies under this section without the leave of the Court of Appeal." ;

    (b)the following section shall be substitued for section 19—

    "Bail
    19.—(1) The Court of Appeal may, if they think fit—

    (a)grant an appellant bail pending the determination of his appeal; or

    (b)revoke bail granted to an appellant by the Crown Court under paragraph (f) of section 81(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981; or

    (c)vary the conditions of bail granted to an appellant in the exercise of the power conferred by that paragraph.

    (2) The powers conferred by subsection (1) above may be exercised—

    (a)on the application of an appellant; or

    (b)if it appears to the registrar of criminal appeals of the Court of Appeal (hereafter referred to as "the registrar") that any of them ought to be exercised, on a reference to the court by him." ;

    (c)the following paragraph shall be substituted for section 31(2)(e)—

    "(e)to exercise the powers conferred by section 19 of this Act;".
    (3) The following subsection shall be inserted after section 30(7) of the Legal Aid Act 1974—
    "(7A) Where a certificate that a case is fit for appeal has been issued under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 or under section 81(1B) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, legal aid which may be ordered to be given by a legal aid order under section 28(7) above shall include legal aid for the purposes of an application for the grat of bail by the Crown Court."."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 268, 278 and 4.
    Mr. Mayhew: The new clause derives from one originally moved by Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. It springs from a proposal from the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group. The intention of the sponsors of the

    565
    original amendment was that if a defendant intends to appeal, and the judge considers it a proper case, he should be able to grant bail pending the appeal immediately after completion of the hearing in the Crown court without further formality. To achieve that simple result, however, this rather daunting clause is necessary.
    In order to ensure that the Court of Appeal is not faced with a flood of unmeritorious appeals, the grant of bail is made dependent on the grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal by the judge who presided at the trial or who passed sentence. The intending appellant may then apply for bail immediately. To prevent any delay, it will not be necessary for a notice of appeal to have been lodged at that stage, but to ensure that the offender carries out his stated intention to submit an appeal, the amendments provide that it shall be a condition of any bail granted that a notice of appeal shall be lodged within the period of 28 days prescribed in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 for the lodging of such appeals. The overall effect will be to speed up the process for granting Crown court bail in those cases where the judge thinks it appropriate.
    Under existing law a judge of the Crown court already has power to grant a certificate of fitness for appeal where the appeal is against conviction on a ground involving a question of fact or of mixed law and fact. The amendments give a judge power to certify the fitness for appeal of appeals against conviction involving a question of law alone. I should stress that such a certificate will be required only where the appellant desires to apply to the Crown court for bail pending appeal and will not affect the existing right of such offenders to appeal direct to the Court of Appeal without having to obtain the court's leave. A judge of the Crown court would also be given power to grant a certificate of fitness in relation to appeals against sentence. That places all applicants for bail pending appeal on the same footing. Legal aid is made available for the purposes of an application to the Crown court for the grant of bail.
    There are provisions to ensure that there is no confusion over the responsibility of the two courts. I need not detail them. The amendments to schedule 15 and the long title are purely consequential.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I welcome these amendments. Although they were proposed by Lord Hutchinson on behalf of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, and opposed by the Government, it was one of the rare occasions when we managed to win a Division. In spite of that, I commend the Government for not having attempted to reverse the decision.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause G
    ACTIVATION OF SUSPENDED SENTENCE
    Lords amendment: No. 48, after clause 27 insert:
    " G. In section 23(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, the words "which have arisen since the suspended sentence was passed" shall be omitted."
    7. 45 pm
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the Minister's consequential amendment.
    Mr. Mayhew: The amendment relates to section 23 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, which specifies the powers of a court in dealing with an offender who has committed an imprisonable offence during the operational period of a suspended sentence. At present section 23 requires the court to make an order that the suspended sentence shall take effect unless it is of the opinion that: it would be unjust to do so in view of all the circumstances that have arisen since the suspended sentence was passed, including the facts of the subsequent offence.
    The purpose of the amendment is simply to enable the courts to take account also of matters that arose before the suspended sentence was passed, but of which the court imposing the original sentence may not have been aware—such as, for example, medical history. The Government are satisfied, after careful consideration and on the basis of consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, that the amendment is, on balance, desirable and will not undermine the deterrent impact of the suspended sentence.
    The amendment to schedule 15 which we are discussing with this amendment is purely consequential. Amendment No. 48 was accepted by the Government on Third Reading of the Bill in another place and this is, therefore, the first opportunity to male this tidying-up amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Consequential amendment made: In schedule 15, page 116, line 23, leave out 'Section 23' and insert
    In section 23, in subsection (1), the words "which have arisen since the suspended sentence was passed", arid subsections'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

    Clause 28
    EARLY RELEASE OF PRISONERS
    Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 31 line 2, at end insert
    "and
    (c) an offence specified in Part III of that Schedule."
    Mr. Mayhew: 1 beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lorc s in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 180 to 180C.
    Mr. Mayhew: This amendment deals with early release under clause 28. It deals with drug trafficking offences, added to the schedule that lists the offences that are excluded from the power granted to the Home Secretary, with parliamentary approval, to effect early release in certain, very tightly limited, circumstances.
    This group of amendments falls into two categories. The amendment to clause 28 and amendments to schedule 1 together have the effect of excluding from eligibility for early release under the provisions of clause 27, prisoners who are serving sentences for offences of trafficking in drugs.
    In making provision in the clause for the exclusion of offences of violence, which we have already done in this House, the Government have always recognised—and there has been general recognition—that some problems of definition were bound to arise. The list of offences at present found in schedule 1 was deliberately confined to those offences where violence on the part of the offender is an inherent element of the offence. Nobody can doubt, however, that those who traffic in hard drugs are clearly a deep menace to society. It was argued forcefully in

    567
    another place that such offenders should be treated in the same way for the purposes of this clause as those sentenced to imprisonment for offences involving violence.
    The second set of amendments is purely technical. The schedule at present refers to the Hijacking Act 1971 and the Protection of Aircraft Act 1973. These measures have now, however, been consolidated in the Aviation Security Act which received Royal Assent this summer. The remaining amendments adjust the references in the schedule accordingly.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 29
    POWER TO ALTER MINIMUM PERIOD FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR RELEASE ON LICENCE
    Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 32, line 43, leave out "and".
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 51.
    Mr. Mayhew: Clause 29 amends section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to give the Secretary of State a power to reduce, by order, the minimum period of imprisonment which must be served before a prisoner is eligible for parole. Section 60 of the 1967 Act extends to Scotland, and it is intended that the amendment made to it by clause 29 should also extend to Scotland. An appropriate amendment to the extent clause will be tabled later. Section 100 of the 1967 Act, which is amended by clause 29 to provide that orders made under the amended section 60 are subject to affirmative resolution procedure, does not, however, currently extend to Scotland and the amendment amends the extent section in the 1967 Act by adding section 100 to the list of sections which apply to Scotland. The second amendment is purely drafting.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 51 agreed to.

    Clause 31
    ABOLITION OF ENHANCED PENALTIES ON SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION OF SUMMARY OFFENCES UNDER ACTS OF PARLIAMENT
    Lords amendment: No. 52, in page 33, line 17, leave out "of Parliament".
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 53 to 55.
    Mr. Mayhew: The first amendment in this group is a drafting amendment. It removes from clause 31 the rather cumbersome phrase "Act of Parliament" when the word "Act" alone is sufficient.
    Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55 are also straightforward. Together with similar amendments to clauses 32, 34, 36 and 38, they ensure that fixed and maximum fines for summary offences are caught by the provisions of this part of the Bill which apply to the uprating of fine levels.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55 agreed to.

    Clause 32
    ABOLITION OF ENHANCED PENALTIES UNDER SUBORDINATE INSTRUMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 56, in page 34, line 1, leave out
    "of Parliament".
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 57 to 60.
    Mr. Mayhew: These are purely drafting or technical amendments and I need not explain their content.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 60 agreed to.

    Clause 33
    THE STANDARD SCALE OF FINES FOR SUMMARY OFFENCES
    Lords amendment No. 61 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 62, in page 34, line 37, leave out "at" and insert
    "or maximum fine by reference to"
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 63.
    Mr. Mayhew: As with the similar amendments to clauses 31 and 32, already agreed to, these amendments ensure that part III of the Bill affects fixed as well as maximum fines.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 63 to 98 agreed to.

    New Clause H
    EMERGENCY REGULATIONS
    Lords amendment: No. 99, after clause 36, insert:
    "H. In section 2(3) of the Emergency Powers Act 1920 for "of one hundred pounds" there shall be substituted "not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, as defined in section [Construction of references to "the standard scale"] of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, or not exceeding a lesser amount"."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 189 and 207.
    Mr. Mayhew: This is not a new provision, but for technical reasons it is necessary to bring into a new clause the provisions relating to the increase in penalties under the Emergency Powers Act which are located in schedules 3 and 7 to the Bill. These are deleted by amendments Nos. 189 and 207.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause I
    ORDERS RELATING TO SPREAD OF PESTS
    Lords amendment: No. 100, after the words last inserted, insert:
    "I. The following subsections shall be substituted for sections 3(4) of the Plant Health Act 1967 (control of spread of pests in Great Britain)—
    "(4) An order made by a competent authority under this section may provide that a person guilty of an offence against the order shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, as defined in section [Construction of references to "the standard scale"] of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, or not exceeding a lesser amount.
    (4A) An order so made for preventing the spread in Great Britain of the Colorado beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say)) may provide that a person guilty of an offence against the order relating to the keeping of living specimens of the beetle (in any stage of existence), or to the distribution in any manner of such specimens, shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than three months, as well as, or as an alternative to, a fine under subsection (4) above."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment increases to — 1,000 the penalty under section 3(4) of the Plant Health Act 1967 for contravening an order made for preventing the spread in Great Britain of the Colorado beetle.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause J
    BYELAWS RELATING TO THE BURNING OF STRAW OR STUBBLE
    Lords amendment: No. 101, after the words last inserted, insert:
    "J. Any byelaws relating to the burning of straw or stubble made by a local authority under section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 (byelaws for good rule and government and suppression of nuisances) may provide that persons contravening the byelaws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 and, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding £5 for each day during which the offence continues after the conviction thereof; and any such byelaw in force at the coming into force of this section which specifies £200 or any smaller sum as the maximum fine which may be imposed on summary conviction of an offence under any such byelaw shall have effect as if it specified £1,000 instead (but with no change by virtue of this section in the maximum daily fine, if any, for which it provides)."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 102 and 279.
    Mr. Mayhew: It was argued and accepted in the other place that the maximum fine for offences relating to straw and stubble burning should be £1,000 rather than £500 and that the new maximum should be applied directly to existing byelaws, thereby saving local authorities the trouble of having to remake the relevant instruments. This revised new clause and associated amendments give effect to those decisions.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 102 agreed to.

    New Clause K
    BYELAWS FOR BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY AERODROMES
    Lords amendment: No. 103, after clause 37, insert:
    "K. The following subsections shall be substituted for section 9(3) of the Airports Authority Act 1975 (by virtue of which the maximum fine that byelaws made by the British Airports Authority in respect of aerodromes owned or managed by it may specify for a contravention of the byelaws is £100)—
    "(3) Any person contravening any byelaws made under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding such amount as, subject tovsubsection (3A) below, may be specified by the byelaws in relation to the contravention.
    (3A) The maximum fines that byelaws may specify by virtue of subsection (3) above are fines of an amount at level 4 on the standard scale, as defined in section [Construction of references to "the standard scale" ] of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, or of a lower amount."."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 104.
    Mr. Mayhew: Together these two new clauses give effect to an undertaking that I gave in Committee. Their effect is to increase from £100 to £500 the maximum summary penalty generally available for offences created by civil airports' byelaws, thereby enabling the airports authorities to provide, when they remake their byelaws, for a higher penalty for "taxi touting".
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 104 to 111 agreed to.

    Clause 40
    POWER TO ALTER SUMS
    Lords amendment: No. 112, in page 40, line 12, at end insert—
    "(fa) paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 5A to the Army Act 1955* and to the Air Force Act 1955† (compensation orders);
    (fb) paragraph 14(1) of that Schedule and paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 4B to the Naval Discipline Act 1957‡ (recognisance from parents and guardians);"

    *1955 c. 18.

    †19:55 c. 19.

    ‡1957 c. 53.

    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 113.
    Mr. Mayhew: Clause 40 lists the provisions which are affected by the power to alter maximum fines and certain other sums by order. Amendment No. 112 merely adds to the list those provisions which enable standing civilian courts to impose financial penalties on a juvenile. Amendment 113 similarly adds to the list the table of maximum periods of imprisonment in default now applicable to Crown courts by virtue of clause 52, the maximum fine available to standing civilian courts under the Armed Forces Act 1976, the relevant provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 which provide maxima higher than £1,000 for offences relating to the licensing of sex establishments, and the similar provision in the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982 relating to the licensing of cinemas.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 113 agreed to.

    Clause 41
    FINES FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES UNDER MERCHANT
    SHIPPING ACTS AND PREVENTION OF OIL POLLUTION
    ACT 1971
    Lords amendment: No. 114, in page 40, line 33, after
    "1971" insert—
    "(a)"
    8 pm
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Lords amendments Nos. 115 and 116.
    Mr. Mayhew: The amendments are concerned with penalties under the Merchant Shipping Acts. Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 116, although it looks daunting, is simple in its effect. Two of the powers to prescribe penalties in subordinate legislation under the Merchant Shipping Acts do not clearly permit different maxima to be applied to offences according to their relative gravity.
    A recent interpretation of the provisions of sections 20 and 21, which respectively are concerned with the control of oil pollution and regulations on health and safety on ships, is that all offences must be triable either way with two years' imprisonment on indictment. Many of the offences will not be of the more serious kind. For example, they may consist simply of failing to maintain correct records. We therefore need to ensure that the flexibility conveyed in powers to prescribe maxima in subordinate instruments is available.
    Amendment No. 116 makes it clear that summary trial only may be provided for where appropriate and that the maxima for the summary offences may be fixed according to their relative gravity within the overall limit of level 5 on the standard scale.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 115 and 116 agreed to.

    New Clause M
    FINES FOR OFFENCES AGAINST REGULATIONS RELATING
    TO WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY APPARATUS ON FOREIGN SHIPS
    AND AIRCRAFT
    Lords amendment: No. 117, after clause 41 insert:
    "M. (1) In section 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949—
    (a) in subsection (2), for the words from "such", in the second place where it occurs, to "regulations", in the fourth place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "a maximum fine for each offence of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, as defined in section [Construction of references to "the standard scale"] of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, or of a lesser amount"; and
    (b) the following subsection shall be added after subsection (3)—
    "(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section—

    (a)section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (the standard scale of fines for summary offences); and

    (b)an order under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which alters the sums specified in section 33(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982,

    shall extend to Northern Ireland."
    (2) Nothing in this section shall affect the punishment for an offence committed before this section comes into operation."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment increases from —100 to level 5 on the standard scale—which currently stands at —1,000—the maximum fine available for summary offences against regulations made under section 6(2) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. The regulations enable control to be exercised over the use of the apparatus on foreign ships and aircraft within the United Kingdom's territorial jurisdiction.
    The present maximum has remained at —100 since 1949 and would be increased to only —200 by clause 36 of the Bill. A more appropriate reflection of the potential gravity of the offences concerned would be —1,000.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 44
    POWER TO ALTER CERTAIN FINES AND OTHER SUMS
    Lords amendment: No. 118, in page 43, line 29, leave out "of this Act".
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 119.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The amendments add to the list of sums that can be altered, to take account of changes in the value of money, the exceptionally high summary fines that are being provided for offences under section 7(4)(a) of the Cinematogrph (Amendment) Act 1982 and paragraph 19(3) of schedule 2 to the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 119 agreed to.

    Clause 45
    REVISION OF PENALTIES FOR SUMMARY OFFENCES AND
    OF CERTAIN OTHER SUMS
    Lords amendment: No. 120, in page 44, line 9, leave out "(2)," and insert (1A) to"
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Lords amendments Nos. 121, 122, 130, 150, 275, 276 and 287.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The primary purpose of the amendments, and in particular the new clause, is to clarify the effect of the provisions of both the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and the current Bill on the penalties for offences in respect of which there is no express provision regarding the mode of trial. Broadly speaking, those offences with no specific mode of trial which, prior to the Criminal Law Act 1977, carried maximum penalties which did not exceed a fine of £ 400 or three months' imprisonment, are made triable only summarily. The remainder are made triable either

    573
    summarily or on indictment. Those statutory offences which are at present triable only on indictment or in the High Court will continue to be only so triable.
    The new clause makes amendments to section 289B and 289D of the 1975 Act which are consequential upon the new clause dealing with mode of trial. It also corrects certain defects and omissions. For the convenience of practitioners, the new clause sets out the amended section 289B in full.
    The other amendments to sections 289B and 289D are, in the main, designed to clarify the effect of those sections on certain types of fine. I refer to fixed, as opposed to maximum, fines in respect of each period of a specified length during which a continuing offence is committed, and fines in respect of specified quantities or numbers of things.
    The amendments to clause 45 and schedule 50 are consequential on the provisions of the new clause.
    Mr. Bruce Milan: Clause 45 is incomprehensible. The Government are suggesting a remarkable series of amendments, including amendment No. 150, which inserts a new clause into the Bill. That consists of several other new clauses to be inserted into the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1975.
    I would not say that I come to the Bill fresh, but I come to it new and I do not understand why such substantial changes should appear as Lords amendments. The Opposition take a dim view of important changes in criminal procedure legislation in Scotland being spatchcocked into what is otherwise an English Bill. That is an unfortunate way to legislate, particularly when the amendments are incomprehensible.
    What will be the effect of amendment No. 150 in terms of the number of offences triable summarily compared with the number tried on indictment? Will either category be increased or will it make no difference? If it will make no substantial difference, why is it necessary?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. The Bill seeks to bring into law an arrangement by which fines are uprated to take account of inflation without introducing a multiplicity of amendments to statutes.
    The assumption has been that the provision for fines in the 1975 Act and in the Bill involves offences falling neatly into three distinct categories—those triable only summarily, those triable either summarily or on indictment, and those triable only on indictment.
    The provisions and fines in the 1975 Act in part were designed to rationalise and inflation-proof fines for offences triable only either summarily or on indictment and offences triable only on indictment. The 1975 Act used a broad-brush approach which increased where necessary the fines for such offences to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum on a summary conviction and an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment. This Bill seeks to rationalise and inflation-proof fines for offences which are triable only summarily. To that end it contains broad-brush provisions for fines for such offences. However, it is now apparent that there are a large number of offences in Scottish legislation for which there is no express provision for the mode of trial. That is the basis on which all the assumptions in the Bill are made.
    I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern that the discovery should come at a relatively late stage in the
    574
    Bill's progress. I'-lope that he will accept that we are trying to accommodate a particular set of circumstances when no mode of trial exists in Scottish statutes.
    The amendments provide a better delimitation of apparatus to uprate fines in terms of charges which can be tried only on indictment or summarily. There is no significant change to the overall arrangement.
    Mr. Milan:I understand that there is no significant change in the legislation, but there are a number of offences that can be tried one way or another. Do the new provisions carry some indication of the division between one category and another? What is likely to happen in practice? Will there be more trials taken summarily because of the provision, fewer, or just about the same number?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Practically there will be no significant alteration, but if I am wrong I shall let the right hon. Gentleman know.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 121 and 122 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 123, in page 45, line 25, leave out from "fine" to end of line 26 and insert
    "or a maximum fine which is"
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 124, 132 to 138, 143, 145, 146 and 148.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The amendments are designed to ensure that the provisions of the proposed new sections 289E to 289G of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 achieve the correct result in cases where the fines can be imposed on conviction of an offence triable only summarily that has been non-textually amended. That will ensure that in cases of the type in question the fine provisions in the Bill achieve a textual amendment specifying the fine and not merely an amendment to the provisions that alter that fine.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 124 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 125, in page 45, line 36, after "the" insert "fine or"
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This is purely a drafting amendment. It amends section 289F(1) so that it refers consistently throughout to fines or maximum fines.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 126, in page 46, line 1, leave out "in any Act passed" and insert "passed or made"
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Subsection (1)(iv) of the proposed new section 289F is designed to exclude from the scope of the general uprating of fines provided for in section 289F fines which have been altered between the passing of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the passing o f this Bill. The reason for the exclusion is that any such alteration should have been designed to put the fines in question on to the appropriate point of the five-point scale. It will be wrong further to increase such fines.

    575
    As drafted, however, subsection (1)(iv) excludes from the general uprating only fines which have been altered since 1977 by an enactment contained in an Act. The amendment extends that exclusion to cover fines which have been altered since 1977 by enactments contained in subordinate legislation.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 127, in page 46, line 2, leave out from first "the" to end of line 3 and insert
    "commencement of this section."
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 128 and 129.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Scottish fines provisions were drafted on the assumption that they would be brought into force as soon as the Bill received the Royal Assent. The intention, however, is to bring the fines provisions into force in about April 1983. It is, therefore, necessary to amend the fines provisions accordingly.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 128 to 130 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 131, in page 46, line 15, at beginning insert
    "Subject to subsection (7A) below,"
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 139, 144 and 147.
    8. 15 pm
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Those amendments ensure that in any case where the fine formula is X per quantity or Y whichever is the greater, both legs are caught for the purpose of section 289F—the uprating of summary fines levels—and 289G—conversion to levels on the standard scale. Equivalent amendments have already been made for the English fine provisions.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 132 to 148, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: No. 149, in page 48, line 46, at end insert—
    "(8) Where an enactment to which subsection (5) above applies confers a power such as is mentioned in subsection (4)(a)(ii) above, the power shall be construed as a power to make a person liable to a fine or, as the case may be, a maximum fine of the amount corresponding to the level on the standard scale to which the enactment refers by virtue of subsection (4) above or of a lesser amount."
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. This confers upon the makers of subordinate legislation the discretion to provide in that subordinate legislation fixed or maximum fines of an amount less than that in the relevant enabling power even when such discretion is not currently conferred by the enabling legislation.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 150 agreed to.

    Clause 46
    SCHEDULES 7A TO 7D TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1975 AND SCHEDULES 6 AND 7 TO THIS ACT
    Lords amendment: No. 151, in page 49, line 40, leave out "Subsection (3) above does" and insert
    "The amendments provided for in Schedule 8 to this Act, other than paragraph 4 thereof, do"
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 152 and 153.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland:These amendments are designed to make it clear that the district court can impose fines of up to £500 for common law offences in respect of which proceedings have been instituted after schedule 8 comes into force, even if the offences were committed before that schedule comes into force. That is desired because the increase affected by schedule 8 in the district courts' sentencing power for common law offences is in the nature of a jurisdiction change rather than an increase in criminal penalties.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 152, 153 and 154 agreed to.

    New Clause P
    COURTS-MARTIAL AND STANDING CIVILIAN COURTS.
    Lords amendment: No. 155, before clause 47 insert:
    "P. Schedule [Courts-martial etc.] shall have effect in relation to offenders who come before courts-martial and Standing Civilian Courts."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 215, 263 and 293.
    Mr. Mayhew: The new clause and the associated amendments deal with changes to the Armed Forces Acts which are necessary in consequence of the changes made in the Bill. The purpose of the amendments is to bring the Armed Forces legislation into harmony with the provisions made in the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause Q
    APPLICATIONS TO CROWN COURT FOR BAIL BY PERSONS REMANDED IN CUSTODY
    Lords amendment: No. 156, after clause 47 insert:
    "Q.—(1) In section 81 of the Supreme Court Act 1981—
    (a) in subsection (1) (which lists cases in which the Crown Court may grant bail) at the end of paragraph (f) there shall be added "or
    (g) who has been remanded in custody by a magistrates' court on adjourning a case under—

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

    (ii)section 10 (adjournment of trial);

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

    (iv)section 30 (remand for medical examination), of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980;";

    (b) the following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection
    —
    "(1H) Where the Crown Court grants a person bail under subsection (1)(g) it may direct him to appear at a time and place which the magistrates' court could have directed and the recognizance of any surety shall be conditioned accordingly.
    (1J) The Crown Court may only grant bail to a person under subsection (1)(g) if the magistrates' court which remanded him in custody has certified under section 5(6A) of the Bail Act 1976 that it heard full argument on his application for bail before it refused the application.".
    (2) In subsection (6)(a) of section 5 of the Bail Act 1976 (supplementary provisions about decisions on bail) after the word "Court", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or if it issues a certificate under subsection (6A) below".
    (3) The following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection—
    "(6A) Where in criminal proceedings—
    (a) a magistrates' court remands a person in custody under any of the following provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980—

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

    (ii)section 10 (adjournment of trial);

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

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

    after hearing full argument on an application for bail from him; and
    (b) either—

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

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

    it shall be the duty of the court to issue a certificate in the prescribed form that they heard full argument on his application for bail before they refused the application.
    (6B) Where the court issues a certificate under subsection (6A) above in a case to which paragraph (b)(ii) of that subsection applies, it shall state in the certificate the nature of the change of circumstances or the new considerations which caused it to hear a further fully argued bail application.
    >(6C)Where a court issues a certificate under subsection (6A) above it shall cause the person to whom it refuses bail to be given a copy of the certificate.".
    (4) In section 30 of the Legal Aid Act 1974 (scope of legal aid) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
    "(1A) Legal aid which may be ordered to be given to any person for the purposes of any proceedings by a legal aid order under section 28(2) above, whether or not in the circumstances mentioned in section 29(1)(c) above, shall include, in the event —

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

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

    legal aid for the purpose of proceedings in connection with an application for bail to the Crown Court.
    (1B) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) above, legal aid in connection with an application for bail to the Crown Court shall not include representation by counsel except in a case where by virtue of subsection (2) (a) below legal aid ordered to be given for the purposes of the proceedings before the magistrates' court included representation by counsel."."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 253.
    Mr. Mayhew: This new clause fulfils an undertaking that the Government gave at the time of the Bill's passage through this House. It provides that defendants who are refused bail by a magistrates' court after the hearing of a full application will have a further avenue of application to the Crown court. It also provides that legal aid will be available for the purposes of such applications. Legal aid will be provided by an automatic extension to existing legal aid orders so that there will be no need for the defendant to make a separate application for it.
    Where the magistrates' court refuses bail to the defendant after hearing a full application for bail, it will be required to issue a certificate to that effect and the Crown court's power to grant bail will be limited to cases where such a certificate has been issued. The House will note that I have emphasised that the avenue of application will be available only after a full hearing. The effect of the case of the Queen against Nottingham justices was that a magistrates court decision on one full application for bail should bind the court, which would not have to hear further applications unless it could be shown that there had been a change in the circumstances of the defendant since the date of the first application. It is not intended that a court's decision that there has been no change in circumstances should be capable of appeal to the Crown court. The essential purpose of the new clause, therefore, is to allow the defendant to secure a review of the magistrates' court's substantive decision that, given the full range of circumstances existing at the time of his application, bail should be refused. The Government are satisfied that the new clause will assist defendants to pursue their applications for bail at a rather more convenient forum than the High Court at present represents.
    Mr. Kilroy-Sillk: For many years, the system of judicial review of magistrates courts' decisions to refuse bail has been allowed to remain in a highly unsatisfactory state given the face that about 44 per cent. of the 58,00() individuals who ate remanded in custody every year are eventually found not guilty or given a non-custodial sentence. Many people are inappropriately remanded in custody and refused bail. The provision for a legally-aided right of application to the Crown court will have several advantages over the present procedure for applying to a High Court judge in chambers. It is obviously far more accessible and speedier. Because of the advantages of legal representation, the defendant will presumably have his case presented by a lawyer who will be aware of the most effective form of presenting his case and is therefore more likely to obtain bail for the defendant.
    This amendment introduces an important change, for which reformers have been pressing for some years. The Minister has fulfilled a commitment that he gave to me on Report when I tabled a similar amendment on behalf of the parliament all-party penal affairs group. I welcome the amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause R
    LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN CASE OF COMMITTAL ON WRITTEN STATEMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 158, after the words last inserted, insert:
    "R. In section 6(2)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for the words "is not represented by counsel or a solicitor" there shall be substituted the words "has no solicitor acting for him in the case (whether present in court or not)"."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The new clause makes a minor but worthwhile change to the law regarding committals for trial by magistrates courts. Before the Criminal Justice Act 1967 came into force, it was necessary for magistrates courts to hear the prosecution in each committal in order to ensure that there was a prima facie case against the defendant. However, the 1967 Act introduced a procedure by which a court, sitting as examining justices, may, if satisfied that all the evidence before the court consists of written statements, commit a defendant for trial without consideration of the evidence. The procedure can be used only where the defendant consents and is represented by counsel or a solicitor. The purpose of the latter condition was to ensure that a defendant was properly advised before consenting to a committal taking place without consideration of the evidence.
    The difficulty has arisen that the condition has been interpreted to mean that the defendant's legal representative must be present in court. There are occasions when it will be important for the legal representative to attend court, but there are many cases in which no useful purpose would be served. Accordingly, this new clause clarifies the meaning of what is now section 6(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 by making it clear that there is no requirement for a legal representative to attend court on a committal under that section. It keeps the requirement that a defendant should have a solicitor acting for him in the case, however, so we can be sure that defendants are properly advised before consenting to this form of committal. It will, of course remain open to a solicitor to attend when there is a need for him to do so—for instance, when a defendant in custody wants to apply for bail.
    There will be a worthwhile saving in terms of legal aid expenditure. This is estimated to be in the region of £1 million a year without in any way prejudicing the interests of defendants. The amendment, which has the support of the Law Society, makes an improvement in the procedures for committals under section 6(2) of the 1980 Act. I commend it to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause S
    SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORTS ON PERSONS WHO HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY SERVED PRISON SENTENCES
    Lords amendment: No. 159, after the words last inserted, insert:
    "S. The following section shall be inserted after section 20 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973—
    "Social inquiry reports for purposes of s. 20
    20A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the court shall in every case obtain a social inquiry report for the purpose of determining under section 20(1) above whether there is any appropriate method of dealing with an offender other than imprisonment.
    580
    (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply if, in the circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain a social inquiry report.
    (3) Where a magistrates' court passes a sentence of imprisonment on a person of or over twenty one years of age on whom such a sentence has not previously been passed by a court in any part of the United Kingdom without obtaining a social inquiry report, it shall state in open court the reason for its opinion that it was unnecessary to obtain such a report.
    (4) A magistrates' court shall cause a reason stated under subsection (3) above to be specified in the warrant of commitment and to be entered in the register.
    (5) No sentence shall be invalidated by the failure of a court to comply with subsection (1) above, but any other court on appeal from that court shall obtain a social inquiry report if none was obtained by the court below, unless it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case it is unnecessary to do so.
    (6) In determining whether it should deal with the appellant otherwise than by passing a sentence of imprisonment on him the court hearing the appeal shall consider any social inquiry report obtained by it or by the court below.
    (7) In this section "social inquiry report" means a report about a person and his circumstances made by a probation officer."."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This amendment meets an undertaking given by the Government in the other place that we would bring forward a provision to require a court, unless there are reasons to the contrary, to obtain and consider a social inquiry report before imposing a first sentence of imprisonment on an adult offender. It is modelled on the similar provisions of clause 2 relating to young offenders and brings section 20 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 into line with them. I ask the House to accept the amendment.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The implications of the imposition of a first custodial sentence are important because of the potential loss not just of a job, but of family connections, a home and so on. Serious consideration should be given by the court to all the circumstances before such an important step is taken. It is crucial that a social inquiry report be asked for so that the full circumstances surrounding the offender and the offence can be brought to the attention of the court before it passes such a sentence.
    The Government are fulfilling a commitment given in another place following an amendment moved by Baroness David on behalf of the parliamentary all-party panal affairs group. I welcome the amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause T
    DEFERMENT OF SENTENCE
    Lords Amendment: No. 160, after the words last
    inserted, insert:
    "T. Section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (which gives a court sentencing an offender the power to defer passing sentence on him) shall have effect subject to the following amendments—
    (a) in subsection (1), for the words from "to have" to "sentence" there shall be substituted the words "or any other court to which it falls to deal with him to have regard, in dealing with him";
    (b) the words ", subject to subsection (8A) below," shall be inserted after the word "and" in subsection (2);
    (c) the words "deal with" shall be substituted—

    (i)for the words "pass sentence on" in subsection (4);

    581

    (ii)for the words "pass sentence on" in subsection (4A); and

    (iii)for the word "sentence" in the second place where it occurs in subsection (5); and

    (d) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (8)—
    "(8) The power of a court under this section to deal with an offender in a case where the passing of sentence has been deferred thereunder—
    (a) includes power to deal with him in any way in which the court which deferred passing sentence could have dealt with him; and
    (b)without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in the case of a magistrates' court, includes the power conferred by section 37 or 38 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to commit him to the Crown Court for sentence.
    (8A) Where, in a case where the passing of sentence on an offender in respect of one or more offences has been deferred under this section, a magistrates' court deals with him by committing him to the Crown Court under section 37 or 38 of the Act of 1980, the power of the Crown Court to deal with him includes the same power to defer passing sentence on him as if he had just been convicted of the offence or offences on indictment before the court ." ."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 283.
    Mr. Mayhew: The new clause was introduced by the Government in another place in fulfilment of an undertaking which I gave on Report in response to an amendment which had the support of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group.
    The new clause removes the present restriction in section 1(8) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 on the power of magistrates to commit an offender to the Crown court for sentence following a period of deferment. This provision was inserted into the Act by means of schedule 12 to the Criminal Law Act 1977 following a decision by the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Gilby. It has been argued that the restriction inhibits magistrates courts from ordering a period of deferment in cases where the eventual outcome might be a non-custodial sentence, but where, if the offender did not respond to deferment, the right course might be to commit to the Crown court for sentence, thus leading to a potentially unnecessary use of custody by the magistrates at the first hearing. The effect of this new clause is to amend the statutory provision for the deferment power to give magistrates the power to commit to the Crown court for sentence in these circumstances. Amendment No. 283 simply repeals the now redundant provision in schedule 12 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. I commend the amendments to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 161 agreed to.

    New Clause U
    RIGHT OF APPEAL OF PROBATIONERS ETC
    Lords amendment: No. 162, after clause 49, insert:
    " U.—(1) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1) of section 50 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (meaning of "sentence")—
    "(1A) Section 13 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (under which a conviction of an offence for which a probation order or an order for conditional or absolute discharge is made is deemed not be a conviction except for certain purposes) shall not prevent an appeal under this Act, whether against conviction or otherwise."
    582.
    (2) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1) of section 108 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (right of appeal to the Crown Court)—
    "(1A) Section 13 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (under which a conviction of an offence for which a probation order or an order for conditional or absolute discharge is made is deemed not to be a conviction except for certain purposes) shall not prevent an appeal under this section, whether against conviction or otherwise.".
    (3) In the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973—
    (a) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection. (1) of section 11 (substitution of conditional discharge for probation) —
    "(1A) No application may be made under subsection (1) above while an appeal against the probation order is pending."; and
    (b) in Schedule 1 (discharge and amendment of probation orders)—

    (i)the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after paragraphs 1( 1) and 3(1)—
    "(1A) No application may be made under sub-paragraph (1) above while an appeal against the probation order is pending."

    (ii)the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph. 2(1)—
    "(1A) No order may be made under subparagraph (1) above while an appeal against tie probation order is pending." ;

    (iii)in paragraph 4, for the word "Where" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to paragraph 4A below, where"; and

    (iv)the following paragraph shall be inserted after that paragraph —
    "4A. No application may be made under paragraph 4 above while an appeal against the probation order is pending."."

    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 244 and 285.
    Mr. Mayhew: The amendments seek to provide for a full right of appeal against sentence where a probation order or an order for conditional or absolute discharge has been made either alone or in conjunction with an ancillary order such as a compensation order.
    The present position is that, in a case where a probation order or order for conditional or absolute discharge is made, the offender has a right of appeal against conviction but not against sentence. That is the effect of section 13 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.
    The rationale behind these provisions is that a right of appeal against sentence seems inappropriate since a probation order can be made only with the offender's consent and an order for conditional or absolute discharge represents the minimum that can be imposed consistent with a finding of guilt. However, an unintended side effect of the legislation has been to exclude any right of appeal against any ancillary order, such as a compensation order, made in conjunction with the probation order or order for conditional or absolute discharge. It was never the intention of the provisions to exclude appeals against ancillary orders in those circumstances. They are appealable when imposed in conjunction with a more serious sentence and, as they can be quite punitive, it seems incongruous for the right to be withdrawn when the principal punishment is less severe. Furthermore, the present position hat; created difficulties in the Court o Appeal, as at least one recent case has evidenced. The court was obliged to conclude that it had no jurisdiction,

    583
    to vary or overturn an order for costs that accompanied a conditional discharge, although it clearly would have wished to do so.
    The amendments correct that anomaly and go further by providing a right of appeal against a probation order or an order for conditional or absolute discharge, whether or not combined with an ancillary order. I need not trouble the House with the consequential amendments.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 51
    COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS
    Lords amendment: No. 163, in page 51, line 18, at end insert
    "with respect—
    (a) to the powers of courts in England and Wales in relation to community service orders; and
    (b) to arrangements for persons in England and Wales to perform work under such orders.
    (2) Schedule 12A to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of the enforcement in one part of the United Kingdom of community service orders made in another part."
    8. 30 pm
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this we may take Lords amendment No. 233.
    Mr. Mayhew: The amendments clarify the provisions of the Bill on the extent of community service orders. The existing schedule 12 is to be spit into two schedules and the amendments pave the way for the relevant provision in clause 61, a new comprehensive structure for which is provided in a later amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 52
    MAXIMUM PERIODS OF IMPRISONMENT FOR DEFAULTING ON FINES ETC
    Lords amendment: No. 164, in page 51, leave out lines 21 to 26 and insert—
    "(a) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (2) to (4)——
    "(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, if the Crown Court imposes a fine on any person or forfeits his recognizance, the court shall make an order fixing a term of imprisonment or of detention under section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (detention of persons aged 17 to 20 for default) which he is to undergo if any sum which he is liable to pay is not duly paid or recovered.
    (3) No person shall on the occasion when a fine is imposed on him or his recognizance is forfeited by the Crown Court be committed to prison or detained in pursuance of an order under subsection (2) above unless
    (a) in the case of an offence punishable with imprisonment, he appears to the court to have sufficient means to pay the sum forthwith;
    (b) it appears to the court that he is unlikely to remain long enough at a place of abode in the United Kingdom to enable payment of the sum to be enforced by other methods; or
    (c)on the occasion when the order is made the court sentences him to immediate imprisonment, custody for life, youth custody or detention in a detention centre for that or another offence, or sentences him
    584
    as aforesaid for an offence in addition to forfeiting his recognizance, or he is already serving a sentence of custody for life or a term—

    (i)of imprisonment;

    (ii)of youth custody;

    (iii)of detention in a detention centre; or

    (iv)of detention under section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.

    (3A) Subject to subsections (3B) and (3C) below, the periods set out in the second column of the following Table shall be the maximum periods of imprisonment or detention under subsection (2) above applicable respectively to the amounts set out opposite thereto.
    TABLE"
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 165 to 168, 245, 272, 277, 283A and 286.
    Mr. Mayhew: Amendments Nos. 164 to 167 and the associated amendments to the schedules are all tidying up amendments which flow from our acceptance in Committee in this House of the provision in clause 52 that restricts the powers of the Crown court in the imposition of a custodial term in default of the payment of a fine or a forfeited recognisance.
    Amendments Nos. 168 and 277 bring the provisions for defaulters on a fine imposed by a court martial into line with the provisions for defaulters on fines imposed by magistrates courts and the Crown court.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 165 to 170 agreed to.

    New Clause V
    ABOLITION OF RIGHT OF ACCUSED TO MAKE UNSWORN STATEMENT
    Lords amendment: No. 171, after clause 54 insert:
    "V-(l) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, in any criminal proceedings the accused shall not be entitled to make a statement without being sworn, and accordingly, if he gives evidence, he shall do so on oath and be liable to cross-examination; but this section shall not affect the right of the accused, if not represented by counsel or a solicitor, to address the court or jury otherwise than on oath on any matter on which, if he were so represented, counsel or a solicitor could address the court or jury on his behalf.
    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall prevent the accused making a statement without being sworn—
    (a) if it is one which he is required by law to make personally; or
    (b)if he makes it by way of mitigation before the court passes sentence upon him.
    (3) Nothing in this section applies—
    (a) to a trial; or
    (b) to proceedings before a magistrates' court acting as examining justices,
    which began before the commencement of this section."
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the motion of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to disagree with the amendment, and Lords amendments Nos. 260, 261 and 5.
    Mr. Mayhew: The new clause and the associated amendments relate to the proposal that the right of a defendant to make an unsworn statement from the dock should be abolished. An amendment to abolish the

    585
    unsworn statement from the dock, substantially subsection (1) of the new clause, was moved in another place by Lord Wigoder.
    Subsections (2) and (3) and the other amendments were moved by my noble Friend Lord Elton on behalf of the Government. Subsection (2) aims to ensure that a defendant who has not been sworn is not precluded by this provision from making a statement that he is required, by law, to make, or one, after verdict and before sentence, by way of mitigation.
    Subsection (3) is needed so that the provision does not affect trials or committals for trial begun before the provision comes into effect. The other amendments are consequential and provide for the repeal of two enactments that assume the continued existence of the right to make an unsworn statement and add to the Bill's long title to reflect the inclusion of this provision.
    I hope that it will be helpful to the House in discussing what I regard as an extremely interesting subject if I give a brief account of this history of the right to make an unsworn statement from the dock and the strength of concern about this continuation which moved the Government to urge that Lord Wigoder's amendment be accepted.
    Before 1898, the defendant in a criminal trial was not allowed to give evidence, and the unsworn statement provided the only mechanism by which he could say anything by way of answer to the charge against him. Then, in 1898, we had the Criminal Evidence Act, and for the first time it allowed the defendant in a criminal case to give evidence on his own behalf. However, to avoid any suggestion that the new legislation would in some way put pressure on a defendant to give evidence, Parliament thought it right to ensure that an unsworn statement and the right to make an unsworn statement should be preserved. So it was. That was the genesis of its continuance from 1898 to this day.
    However, it has become axiomatic, of course, that the defendant has a choice whether to give evidence. That is his right, and the law provides that if he chooses not to give evidence, but simply to say "In our criminal law the burden of proof lies on the Crown to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I do not have to prove my innocence", he is entitled to do so, and it is not open to the prosecution to make any adverse comment to the jury upon the fact that he has done so and that he has failed to give any evidence.
    Therefore, the preservation of the unsworn statement is unnecessary to make the right not to give evidence an effective one. By continuing to preserve it, we expose juries to what I believe is a substantial risk of confusion, quite unnecessarily. They are often told to make what they will of facts and allegations which are set out in a statement delivered from the dock without being sworn, although they do not form part of the sworn evidence in the case. They have to make what they can, not only of the evidence that is given in an unsworn statement from the dock and to give it what weight they think fit, but also of a direction on the matter that normally would be along these lines from the judge:
    "Where a defendant makes an unsworn statement from the dock, it need not be read out to the jury, but it is established that the judge should remind them of it and tell them that although it is not sworn evidence which can be the subject of cross-examination, nevertheless they can attach to it such weight as they think fit and should take it into consideration in deciding whether the prosecution has proved its case."
    586
    Such a statement is certainly more than mere comment, and in so far as it is stating fact, it is clearly something more and different from the comments in counsels' speeches. The direction might well continue:
    "What is said in such a statement is not to be altogether brushed aside, but its potential effect is persuasive rather than evidential. It cannot prove facts not otherwise proved by the evidence, but it might show the evidence in a different light."
    The jury should be invited to consider the statement in relation to the evidence as a whole.
    That represents a valiant attempt by judges to give what assistance can be given to a jury about how to regard and consider evidence which is not given on oath in the court, but is given from the dock and is not subject to cross-examination. However, with the best will in the world. I believe that most people sitting on a jury would be inclined to consider it on the opaque side.
    A further consideration is that the procedure is capable of abuse. That is far from unknown in practice these days. Defendants may use an unsworn statement to blacken the characters of what may be innocent prosecution witnesses, safe in the knowledge that any criminal record they might have cannot be called into question and that they cannot even be cross-examined as to the truth of the allegations.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman cite any researched evidence, other than anecdotal evidence from a judge, which suggests that that is so?
    Mr. Mayhew: Those who practise in the criminal courts have many experiences of that having happened, although I doubt whether any research findings exist. I do not know. However, even those who contend that we should keep the right would not deny that it is not only capable of abuse, but, on occasions, is abused.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with a point that goes to the heart of the matter? If an arrested person with a record goes into the witness box and alleges that he has been "verballed", and, unbeknown to everybody, the allegation is true, in nine cases out of 10, or even more, he is done for by virtue of the revelation of his character. Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that such circumstances present a strong case for providing some protection of this kind, limited though it is, to deal with the evidence of unscrupulous police officers?
    Mr. Mayhew: I had intended to deal with such a case and shall do so now. It is the case that if, in the course of giving evidence on one's own behalf, allegations are made which are adverse to a prosecution witness character, it is open to the prosecution, with the leave of the judge—which is an important qualification—to cal evidence to cross-examine the defendant about his antecedents and to, as it were, let the jury know that he is a person of bad character.
    The rationale for that is that in some cases fairness and justice requires that somebody who is making allegations of a serious nature, impugning the character of a prosecution witness, ought to have the nature of his own character put before the jury so that the jury can the better weigh the allegations that are being made against the prosecution witness. That is how the law looks at it. However, the judge's discretion in the matter is an important qualification. It is not a dead letter. It is a reality and it by no means always follows that, in a case where

    587
    an allegation is being made by an accused person to the effect that his alleged confession is not his, his character will be put in.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk Mr. Kilroy-Silk rose—
    Mr. Mayhew: I have not finished my point. I am quite good at sitting down when the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt, but may I complete my point?
    The principles by which the courts exercise the discretion to decide whether or not to allow evidence of an accused person's previous convictions to be adduced are customarily set out in the following terms. The judge may feel that even though the position is established in law—namely, that the defendant has impugned the character of a prosecution witness—the putting of questions as to the character of the accused person may be fraught with results which immeasurably outweigh the results of questions put by the defence and which make a fair trial of the accused person almost impossible.
    On the other hand, in the ordinary and normal case he may feel that if the credit of the prosecutor or his witnesses has been attacked, it is only fair that the jury should have before it material upon which it can form a judgment about whether the accused is more worthy of belief than those whom he attacked.
    8.45 pm
    It is well settled that the Court of Appeal will not interfere in the exercise of the discretion of the trial judge unless he has gone wrong in principle or unless there was no material to enable him properly to exercise such discretion. Therefore, it is by no means a dead letter. In many cases the prosecution counsel would not even consider an application to put it—[Interruption.] There are many things that I know nothing about that I have to talk about in the House, but I do know a little about this subject. In many cases it would not occur to people to make that application, and, if it were made, a judge would not allow it. That is my answer. It is to overstate considerably the case for retaining the right to make an unsworn statement to say that if someone has been "verballed" and he wishes to tell the jury about the case, yet he has previous convictions, he is lost without the ability to make an unsworn statement.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is not the real answer to suggest that the elimination of the right to make an unsworn statement from the dock would be more palatable if at the same time it were accompanied by the introduction of a tape recording of the interrogation of suspects?
    Mr. Mayhew: I have much sympathy with that argument. In a debate in the House following the publication of the Philips report the Government implied that they favoured the principle of tape recording. In my county of Kent, the chief constable carried out an experiment— I believe it was in the Dartford area— which proved to be entirely feasible. So I have sympathy with the suggestion.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: If that is so, why does not the Minister carry out both of the changes together? What is the rush to get this provision through by itself?
    Mr. Mayhew: The hon. and learned Gentleman will find that those matters are not stationary—
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: They are moving.
    Mr. Mayhew: However, although legislation is not required to provide for the admissibility of evidence on a tape recorder— that is frequently admitted today— legislation is needed in this instance.
    Mr. John Ryman: I suspect that there are no statistics about this, but will the Minister agree that experience shows that judges are most reluctant to allow an application by the Crown to put in the character of a defendant if the conduct of the defendant is necessary for the defence to put its case. Is not it rare for character to be allowed in the circumstances which have been described?
    Mr. Mayhew: I do agree. That accords with my understanding of the practice. A few years ago it used to be said that the only circumstances in which the character would not be put in was if it were absolutely necessary for the conduct of the defence to make allegations which involved impugning the character of the prosecution witness. That is not now regarded as an accurate or full statement of the law, because there are wider circumstances in which a judge will exercise his discretion and not allow an application by the prosecution.
    Mr. Lawrence: I am astonished to hear what has been said by Opposition Members and by my hon. and learned Friend. I speak mainly from my knowledge of the Old Bailey and London as opposed to the provinces. Since the Selvey case, it is rare for a man's character to be excluded once he has challenged the integrity or the honesty of a police officer. Although I support what my hon. and learned Friend seeks to do, I should prefer him not to support his case by resting it upon what I consider to be a totally unfounded argument.
    Mr. Mayhew: I hear what my hon. and learned Friend says, but he will have heard what has been said from quarters more persuasive tonight than the Dispatch Box. Therefore, it follows that there is at least a disparity of practice in the country.
    I want to move to some of the arguments that have been adduced in support of the contention that the House should disagree with the Lords in the amendment to abolish the unsworn statement. I am much comforted to have my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General beside me because this is an issue on which the senior Law Officer might be able to assist the House. In another place, the noble Lord Hutchinson of Lullington said that the abolition of the unsworn statement would have unfortunate consequences in the magistrates courts. The unsworn statement, as is suggested, can be used to enable the defendant to make a statement while avoiding superfluous examination. This begs the question of which cross-examination is regarded as superfluous and which as necessary. It was said in the other place that there are umpteen cases in a magistrates court every month in which the clerk says to the defendant, "You can go into the witness box to give your side of the case or you can make a statement from the dock." The argument is that often an accused person will not want to go into the witness box and will say from the dock what he wants to say. It is argued that this is very convenient because it saves time. But that is not the whole story. It is quite improper to say to someone that he can have that choice and not go on to say that if he goes into the witness box he will be cross-examined and will not be cross-examined if he stays in the dock.

    589
    Once that warning or explanation is given, it is apparent to all accused that their evidence will carry very much more weight if they go into the witness box than it will if they protect themselves from cross-examination by staying in the dock. It is not possible to sustain that line of argument without the implication that magistrates pay no attention to what is said from the dock. Therefore, I do not think that the time saving point in the magistrates court carries the argument for disagreeing any further. If a defence is so short that it is hardly worth going into the witness box, it will not yield material for very protracted cross-examination and it is the duty of any court to ensure that cross-examination is limited to what is relevant.
    The unrepresented defendant is able to address the court on any matter to which his lawyer, if he had one, could speak, and any defendant will be able similarly to make a statement by way of mitigation. If the amendment is passed, those courses are still open to him. Given these savings, I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which the removal of the unsworn statement will constrain the procedure in trials in magistrates courts, except that if the defendant chooses to give evidence he will have to do so on oath like any other witness. That is exactly what the clause seeks to achieve.
    But it has also been argued that it is an essential protection for the accused whose line of defence involves an attack on a prosecution witness but who fears that he may thereby become liable to cross-examination on previous convictions. I have said what I wanted to say about that, but I should like to point out how it is open to abuse by an unscrupulous defendant. It is said on the one hand that this is an infringement of the right to silence, as it is commonly called, but during last year's debate on the report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure we said that we accepted its recommendation that the right to silence should not be modified. That remains our position and any connection between the abolition of the unsworn statement and an attack on the right to silence is imaginary.
    I turn to what the sponsors of the amendment appear to regard as its main justification— whether a clause abolishing the unsworn statement should have found its way into the Bill in the first place. There are many measures that it would have been desirable to have in a Criminal Justice Bill. We had to make decisions but the Lords have added this amendment and we therefore have a duty to deal with it on its merits. When one examines the opportunities that are afforded to blacken the name of witnesses who have come to court to do their duty, to give their best account and to tell the truth as it appears to them, it is a matter of great injustice that, from the safety of the dock, with no liability to cross-examination, they can have their bona fides and character blackened. Where police officers believe that such a strategem has been followed, it can lead to temptation to improve upon the truth in another case, in order, as it were, to even up the scales. That is a human temptation. I do not say that it is yielded to very often, but I can visualise circumstances in which it might be.
    As long ago as 1972 the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended unanimously the abolition of the unsworn statement. There is recent very high judicial authority for the proposition that the right to make an unsworn statement has nothing to do with the right of silence; it has to do with the right to lie to the court with impunity.
    590
    I regard the subject as being extremely important, and I look forward to hearing what the House has to say about it. I commend the new clause to the House.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has rightly said., the right of the accused to make an unsworn statement from the dock has existed by statute since 1898 and been enshrined in the common law probably since the time of Queen Anne. It is wrong, and of doubtful constitutional propriety, that a right daung back so long—a right involving the liberty of the subject and a fair trial—should be abolished as a result of an amendment, inserted at a comparatively late stage of a Bill in the House of Lords, without any trailer or marker being put down throughout the extensive Second Reading and interminable Committee stage of the Bill in this House. The amendment was introduced not by the Government but by a Liberal peer, Lord Wigoder—for whom I have the greatest respect—and accepted by the Government after the shortest of debates, after no more than four or five peers had made short speeches.
    The right, as I have said, is a common law right. It was given to the accused originally because he had no right to make a sworn statement and no right to be represented by counsel. It was a right that was specifically preserved by Parliament in the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 and not, as has been suggested , a right that was inserted by accident. It is wrong that it should be abolished in this almost throwaway cursory manner.
    I accept that there is a strong body of legal and judicial opinion in favour of abolition, and there has been for a considerable time, but there is no unanimity among lawyers—certainly not among defence lawyers—in favour of abolition. Some may be in favour of abolition, but there is a strong body of opinion that it is a valuable right afforded to the accused. There is no unanimity ever among Labour lawyers, some of whom are in favour of abolition, but there is a strong body of opinion among defence lawyers that the right is valuable and should be retained.
    9 pm
    Why do they feel that that right should be retained? Take the case of the defendant who may be genuinely innocent and who genuinely disputes the evidence that has been given by the police about a statement that he is alleged to have made while being interrogated in police custody. The defendant may genuinely believe that he has been "verballed". That happens. It does not happen as often as is alleged in court, but it happens. The danger is that if the defendant attacks the police evidence and their account of that interrogation, on any assessment he is in severe danger of his previous convictions being brought out in court and of irretrievable damage being done to the outcome of the trial. Of that there can be no doubt.
    If the Government intended to abolish the unsworn statement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said in his intervention, they should have done it as part of the process of implementing other procedural and evidential changes, many of which were recommended by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, which also recommended this change. However, it recommended the change in conjunction with changes affecting the right of the accused not to have his previous convictions produced against him if he attacks police evidence. There is nothing to prevent the Government from doing that.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: It would be possible for the Minister to give an assurance tonight, having already accepted that the two should go together—he said that himself—that he will not activate this part of the Act unless and until the tape recording of interrogations is introduced. He said that this proposal required legislation. He has the legislative opportunity, but he does not need to implement the legislation. He could give the assurance tonight that he will not implement it until tape recording is also available.
    Mr. Davidson: My hon. Friend has made a good point.
    I mentioned what the Royal Commission recommended. In case it is thought that I am mistaken, I shall read briefly from its report. Speaking in favour of abolition of the unsworn statement, it says:
    "Some accused, however, decide to make an unsworn statement because they fear cross-examination on their criminal record, if they mount an attack on the prosecution witnesses, for example, in attempting to show that a confession has been improperly obtained. If the unsworn statement were to be abolished, we consider that this point would need review."
    I ask the Minister to give an assurance, even at this late stage, that he will not implement the abolition of the unsworn statement without equally dealing with the points about the danger of previous convictions being brought up against the accused.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: In view of what the Minister has said, would it not be easy for him to activate such procedure by a Home Office directive to police forces?
    Mr. Davidson: Indeed it would. No doubt he will deal with that.
    At the very least, the provision to ensure that tape recordings are used properly to supervise the proceedings in the interview room should be quickly introduced. The Minister should give us an assurance on that matter.
    The unsworn statement also has a value for the inarticulate, not very bright and frequently confused accused person, who is instinctively frightened of going into the witness box and of being cross-examined, not necessarily because he has something to hide, but because of the new and horrific experience of being asked questions by a skilful and what to him appears ferocious advocate. He fears that he will cut a poor dash and make a bad impression on the jury. The unsworn statement is a useful half-way house between total silence, with the danger of adverse conclusions being drawn by the jury, and submitting to a cross-examination that the accused feels he will handle badly.
    The Minister said that one strong reason for abolishing the unsworn statement is that juries find it difficult to know what weight to give it. It is not evidence on oath and is not subject to cross-examination, and the judge will tell them that it is therefore less cogent than a sworn statement. The Minister read out the direction that Archbold recommends judges to use. I do not know whether juries find it confusing, but I suggest that they find it no more confusing than the other complicated and technical directions that judges have to give about the weight of other evidence—for instance, the value to be put on a statement of one accused implicating another. Judges can direct juries on the probative value of the unsworn statement, and they frequently do so in terms that reveal their disapproval. It is suggested that unsworn statements may result in acquittal of unworthy people, but I do not know on what evidence.
    Mr. Ryman: Is there not a danger that cunning criminals will make unsworn statements from the dock deliberately to mislead juries, because they know that there is confusion in a juror's mind about what is evidence from the witness box and what is not?
    Mr. Davidson: There is that danger, but the cunning, sophisticated, professional criminal can, and frequently does, take advantage of many other evidential rules.
    The number of people who appear before Crown and magistrates courts is very great, and only about 1 per cent. of the total are professional criminals. To suggest that a valuable safeguard for the bulk of the accused, who do not fall into that category, should be jeopardised because of the tactics and villainy of a very small minority is a dangerous argument and damaging to civil liberties.
    As I have said, professional criminals form a very small part of the vast number of people who come before the courts. About 2·3 million people have appeared before the Crown and magistrates courts. About 70,000 of that total appear before the Crown courts. To suggest that the majority are professional villains and, therefore, that this valuable safeguard should be tampered with, is an untenable argument. We do not have to tune our legal system and criminal procedures to cater for the villainy of a very small minority. We certainly do not have to do so without building in other safeguards for the accused who does not come under that category and who may be innocent.
    The amendment accepted by the Government preserves the right to make unsworn statements from the dock for people who are not represented by professional counsel. However, once the right to make an unsworn statement has vanished, other than when he is unrepresented, a professional criminal might have counsel to put his case, sack counsel and exercise his right as an unrepresented defendant to make an unsworn statement from the dock. The suggestion that the rationale of this proposal is somehow to curtail the professional criminal from abusing the system is not very strong.
    Mr. Mayhew: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in that event the court would be obliged to point out to the jury that counsel could only have been sacked to permit a statement from the dock to be given? In addition, there would be no counsel's speech to the jury at the end of the case. That would be a different situation from that which obtains at present.
    Mr. Davidson: I do not know whether that necessarily follows. A professional criminal may well think that it is a risk worth taking. He may feel that he has a better chance by sacking counsel and making an unsworn statement than by having counsel to represent him.
    Mr. Anderson: Would it not be improper for the court to make any such suggestion, as there are a variety of possible explanations for the sacking of counsel at that stage? Surely it would be wrong for the court to suggest that one possibility.
    Mr. Davidson: My hon. Friend is right. It is not unknown for counsel to be dismissed, and it would be improper for the judge to suggest to the jury the motives for that sacking. He may be entirely wrong. It could be extremely prejudicial.

    593
    9.15 pm
    The Minister has rather pooh-poohed the suggestion by Lord Hutchinson in the debate in another place that every defendant in a magistrates court, who now has the right to make a short statement without cross-examination about why the money would not go into the meter or why his car was not causing an obstruction, might have to submit himself to a lengthier statement and a lengthy cross-examination. That would take up the valuable time of the court. I do not intend to expand on that argument. No doubt other hon. Members will.
    One clearly damaging effect of the amendment is that, inevitably, once the right to make an unsworn statement has been taken away, more people will choose to go into the witness box and be cross-examined rather than feel that they have said nothing by exercising their right to silence. The accused will feel that it is the most important thing happening to him. He is the most important person in the court. He feels that he has a right to say something, and he will be extremely dissatisfied and unhappy if he has to maintain the right to silence. Once the right to make an unsworn statement from the dock has been taken away, more and more people will feel disposed not to give evidence under oath—not because they are guilty or because they have something to hide, but because they do not feel that they can acquit themselves well. They will be driven to give evidence under oath very much against their natural inclinations. Counsel may be inhibited in cross-examining the police about the accuracy of their statements if the accused does not say something in explanation.
    I do not know what all the fuss is about, or why the Government suddenly feel that they have to take this step. I am not at all sure of the value to the accused of making an unsworn statement. It is unlikely that an acquittal results solely from the accused doing that. There is no evidence to support the view that an unsworn statement makes a difference to the verdict.
    On the subject of abuse, the Minister knows only too well that rules of professional conduct lay down that the statement should not be drafted by counsel. It must be in the words of the accused, and frequently he says something that the jury finds suspicious. That may be the case, but it is said by him at his own request and by a man who may be innocent.
    One of the dangers of doing away with the right to make an unsworn statement is that it can be interpreted as the slippery slope to abolishing the right to silence. The Minister referred to the recommendation of the 1972 Criminal Law Revision Committee which recommended the abolition of the unsworn statement. I think that I am right in saying that the committee also recommended the abolition of the right to silence. That is something that most of us would fight hard to retain.
    What is the urgent need to bring in this amendment? What is the urgent need to legislate on this ancient and well-tried matter of criminal procedure concerning the right of the subject? Why legislate in this covert manner, why legislate on it in isolation, and why do so in a Bill that is meant to deal with other and very different matters of penal reform? The Minister said that the Government had had to amend the long title to accommodate this measure.
    I suggested to the Government in a friendly way, why not, if they have it in mind to get rid of the unsworn statement, because it is damaging to the legal process, introduce a measure openly in a Bill based on the Royal
    594
    Commission's recommendations? I understand that there is to be a White Paper and a debate in the next Session. The Government should bring in this measure in a Bill dealing with a variety of procedural and evidential matters. Any matter affecting the liberty of the subject and the right to a fair trial ought to have a proper, considered and open debate in the House. That is what the Opposition are asking for and that is why I am asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to support my right hon. Friend's motion.
    Mr. Lawrence: I support the amendment and the Government's position. Whatever else this is about, it is not about the abolition of the right to silence, because the man who is charged with a criminal offence can still be silent. It is not even about a right that is used frequently in the courts, although in recent years there has been more use of the unsworn statement from the dock than I can remember at any time in the past 20 years. It is a right which was not used very often, for one important reason.
    This right has the enormous disadvantage that a jury of reasonably intelligent people will ask themselves what is wrong with a man's case if he will not come into the witness box and allow his story to be tested by cross-examination. That is not an aspect that would escape the attention of a jury because a judge would be likely, in the course of his direction, to make it clear—or to make it confused, but at any rate to underline the point—that the distinction between the evidence that is given from the witness box and the statement that is made from the dock is that in the latter case the defendant has not allowed his case to be tested. That is why counsel for the defence thinks long and hard about allowing his defendant to make a statement from the dock before that action is taken.
    We are talking about a right which maximises the chances of a guilty man being acquitted. The reason why a guilty man does not give evidence on oath is that he does not wish to be cross-examined. All who practise in the courts appreciate that the best safeguard for truth, if that is what we are after, is cross-examination. A guilty defendant who fears cross-examination has a greater chance of being acquitted if he is not cross-examined. The amendment removes a method by which guilty people are acquitted.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: A man is not guilty if the verdict is not guilty. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that such a man is guilty, but how does he know? Many miscarriages of justice, with which members of the Bar do not concern themselves because they do not go back to court, involve cross-examination of the accused. A person can be convicted, but someone else might turn up and say that he committed the offence. The system is used in such cases and yet a man might be convicted. I am sure that that man's counsel would think that he was aptly convicted.
    Mr. Lawrence: Because of human imperfections, injustices are likely whatever the system. I am talking about the greater likelihood of the injustice of a guilty man being acquitted because he cannot be tested on his story by being cross-examined. Thai is the principal reason why the right as it exists is used. All hon. Members who practise in the courts know that that is so.
    The second reason why a man may seek to make a statement from the dock—and it may be connected with the first reason—is that it entitles him to make an unjustified attack upon the integrity of police officers.

    595
    Such a man knows that his character will not be put to the test and that the jury will not know the full truth about him. An unscrupulous and unjustified attack may be made upon an innocent co-accused by the man in the dock whose statement cannot be tested and who seeks to place the blame on him.
    A third reason involves the direction which a judge must give to a jury. A judge has to say, in effect, "Members of the jury, what you have heard is not evidence, but on the other hand you must not put it out of your mind. It has not been tested, but it may throw light and provide background. You must place on it such reliance as you think fit." Hon. Members who think that a jury can make head or tail of that are sorely mistaken. Who benefits? The guilty man benefits from the confusion.
    I have given three reasons why, regardless of the anachronism, the right is clearly used to benefit guilty men.
    9. 30 pm
    Mr. Clinton Davis Mr. Clinton Davis rose—
    Mr. Lawrence: I will give way in a moment.
    I am as anxious—I think my record in the House shows this—as any Opposition Member to protect the liberty of an innocent person in a court of law. I am as anxious as any hon. Member to see the rapid introduction of the tape-recorded interview. I do not think, however, that the liberty of the individual who is innocent is threatened by the dismantling of this right. It is a subjective matter based on one's own experience, one's own knowledge and one's own feeling. I have never been convinced—that is not to say I have not been wrong—of the innocence of any man who has not wanted to go into the witness box or who has not wanted to remain silent but has preferred to make a statement from the dock. It may be that he was innocent, but I have never been convinced of the innocence of any such man, although I have been convinced of the innocence of some who have gone into the witness box and allowed themselves to be cross-examined.
    What is going wrong with our system of justice is that, alone among the nations of the Western world, we have an acquittal rate among those who plead not guilty of about 50 per cent. Hon. Members should think for a moment what that means. Either we have a system where innocent people are being dragged through the courts, charged with serious offences and brought through the expense, the agony and inconvenience of criminal trials, or a lot of guilty people are walking free, which is a gross injustice to law-abiding citizens. Opposition Members prefer to believe that the whole system is corrupt, that it is weighted on one side against the innocent man and that there are countless miscarriages of justice. I prefer to believe—it is my subjective judgment—that we have a system that acquits more guilty people than any other system. That is not good for law and order.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a large number of assertions backed up by very little fact. How does he know that juries are confused? What statistical evidence is he able to adduce before the House that juries are so confused? Does he attribute the 50 per cent. acquittals entirely to defendants making unsworn statements from the dock? Is that not absurd?
    Mr. Lawrence: It is as absurd as the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has made. Of course I make no such assertion. I am merely explaining the general position and saying that we had better do something about it. Otherwise, an enormously high proportion of guilty people are set free into our society to offend again. That is something we need worry about when there is an increase in the amount of serious and violent crime. It is a burden on all hon. Members to do what we reasonably can to diminish that crime.
    I do not claim that acceptance of this proposal will bring about a rapid decrease in the amount of crime. I believe that we have to tighten up where we can reasonably do so. A system that allows the guilty man to have a 50–50 chance of acquittal if he pleads not guilty is one that does not serve society and which encourages crime. A man may commit a dozen crimes before he is even detected. He is then brought before a court on a plea of not guilty and has a 50–50 chance of acquittal. When eventually he is convicted, he may get a pat on the head and twopence out of the poor box. Is that any disincentive to crime?
    I do not wish to exaggerate the strength of the points being made in support of the amendment, but I have no doubt that the right to make an unchallenged statement from the dock is used more by the guilty than by the innocent and that it results in more acquittals than it ought to do. That is not just my feeling; it is the feeling of judges who have spent many years listening to criminal cases and of many police officers who have spent years striving for the reduction of crime.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made great play with a number of assumptions, but will he bear in mind the fact that the Attorney-General precluded the possibility of research being undertaken into juries' decisions and attitudes to find out about the sort of thing that the hon. and learned Gentleman is alleging? No doubt he voted for that decision and the consequence is that the assumptions that he is making cannot be tested or investigated.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will not be tempted too far down that road. The debate is about unsworn statements.
    Mr. Lawrence: I will quickly answer the important point made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). The reason why there has been a reluctance to allow that sort of research to be conducted has nothing to do with the innuendo in the hon. Gentleman's question and everything to do with the inadvisability of allowing people to tamper with jurors and to get at them in a way that may affect their judgment or make other jurors fear that they may be approached. It is a different argument.
    It is thought by many practitioners, judges and police officers and by those concerned with justice that this amendment will reduce the chances of guilty men being set free to commit more crimes. Therefore, it is incumbent on all hon. Members to support the proposals. The conquest of crime is vital to us all and is part of the reason why we have been sent here.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke earlier about jurors being confused, but the arguments that he has adduced, talking about 50 per cent. of acquittals and so on, seem to have confused him.

    597
    We are discussing a limited and qualified right. I suspect—we have to enter the field of conjecture, for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—that the right has little effect on the acquittal rate. Jurors are not ill-informed people. They are reasonably sophisticated and, anyway, they have the benefit of directions from a judge.
    I join my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) in asserting that the House has embarked on an unusual procedure for changing the law. It is not a well-considered proposal and it is not backed by statistical research. Indeed, it is not backed by any research. It is a retrograde step to introduce it at this stage, particularly as it is not accompanied by the sort of protection that the hon. and learned Member for Burton conceded ought to be afforded to defendants against their being verballed.
    The Minister of State was less convincing than he occasionally is. I was particularly alarmed to hear the sort of direction that he would give if he were on the bench in the case of a defendant who elected to make a statement from the dock after sacking his counsel. I have always favoured the hon. and learned Gentleman's going back as soon as possible to the practice that he embellished, but I am now a little fearful, because he may be elevated to the bench and if he gives such directions as a judge he will be in all sorts of trouble.
    It is wrong to suggest that the proposal is the conventional and agreed wisdom of all members of the bench, the Bar and the solicitors' profession. It is nothing of the sort. The proposal divides the profession and there are sincerely held views on both sides of the argument.
    The proposal has crept in curiously and surreptitiously. If the Government think that it is so important, why did they not put it in the Bill originally? If it is so significant surely they would have included it in the original Bill. Why do it this way?
    We are discussing the abrogation of a not unimportant right. It does not go to the heart of our criminal system, but it is not an anachronism and all the other things that the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Burton have suggested.
    I wish to outline some of the merits of retaining the present system. I was not convinced by the Minister's argument, because I believe that there are some cases where virtually the only way for some people to adduce evidence in seeking to rebut verbals or allegations of planted evidence is to make a statement from the dock.
    The Minister said that a judge is always there to afford protection. He is right to an extent, but that is not the whole answer, because there is a big question mark over this matter. There is no consistency of practice by judges and one does not know how a judge is likely to react.
    In any event, there is a severe limitation to the benefit accruing to defendants from following this course because of the warning that judges are obliged to provide to juries. A statement from the dock is not regarded as having anything like the same value as evidence given from the witness given from the witness box. I simply do not accept the argument about confusion of the jury. I have practised a good deal as an advocate in magistrates courts over many years and, although I do not appear so often nowadays, I do not believe that magistrates are confused. Indeed, that argument has not been adduced in the debate.
    The people most likely to avail themselves of the right to make a statement from the dock are those with
    598
    convictions, those who allege that evidence has been planted or that they have been verballed and those who allege that the police or prosecution witness have behaved unscrupulously. because such persons have a record they are in fact most vulnerable to unscrupulous behaviour by the police or by discreditable prosecution witnesses.
    This is not intended as an attack on the police as a whole, because the vast majority of them do not behave in this way, but the evidence is overwhelming that some police officers, particularly in the recent past, have behaved unscrupulously. That has been found out, more often than not, after a trial rather than during the course of a trial. There are: too many examples of aberrant conduct by a minority of police officers. In my opinion, such police officers will be given extra incentive, by virtue of the denial of this right, to behave in this manner.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington drew attention to people who are frightened by the whole procedure. There are such people. I know that from my own experience. There are many people who are afraid of going to see counsel and even of going into a solicitor's office. For them it is a nightmare. How much more of a nightmare is it for them to have to go into the witness box and be exposed to cross-examination?
    9.45 pm
    The hon. and learned Member for Burton says that this is the way to find out the truth. I am a great believer in our adversarial system, but I do not believe that it is the last word. Many injustices can be caused by its very practice. A rough cross-examination of a person who is inarticulate and ill-equipped to deal with the situation can redound to the disadvantage of the prosecution. One knows that that can happen. Even a too rough summing up by the judge can have that effect. The fact is, however, that in some instances, it can make people extremely confused, particularly if they are frightened, and they do not fall into the character or capacity of skilled professional criminals. So, in my opinion, my hon. and learned Friend made a point of substance.
    As I said before, this proposal would not be nearly so harmful if it were ,accompanied by some countervailing protections, which the Minister himself conceded. Such protections are overdue. I invite the Minister to answer this question: if he says that no legislation is required to introduce protections such as tape recorders at police stations, why is he not prepared now, in this debate, if this is the road that he wants to take, to say that the Home Office will give a direction to police forces that tape recorders will be introduced simultaneously with the denial of this privilege? What is wrong with that? He has already conceded the principle. That would establish the Government's good faith in this regard, and it is overdue. Here is the opportunity to do it.
    The Minister dealt most unfairly with the criticisms of the practical disadvantages of eliminating this right, which were made by Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I invite the Minister to recognise that practical disadvantages could flow from this, particularly in magistrates courts. However, that matter is not at the heart of our case.
    In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister one practical point. Subsection (3) of the new clause says:
    "Nothing in this section applies—
    (a) to a trial; or
    (b) to proceedings before a magistrates' court acting as examining justices, which began before the commencement of this section."

    599
    What does the word "proceedings" mean in that context? Is it the committal proceedings themselves, or does it also apply to the proceedings before the date fixed for committal, which of course can be long and drawn out? I assume that it is the first, but perhaps the Minister will answer that question.
    In my opinion, the Minister has not made out a good case, but I should be prepared to agree with him if he made the concession for which I have asked and which I think is reasonable. If he did that, there would be no need to divide the House this evening. I hope, therefore, that he will respond affirmatively to the proposition that I have advanced.
    Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: We last discussed this important matter in a debate on one of the innumerable reports on the reform of criminal procedure. Whether it was the Philips report or another I cannot recall, because reports fall upon us like leaves on Vallombrosa. On that occasion I was emboldened to make a speech in general support of the proposed reforms, particularly in support of this reform that we are discussing tonight. As far as I remember, although I warmed to my theme and developed it at some length saying that it was time that this anachronism was swept away, there was no opposition from any quarter of the House.
    The report's authority is strong. I agree that it is a difficult matter and I am impressed by what the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) had to say on that question. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) will also impress me with arguments in favour of retaining this old right when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a right that existed and was necessary long before any person accused of a serious crime was allowed to go into the witness box.
    On balance, I am still as sure that the right should go. That is not because I have any particular regard for the position of the police in this matter. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister may know, I have adopted the view for some time that I will not support any reform that in any way infringes the rights of the accused in favour of the prosecution so long as the police adopt an obstructive attitude towards audio and video recordings of interviews. I have abstained on many occasions from voting for what are otherwise necessary reforms because we all have a duty—I do not believe that I am pushing at a shut door because I think that the Front Bench agree—with much greater energy than has been adopted in the past to induce the police authorities to take their duties in this regard seriously.
    If it were only a question of the balance between the police and the accused, I would perhaps not be supporting the Government quite as strongly as I am. However, it is much more than that. It is a question of the gross unfairness to co-defendants which, to my mind, clearly pushes down in favour of the abolition of this right. I have been engaged in many trials in which I have heard some accused person with a long record abuse his right to make a statement from the dock in order to attack a co-accused and try to offload the blame upon him, a person who may
    600
    have no record at all. It is grossly unfair on such a co-accused when that happens. Neither he nor his counsel can cross-examine and his co-defendant can get away with murder.
    Mr. Anderson Mr. Anderson rose—
    Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I know that the hon. Gentleman will say that it is the duty of the judge to warn the jury that such a statement is not evidence against a co-accused; and, of course, he is right about that. Such a statement is not evidence.
    Mr. Anderson: Normally the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke) is farsighted, but he has not targeted correctly this time. I believe that there is authority to the effect that, if an attack is made on a co-accused, or the prosecution, during an unsworn statement from the dock that opens up the opportunity to reveal the character of the person making the attack.
    Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: No, that is not the case. Character cannot be put in in that way. I have the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), who has a great deal of experience from sitting as a recorder. In those circumstances it seems an enormous injustice to other persons, who must be presumed innocent until the jury declare them guilty. That is what we are discussing. It is not right that such persons should be subjected to and liable to that sort of attack when they cannot answer back. For that reason alone all those persons who are interested in the innocence of persons in the dock should be disposed to remove that anachronism.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As the only non-legal practitioner who has spoken so far, I have no preconceived ideas on this subject. I have paid a great deal of attention, to what has been said here and in another place. I have not heard one convincing argument in favour of the abolition of the unsworn statement.
    The Minister and several of his legal colleagues have made great play of abuses of the unsworn statement that apparently occur in the courts. No doubt there are such abuses. There are abuses in various ways in all walks of life. The fact that it is abused does not necessarily mean that the whole concept of making an unsworn statement from the dock is brought into disrepute. The only evidence that we have been given tonight of abuse of the system is anecdotal and impressionistic. There has been no evidence collated from research, and none of the extravagant claims that were made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) are susceptible to objective evidence. Despite being pressed by several of my hon. Friends, he was not able to produce evidence to back his more extravagant claims.
    Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Gentleman used the word "anecdotal", which implies that it is hearsay and that it has been heard from someone else. That is the definition of the word "anecdotal". I gave direct evidence of a direct experience when I was there.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That is still impressionistic. It is not statistically valid or viable evidence. Conservative Members surely know the difference between those types of evidence. A defendant's ability to make an unsworn statement from the dock in minor motoring cases saves a considerable amount of court time. There has been no

    601
    controversy about that. There has been no suggestion by any hon. Member that that is not an important and positive attribute of that right.
    All hon. and learned Members have mentioned their fear that many defendants make unsworn statements from the dock because they have been "verballed" by the police and are afraid that if they make that allegation under cross-examination their previous convictions will be adduced in evidence against them.
    If the man is innocent, and if he has been "verballed"—we know that that happens in a few cases—it is absolutely crucial and important that the right that he currently possesses to go into the dock and say so, and let the jury determine whether he is telling the truth, should be retained.
    Certainly, if the Minister and those of his friends who are supporting him—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of the Criminal Justice Bill, the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and the Insurance Companies Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Boscawen.]

Criminal Justice Bill
Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If the Minister and those who support him feel that that right, which has been long established and never substantially brought into question, should be eliminated, the least they can do is to accept, as did the
602
Royal Commission on criminal procedure and my hon. and learned Friends, that it should go in tandem with the introduction of the tape recording of the interrogation of suspects. If it is necessary to abolish this long-standing right, I cannot see why we cannot, at the same time, introduce the crucial safeguard of ensuring that suspects' confessions and interrogations have been recorded.
The Minister has already accepted the principle and he has agreed that we need a legislative opportunity to abolish the unsworn statement. However, he could hold it in reserve and implement it only when and if he is in a position to provide the resources to enable the introduction of tape recording. That would make the amendment more acceptable. There is no reason to rush into this tonight. There is no major campaign or demand in the country to end a great injustice, anomaly or abuse. It is a provision that has been thrown in by the other place almost by the back door. It is unnecessary to introduce it in this manner and with such haste. If such a measure is to be introduced, it should be introduced properly and in conjunction with other provisions.
This is not an isolated attack on the rights of defendants in court. It is another example in the long line of cases in which this Government and previous Governments have whittled away the rights of defendants, whether by abolishing the majority verdict, by vetting jurors or by the new campaign, initiated by the police, to discredit the jury system altogether. It is another example of a clearly thought out and sustained campaign by certain people and institutions who would like to see the scales stacked heavily against the offender and on the side of the police.
For that reason, if for no other, we should be careful before rushing headlong tonight into agreeing to a retrograde amendment.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I hope that the House will not agree to the amendment, because I believe that the operation of the new rule will be oppressive to the simple and innocent people who may appear before the criminal courts. I am fully aware of the immense array of legal talent, expertise and authority among those who support the amendment. Such expertise could be intimidating and it may seem impertinent of me—a junior member of the Bar—to challenge the wisdom, if not the legal authority, of that view. I am sorry that I am on the other side of the argument from so many of my hon. Friends. It may also be that my view is derived more from instinct than from my legal training or legal knowledge, despite the fact that I have been a criminal advocate for 22 years.
It is curious that the amendment was moved in the other place by a Liberal Peer. The Liberals are a party who consider themselves to be the special guardians of the liberty of the individual. The amendment was supported by a former Lord Chancellor and a former Attorney-General in the Labour Government. It was also supported by an eminent Law Lord and it was accepted, finally, by the Government. We can thus be certain that this is not a party matter.
We should examine the case on its merits. When I consider the formidable authority of the legal hierarchy which is on the side of the amendment, in some ways I feel reassured. What do they know of the thoughts and feelings of the ordinary citizen—I mean the innocent ordinary citizen—who comes before a criminal court for the first time? Let us bear in mind the fact that millions of our fellow subjects come before magistrates' courts, which receive comparatively little publicity. Only thousands come before Crown courts for jury trials.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and other advocates of the amendment seem to think that we are dealing only with jury trials. We are not. We are dealing with the ordinary defendants most of whom come before magistrates' courts. I am very concerned about the fact that so many of the advocates of the amendment should be arguing that this right, which has existed for almost 100 years, is of benefit to the guilty man. They do not seem to realise that by depriving the defendant of this right we are in fact taking a benefit away from the innocent.
After all, most such people, especially those who are before the courts for the first time, are intimidated by the atmosphere of the court. The court is strange to them. They are naturally suspicious of lawyers and of magistrates—of all the legal apparatus. Here is something to which they were entitled. They may be confused, perplexed and not understanding. How many of those who have spoken in favour of the amendment have had experience in magistrates' courts of seeing such ordinary, humble people appearing before a magistrate and having a clerk rise and read out to them the appropriate wording as to their rights to give evidence on oath or from the dock? How many of those people realise—I am reassured by the fact that so many of the supporters of the amendment are distinguished, eminent, legal figures who rarelyappear before magistrates' courts—that more than half the time the defendants concerned, especially if they are innocent, are confused and simply do not know what to do when presented with this choice.
Mr. Percy Grieve: They are advised by people such as my hon. Friend.
Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. and learned Friend says that they may be advised by counsel, but they may not have counsel. They may not be represented and if, as I suspect is the case, most of them are somewhat wary and suspicious of the legal profession, they may not have wanted counsel originally when they were before the court.
If someone is asked whether he wishes to give evidence on oath from the witness box, in which case he will be cross-examined on what he has said, or to remain in the dock and say something from there, in which case he will not be cross-examined, to the ordinary innocent mind the latter alternative is often the most attractive.
Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: My hon. Friend has painted a pathetic picture, which brings tears to the eyes, of some lonely, innocent, inarticulate person in a magistrates' court. I hope that he realises that the amendment does not apply in any way to such a person. If such a person is all alone in the court, without counsel or solicitor, he may still make an unsworn statement from the dock. The provision applies only to those who are represented by counsel or solicitor.
Mr. Stanbrook: I may be wrong, but my impression is that we are taking away the right of the defendant to make any sort of statement as to the facts. As I understand it, the wording certainly allows him, when he is not represented by counsel, to say anything that his counsel could have said, but counsel cannot give evidence as to the facts. Who am I to assert that my hon. and learned Friend is wrong? However, my impression of the clause is that it would not be possible to make a statement as to the facts in a magistrates' court. If that is the case—I believe that the point has been made already in the other place—we are depriving many people of a right which they enjoy at the moment and of which unsophisticated people often take advantage. They feel intimidated and simply do not want to go through the palaver of going into the witness box, taking the oath—
Mr. Grieve: They do not want to be cross-examined.
Mr. Stanbrook: —and then being cross-examined by someone—it might be a policeman, a solicitor or a barrister—who is perhaps a little fearsome, as has been said. I do not believe that in depriving such people of a privilege that ordinary people in Britain have had for nearly a century we are advancing the cause of justice in our criminal courts.
It has been argued in favour of the amendment that it is necessary because of the abuse of the privilege by unscrupulous criminals, but we are not talking about abuse by unscrupulous criminals; we are talking of the rights of individual citizens. We are taking a right away. We cannot possibly justify a diminution of the right of the individual citizen in the criminal courts on the basis that some criminals abuse that right.
I accept and support most of the Opposition arguments against the amendment except that which suggests that the right should be maintained because police witnesses are sometimes dishonest. I do not think it is right to adduce that sort of argument. The case can stand well without any such imputation against police witnesses.
Before we make any changes to the rights of individual citizens in our criminal courts, we must ask ourselves

605
whether by so doing we shall diminish any existing rights of innocent citizens under our law to be tried justly and fairly. I cannot possibly accept the argument that just because some people abuse the right—and the abuse comes most often when accused persons are represented by counsel before a jury—we must take away the privilege. In other words, I fear that the effect upon ordinary defendants coming before our criminal courts will be an impression that judges and lawyers are ganging up against them, and that the net effect will be a further weakening of that faith that the ordinary citizen should have in our legal system.
10. 15 pm
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that we ought to consider seriously the fact that about 50 per cent. of court trials result in acquittals. I do not agree with him that that means that many guilty men go free. We know that in at least one-third of that 50 per cent. the case is stopped before it gets to the jury. Therefore, in those cases the jury was not misled by dishonest criminals. Something is wrong with the criminal investigation system when it leads to such disparity. We should move rapidly towards a public prosecutor system such as the one in Scotland, which would be a major advance in criminal law reform and would get rid of such cases. That is also pertinent to the consideration of this issue.
Despite the amount of froth that it has engendered in the press and elsewhere, the fact is that this is a fairly small issue. No statistics have been presented, but I do not believe that there are many cases before the criminal courts where unsworn statements are used. They are used more frequently at the Old Bailey than they used to be. Some criminals think that there is a wheeze about using that system, which is making it more attractive. However, a small proportion of court cases result in its use.
Therefore, I would not feel deeply aggrieved if the amendment were passed. However, I agree with my hon. Friends that it is wrong if we allow the amendment to be interjected by the other place during a discussion there and then brought to the House of Commons, without a full discussion of all the implications.
It had been agreed that one of the main reasons why unsworn statements are advised by counsel in cases when they represent the accused is that they enable a man to question the police evidence without putting in his character. If we are going to take that right away from him, it should follow that we consider the question of putting in character. Whatever the Minister says about how the judges are so scrupulous in not allowing that except in appropriate cases, it is not my experience. It is some years since I practised, but we did not get far in arguing with the judge that he should not allow the character to be put in. If the police had been cross-examined on the basis that their evidence was false, almost inevitably that led to the character being put in. If we are going to take away this device, we should consider the matter of putting in character. That is why that device should be properly considered as a balancing item.
I would prefer it if we looked at the system of the criminal trial. We believe in the adversarial system and not in the Napoleonic code system of searching for the truth rather than defining whether there is a case against the accused. That means that we must have the present rules in criminal trial, which may not get nearer to the truth than
606
at present. There is a case for considering the right to silence in that respect. Within that overall view I would be prepared to look at the unsworn statements and the right of the accused not to go into the box, or at least not to have comments made by the judge if he does not do so. Before that, however, there would have to be a better supervision of the initial inquiries that led to his appearance at the trial. That means overhauling the whole criminal investigation system.
That could be done if we had a public prosecutor. In Scotland, where there is a procurator fiscal, the police are not responsible for prosecution. They do their job under the general direction of the procurator fiscal. They report to him and he keeps a grip on them. He is an independent lawyer who is not in the business of simply seeking to get a prosecution on its feet at all costs. He decides objectively whether there should be a prosecution. Far fewer bad cases are brought before the courts in Scotland. I suspect that the acquittal rate is also much lower.
In Denmark, where the public prosecutor is entitled to question the accused before a case goes to trial, the number of cases that are fought is small—only 5 per cent. —and few of those result in acquittal. It does not involve the enormous resources and expense of the English system of long trials that frequently lead to acquittal.
We should not tackle the problem by a little reform here or there. That might lead to injustice. We need an overall assessment. A more radical approach to the criminal trial needs to be taken. The lawyers would shout. People are deeply attached to everything that has been done since 1295. But we are now in a different world. We should adopt a fresh approach. But I am not prepared to support piecemeal legislation that does not necessarily take account of the overall balance.
Prosecution lawyers and those who sit as judges or temporary judges are in favour of the proposal; defending lawyers are against it. The reason for that is not hard to understand. We should look seriously at the English criminal trial, but not in this way.
Mr. Grieve: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) in his disquisition on the possible disadvantages of our present system of criminal procedure.
It is high time that the anachronism of the unsworn speech from the dock was swept away. It is a coelacanth of our criminal procedure. For centuries the accused was not allowed to give evidence in his own defence because it was thought that he would probably commit perjury and put his immortal soul in danger. At last, in 1898, he was given the right to give evidence in his own defence. It was a necessary reform, although it came all too late. The accused was entitled to go into the witness box and give evidence in his own defence and was subject to cross-examination. The legislature of that time did not, perhaps, give its mind to the fact that the residual right to make a statement from the dock was left. In consequence, it remained as a refuge for those who did not wish to subject themselves to cross-examination.
It is an anachronism that weighs criminal procedure in the courts unfairly on the side of the accused. In my career at the Bar I have had experience of that. There have been occasions when I thought it right to advise my client that it would be desirable—because if he gave evidence he would be cross-examined and his case demolished—to

607
make a statement from the dock. It cannot be cross-examined or impugned, but it enables the accused who makes such a statement to make all sorts of aspersions, animadversions and attacks on prosecution witnesses. It means that his own character cannot be put in issue.
For years now the Bench and the Bar have thought that this was an anachronism that ought to be swept away. The other place has done a service to the administration of the criminal law by suggesting that in this Criminal Justice Bill we should take the opportunity of so doing.
I understand the feelings of colleagues who hesitate before making any change that would seem to whittle away the opportunities that a man has for defending himself. But what opportunity for defence which is worthy of the name is whittled away by saying that any defence that a man may make on his own behalf should be subject to cross-examination? This is an anachronism that has endured for nearly 100 years. It has endured far too long. It is time that it was swept away. It is time that those who wish to speak on their own behalf in the criminal courts should be subjected to cross-examination.
For those reasons, which I put extremely shortly, I suggest that the amendments should be supported.
Mr. Anderson: The arguments are finely balanced. I cannot work up any enthusiasm for the view that this is an assault on a matter of deep constitutional principle or a matter that deeply concerns the right of the individual. Such an assault would exist if, for example, the proposal was to abolish the right to silence.
I am more convinced by the arguments of procedure, of selectively choosing from the Philips committee, of not putting this issue in a wider context, and by the suggestion that it has been brought in by a side wind, that it has not been properly considered or based on any researched material that could properly convince the House.
Arguments have been advanced that this is a historical accident, anachronism and anomalous hangover that has not been properly considered.
Mr. Grieve: How on earth can the hon. Gentleman think that research will help a question of this kind?
Mr. Anderson: On this, as on a number of other matters that come before the House, there could be research on the way in which it has been used. For example, the House has benefited from research on juries. Such research can affect what happens in the consideration of important legal matters in this place.
It is not, as the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) appeared to suggest, some anomalous hangover from the 1898 Act. If he reads the debates at that time, he will see that the principle was debated during the passage of that Act. It is certainly true that there are real problems in directing a jury on the weight to be attached to an unsworn statement from the dock, but judges must give other difficult directions to juries—for example, the accomplice warning. I do not think that that has proved too difficult for juries in the past.
10.30 pm
It is correct, as has been suggested, that the unsworn statement can lead to abuse. But there are precautions, such as the fact that counsel, under the Bar code, cannot draft that statement, and that evidence can be given in rebuttal of anything that is said in an unsworn statement that catches the prosecution by surprise. I do not know whether, if there is an attack on the character of either the prosecution witness or a co-accused, that opens the possibility of having the character of the person making the unsworn statement
608
that catches the prosecution by surprise. I do not know whether, if there is an attack on the character of either the prosecution witness or a co-accused, that open the possibility of having the character of the person making the unsworn statement put before the jury. I have sought to delve in legal books to find authority for that. I believe that there was a case on this subject during the summer. I stand corrected if that is not so. It is a matter that the House could correct if it were not possible for the character to be put in issue if such an attack were made under cover of an unsworn statement.
I do not believe that the amendment is the thin end of the wedge against the right of silence. I was intrigued by what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said about the 50 per cent. acquittal rate, as if there were something peculiar about that figure. If 50 per cent. is an improper proportion, it would be interesting to know what the hon. and learned Member would think was a proper percentage of acquittals and how he would adjust the rules to produce such a proper acquittal rate.
Mr. Lawrence: We just seem to acquit a very much higher proportion than anybody else.
Mr. Anderson: If 50 per cent. is not the proper rate, what does the hon. and learned Gentleman consider to be the proper rate? On what basis is that proper rate calculated and how would he set about ensuring that that rate is achieved? It would clearly be impossible to do so.
A more weighty objection to the amendment is the point put so eloquently by hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis). Because of their antecedents, many defendants are vulnerable, their vulnerability is known to the police and it is difficult for them to tell the jury of any offensive conduct from the police during the questioning to which they had been subjected. There could then be real injustice.
Another possibility, which has not yet been discussed, but which could affect a defendant of good character, is the possibility that he may have made a statement under caution in which he implicated several of his co-accused. He may be most reluctant to go into the witness box and be cross-examined because it would put him in difficult position with his co-accused. Yet, he may, as an innocent person, have a proper explanation for the charge that is being brought against him. However, for extraneous reasons—the danger of his being cross-examined about the role of his co-accused—he may be reluctant to go into the witness box. This is a factor that can arise in criminal cases, and which is of some importance.
The proposed abolition of this right must tilt the balance, to some extent, against a defendant. There is no clear evidence of abuse and there is no research material available. The Minister has said, in relation to the provision of tape recordings, that the position is not "stationary"—it may not be stationary, but it is hardly mobile. If there is a link between the introduction of tape recordings and the abolition of the right to make an unsworn statement, why does not the Minister undertake to introduce the two in tandem so that, if the balance is tilted against the defendant in respect of the amendment, he can tilt the balance towards the defendant by a Home Office direction in respect of the other matter?
The Government have been selective by acceding to the amendment. They can redress the balance administratively. If they wish to be seen to be acting in a just manner, they should give that undertaking to the House.
Mr. Ryman: I shall make only three short points, because the arguments have been fully rehearsed. Not for the first time during the Bill's passage I am almost entirely in disagreement with many of the speeches made by my hon. Friends.
I disagree with the contention that some great constitutional principle is at stake. It is not. At stake is whether an existing right of a defendant should be preserved or abolished. I disagree with any suggestion to the effect that a vast amount of academic research on the subject is required. It is not.
It is common knowledge that the practice of making unsworn statements from the dock is widely abused in criminal trials throughout the country. It is common knowledge among those with any experience and knowledge of the subject that frequently this results in juries being deceived. It is nonsense to say that the abolition of the right would in some way prejudice a fair trial. Nobody wants that.
The crux of the matter is as to whether this Bill is the most appropriate machinery for dealing with an undoubted anachronism. The sooner that is abolished the better. I have been more impressed by my hon. Friends' speeches criticising the Government about the manner in which the legislation has been introduced. I have a great respect for the Peers who introduced the amendment in another place. I prefer their views and those of the Criminal Law Revision Committee to those of various hon. Members who have made speeches tonight. I say that with respect to them. Members of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the Peers who made speeches in another place have more experience and knowledge of the matters under discussion than many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have made speeches. Therefore, I shall support the Government, although I find the manner in which they introduced the proposal distasteful.
The argument in favour of abolition is not outweighed by the manner in which it was introduced. It would have been better to have introduced comprehensive legislation to reform criminal procedures in various ways. My Front Bench advanced a false argument when it was said that it is necessary to couple the provision with the recommendations of the Philips Royal Commission. That covered a far wider subject. We want an abolition of abuses which enable guilty people to be acquitted and to deceive juries. This is a modest but a worthwhile reform which should be supported.
Mr. Cryer: I shall speak briefly. I am encouraged to intervene by the pontificating tonight largely by members of the legal profession. I am always suspicious about leaving the law to lawyers who say that they have proof that juries have been deceived. Mostly, they are the selfsame lawyers who maintained that the jury system had existed for hundreds of years and that there was no possibility of carrying out research to discover if any juries, in any unnamed trial and without identification, had been deceived. Those lawyers who now claim confidently and pompously that juries have been deceived are not prepared to allow any research to see if their assumptions are correct. One or two, hearing talk of research, curl their lips because they know so well about these matters. Why should they not know? They live at the top of the tree. Their earnings make most ordinary people curl up in wonderment.
610
What about the ordinary people? Have they been given much of a chance to comment on this change? Of course they have not. It has been introduced by a back-door method. There has been no consultation. No papers have been issued to explain that the Government have had fresh amendments introduced by the House of Lords—by lawyers in the other place, of course—which is subject to no give-and-take through the electoral system. Its members are responsible to no one except themselves. Lawyers have decided that some reform is necessary and the Government have gone along with it, as they did over jury research. The Minister said that jury research was desirable. It went to the other place. Then the Minister urged all the Conservative Members who had voted for research to vote against it in a remarkable turn-around within the space of a few days.
It is not good enough. People claim that this is not a constitutional change. Things might appear differently to the pensioner or the housewife who feel themselves innocent of the accusation that they have stolen goods from a supermarket. Their reputation for honesty is suddenly in jeopardy. As has already been indicated, the change affects magistrates' courts as well as jury courts. What happens in magistrates' courts is important. Indeed, the vast bulk of criminal cases is dealt with in those courts.
An accused person whose reputation is at stake might feel that the removal of the right of an option is reasonably important. It is a reduction of choice. A person appearing before a court for the first time is confused and horrified by the accusation. I am referring to people who feel that they are completely innocent. I am not talking about the clever criminal who, in any case, will not be attending the court by himself. He will be employing one of the well-paid lawyers represented in their plenitude in this debate.
The ordinary housewife or pensioner may be nervous or apprehensive even about speaking in court let alone being subjected to cross-examination. They may wish to take the opportunity to make an unsworn statement from the dock to which they have at least become accustomed for a few minutes during the torture to which they have been subjected—I use "torture" in a metaphorical sense—to overcome the fear that their story, which they honestly believe to be true, will be torn to shreds by a clever lawyer appearing for the prosecution. Everyone knows that what I say about mental strain, the apprehension and the tension of an appearance in court is true. There is need seriously to consider the consequences before going ahead with the proposed change.
Mr. Lawrence: So that we may better appreciate whether the arguments of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) are based on experience, will he tell us how many times he has been in a magistrates' court or the Crown court and listened to a trial?
10. 45 pm
Mr. Cryer: I have observed trials on about 30 or 40 occasions in magistrates' courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman probably does not realise that when I was a teacher I took regularly groups of students from a further education college to the magistrates' court, because I thought that it was important that they should know something about how the courts function. I regard the magistrates' courts as an important form of summary jurisdiction about which people should know something.
I am worried about going ahead rapidly with this change. I do not believe that a case has been made out

611
showing clearly the advantage of such a change. It seems to be an administrative advantage for the Government's convenience, and not for the maintenance of legal principles that have existed for over 100 years. It is a piecemeal attempt to alter matters in a highly unsatisfactory manner. There has been no opportunity for interested organisations to make representations. I support the objections that have been made.
I am sorry that, yet again, this measure is being taken on a Thursday night on what is probably for both sides a modest Whip.
Mr. Alan Clark: A two-line Whip?
Mr. Cryer: Not in my case. Since the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) is making his comments from a sedentary position, which is usually the case and probably the result of his public school education, I must point out to him that one of the hon. Members who started the change down the corridor was a Social Democrat Member. However, neither the Social Democrats nor the Liberals could bother to attend to take part in discussions which, on both sides of the House, are regarded as reasonably important. We should have had more time to consider the proposal. The Government should withdraw it and allow time for proper consultations.
The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I have been slightly puzzled by the attacks that have been made upon the Government for being so resistant to any attempt to initiate any form of jury research. My recollection of the Bill was that we were doing our best to reach a satisfactory agreement about that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has forgotten who was the Member of the other place who fought tooth and nail against any form of research on juries. It was the noble Lord Hutchinson. He was the one man fighting all the other lawyers in the other place who supported the amendment abolishing speeches from the dock.
I do not for a moment claim that lawyers know best, but, equally, lawyers do not claim to be experts upon every subject as I fear some hon. Members apparently do.
I have been baffled by the number of people who disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) when he says that the provision allows criminals to escape. How does one know that such accused are guilty? How can one say that an accused is guilty after he has been acquitted? My other hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke) was accused of being anecdotal when he spoke of actual experiences when he was present in court. But, no. "Verbals" are to be accepted as true. "Verbals" are a fact of life, but where is the evidence that makes the "verbals" any more likely to be accurate than the suggestion that more criminals have been acquitted than would otherwise have been the case? It is all very one-sided. We have to accept that "verbals" are the order of the day, but statements that can only be based on surmise have to be dismissed.
I wonder whether some hon. Members have any sense of reality when they speak of defendants being so scared or inarticulate that they must be given a useful halfway house between not saying anything and being forced to go into the witness box. What about all the Crown witnesses
612
who have never been in a court? Even a barrister who has had to give evidence will admit that he never realised that it was so unpleasant.
I cannot accept the idea that only the defendant will be inarticulate or will crumple under cross-examination. Let hon. Members think about a girl in a rape case. She has to give evidence before a jury and, in a notorious case, a packed public gallery. She may be subjected to the most frightening and searching cross-examination, perhaps by a QC for a defendant on legal aid. Time and again, I have seen cross-examinations in a rough manner lasting for hours. If the judge allows it, the whole of the girl's past sexual life will be exposed to the world—and all to be published the next day. Yet it is suggested that the defendant must not be exposed to all that; he must have the useful halfway house.
It may be suggested that the girl is a liar or a loose, lustful woman who sought the man's companionship and, eventually, sex with him, but she is not allowed to see him challenged if he chooses to sit in his halfway house. He is allowed to stand in the dock and say "She is a loose woman. She led me on. She got drunk in the pub and put her hand on my trousers when we got into the car." He does not get cross-examined.
A sense of fairness supports those who wish the amendment to be carried, but I have an even stronger reason to support it. It was outlined by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen and it is not statistical or anecdotal. I have seen it happen too many times.
Two defendants fall out. One goes into the witness box and is cross-examined. He may not involve his codefendant, but the second man sits in the dock and puts all the blame on the first. The judge tells the jurors that they must judge the case on the evidence and must put out of their minds what defendant B said about defendant A, but that is a form of mental gymnastics of which 12 jurors are not capable. They say "The judge says we must put it out of our minds, but you heard what that defendant said. Might it be true?" However careful the judge may be, the seed has been planted.
Nothing can be more grossly unfair to the defendant who goes into the witness box. He has no opportunity to deal with the allegations. He may have the most convincing evidence to rebut them. He may even be able to show that he was not at the place where the other defendant alleges he was. All of those risks are run. I therefore believe that the support given to this proposal in the other place—by, incidentally, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who was an Attorney-General and a Lord Chancellor—is something that cannot lightly be disregarded.
Mr. Anderson: That danger would still exist, even if this right were abolished, because if the defendant chose the right of silence, his counsel could make those same damaging allegations against the co-defendant, without letting in his character?
The Attorney-General: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, counsel can draw inferences and comment only on the evidence. It is the evidence that would be given by the man hiding in the dark. Of course, he can cross-examine, but it is the evidence. He will say: "I shall now tell you, members of the jury, what happened. It was not me who was to blame; it was that fellow. He is the one standing beside me, because what he did was",

613
and then he gives the spiel, and he can take two hours over it. None of that can be challenged. That is a gross unfairness which, more than anything else, justifies the change that we are being asked to make tonight.
I am delighted that no hon. Member has sought to advance the proposition that was advanced in the other place—and again in the newspapers today—that the ability to make unsworn statements should be retained to enable political statements to be made, or those which, if made outside the court, would render the maker liable to an action for slander. I do not know how those propositions were ever seriously put forward. I am relieved that those who have spoken in this debate have had more sense than to repeat them in this House. They are nonsense, and they should never have been made in the first place.
I do not believe that I can help the House by speaking longer—
Mr. Clinton Davis: The Attorney-General has not dealt with the pertinent point raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State about the countervailing situation which should be provided to deal with the protection of accused persons, for example, by the introduction of tape recorders at police stations. His hon. and learned Friend said that he saw no objection in principle to that. The proposition that I put to the House was that that should accompany the proposition that the Minister is now seeking to make. What is wrong with that? Could not a directive be issued by the Home Office to implement that procedure which the Minister of State agreed should be followed?
The Attorney-General: The only justification for that, if I may say so, would be on the ground, which has not received general acceptance in the House today, of the "verballing", and that, if there is to be a "verballing", the accused runs the risk, if he goes into the witness box, of having his past record disclosed, because a "verballing" requires him to say that a police officer is a liar. Of course, it does not require that. The cross-examination—some of us have had to tread warily on that course in the past—has been one which allows one to challenge—and make clear the fact that one is challenging—and enables one's client to go into the witness box later and say what he wants, without it crossing the mind of the prosecuting counsel that he should make an application to the judge.
If he was idiot enough to do that, I cannot think of any judge who in his discretion would allow that course to be followed. So it can be only on that limited basis that the hon. Gentleman's attempt to connect this with the tape recording can be justified. I understand that a statement is to be made shortly about tape recording. I do not say that it means that there will be tape recording instantly in every police station in the country. One has only to think about the mechanics and the procedures involved to realise that that could not happen straightaway.
11 pm
Mr. Cryer: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman laughs away the right to make a statement, while I do not give it great weight it is true that, for example, Ron Smith, the father of the murdered nurse, Helen Smith, made a statement from the dock in which he expressed a point of view. That may be regarded as an abuse, but when he made that statement Ron Smith was part of a campaign to have an inquest into the death of his
614
daughter which was subsequently confirmed by a court. The opportunity to make a statement should not be entirely disregarded.
The Attorney-General: I am not familiar with the circumstances in which Mr. Smith was in court. For this to be appropriate it must have been as a defendant. I doubt if many people would support the proposition that a court can be used to make a political or other statement wholly unconnected with the purpose for which the man is in court. I certainly would not subscribe to that.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) asked a question with which I forgot to deal. The proceedings that he asked about become active when the defendant is first before the court which is sitting as examining justices.
Mr. Stanbrook: Before my right hon. and learned Friend sits down, will he deal with the point on which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke) and I disagreed? Is it not the case that the rule does catch unsworn statements made in magistrates' courts as to matters of fact?
The Attorney-General: The provision which has been preserved by the subsection is to ensure that where a man has no legal representation the propositions of law, or of inference—whatever it might be—that he wishes to make must be allowed. If it were a statement of fact that counsel could not make, that would not be appropriate.
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment: —
The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes, 38.

Division No. 318]

[11.1 pm

AYES

Ancram, Michael

Lang, Ian

Aspinwall, Jack

Lawrence, Ivan

Bendall, Vivian

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Blackburn, John

Loveridge, John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Lyell, Nicholas

Bottomley, Peter (Krovich W)

MacGregor, John

Bright, Graham

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Major, John

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Marlow, Antony

Chapman, Sydney

Mates, Michael

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

Mather, Carol

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Cope, John

Mayhew, Patrick

Cranborne, Viscount

Mellor, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Dover, Denshore

Moate, Roger

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Dykes, Hugh

Murphy, Christopher

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Neale, Gerrard

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Needham, Richard

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Neubert, Michael

Fraser, Peter (South .Angus)

Newton, Tony

Goodlad, Alastair

Osborn, John

Greenway, Harry

Page, Richard (SW Harts)

Grieve, Percy

Percival, Sir Ian

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

Proctor, K. Harvey

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Renton, Tim

Grist, Ian

Rhodes James, Robert

Gummer, John Selwyn

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Hampson, Dr Keith

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Hawksley, Warren

Rossi, Hugh

Hicks, Robert

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Ryman, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Silvester, Fred

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Sims, Roger

615

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Warren, Kenneth

Speed, Keith

Watson, John

Speller, Tony

Wells, Bowen

Stevens, Martin

wells, John (Maidstone)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wheeler, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Winterton, Nicholas

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Thompson, Donald

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Trippier, David

Mr. Archie Hamilton and

Voggers, Peter

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones

Waddington, David

NOES

Anderson, Donald

McCartney, Hugh

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Marks, Kenneth

Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

Parry, Robert

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Pavitt, Laurie

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

Prescott, John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

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

Rooker, J. W.

Cryer, Bob

Rowlands, Ted

Davidson, Arthur

Sever, John

Deakins, Eric

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Skinner, Dennis

Dormand, Jack

Spearing, Nigel

Dubs, Alfred

Stanbrook, Ivor

Dunnett, Jack

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Tinn, James

George, Bruce

Welsh, Michael

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Woolmer, Kenneth

Huckfield, Les

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Kilory-Silk, Robert

Mr. George Morton and

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

New Clause W
RECALL OF WITNESSES
Lords amendment: No. 172, after clause 54, insert:
"W.—(1) After section 148 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 there shall be inserted the following new section—
"Recall of Witnessess.
148A. In any trial, on the motion of either party, the presiding judge may permit a witness who has been examined to be recalled.".
(2) After section 349 of the said Act of 1975 there shall be inserted the following new section—
"Recall of Witnessess.
349A. In any trial, on the motion of either party, the presiding judge may permit a witness who has been examined to be recalled."."
The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a short procedural amendment which applies only to Scotland. It is intended to correct an error in the Criminal Justice Act 1980 which inadvertently removed from the Criminal Procedure Act 1975 the provisions which are now being re-enacted.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 55
CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES TO STATUTORY MAXIMUM"
Lords amendment: No. 174, in page 53, line 8, leave out "or Northern Ireland"
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 175.
Mr. Mayhew: This is a technical amendment with a relationship to Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 175 and 176 agreed to.

Clause 60
COMMENCEMENT
Lords amendment: No. 177, in page 53, line 38, leave out "This Act, except this section," and insert—
"(1) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on the day this Act is passed, namely—
section [Restriction of liberty of children in care];
section 28;
section 29;
section [Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Prisons];
section 55;
section [Construction of references to "the standard scale"]:
section 56;
section 57, so far as it relates to paragraph 17 of Schedule 13;
section 58, so far as it relates to the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980;
section 59, so far as it relates to paragraph 14 of Schedule 16;
this section; and section 61.
(2) Subject to subsection (1) above, this Act"
Read a Second time.
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, to leave out
'section [Restriction of liberty of children in care]' .
The effect of amendment No. 177 is to bring certain provisions in the Bill into force on Royal Assent. We felt it appropriate to propose bringing into force on Royal Assent those provisions which are simply enabling powers. The reason for the amendment to delete the reference to the new clause dealing with the restriction of liberty of children in care is that when the relevant new clause was introduced in another place it was an enabling provision. As a result of subsequent amendments made to it, it is no longer simply that.
Amendment to the Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 178 to 182 agreed to.

Schedule 3

MAXIMUM FINES TO BE INCREASED BY MORE THAN THE GENERAL INCREASE

Lords amendment: No. 183, in page 59, line 13, at end insert—

"Offences under section 45 (plying for hire without a licence).

Section 45 … … … … … …

£ … … … … … … … …

£500."

11. 15 pm
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Lords amendments Nos. 184, 186, 188 and 193 to 197.

"HOUSING ACT 1980 (c. 51)Offence under paragraph 7 of Schedule 24 (using or permitting the use of premises without means of escape in case of fire in contravention of an undertaking).

Section 147 and Schedule 24 … …

£50 and £35 per day following conviction.

£1;000".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the Minister of State's amendment to the Lords amendment.
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, to leave out
"and £5 per day following conviction'.
Amendment No. 203 provides for a special increase in the offence under the Housing Act 1980 of using or permitting the use of premises without means of escape in case of fire, in contravention of an undertaking. It is one of a number of similar amendments to the schedule moved by Baroness Gardner and accepted by the Government. The amendment that I propose merely brings the drafting of the amendment into line with that for the other provisions in the schedule.
Amendment to the Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 204 agreed to.

"PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1912 (c.14)Section 7 (selling poisoned grain or placing on any land any matter rendered poisonous).

For "ten pounds" substitute "level 4 on the standard scale".

£ 25 … … … … … … …

£500."

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment, which was moved in another place by Lord Melchett, with the agreement of the Government, increases the penalty for offences relating to the sale of poisoned grain under section 7 of the Protection of

"PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT1945 (c.15)Section 1(5) (contravention of regulations as to treatment and spread of certain diseases).

For "one hundred pounds" sub-stitute "level 5 on the standard scale"

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

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

Mr. Mayhew: Amendment No. 183 and other amendments to schedule 3 in the group all provide for special increases in penalties.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 184 to 202, agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 203, in page 62, line 29, at end insert—

Schedule 7
SCHEDULE TO BE INSERTED AS SCHEDULE 7D TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1975
Lords amendment: No. 205, in page 66, leave out lines 28 to 32.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment deletes from schedule 7 the obsolete reference to section 3 of the Cinematograph Act 1909
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 206, in page 66, line 32 at end insert—
Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 from a fine not exceeding £25 to a fine not exceeding £500.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 207 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 208, in page 67, line 18, at end insert—
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment effects an increase in the penalty for offences under section 1(5) of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1945 similar to that which is effected by schedule 3 in the penalty for the corresponding offences in England and Wales under the Public Health Act 1936.
Question put and agreed to.

"AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE ACT 1964 (c. 28)

.Section 20(1) (obstruction, etc. of authorised officer).

For "twenty pounds" substitute "level 3 on the standard scale".

£20

£200.

.Section 20(2) (offences under Part III).

For the words from "one hundred pounds" to "two hundred and fifty pounds)" substitute "level 5 on the standard scale".

(a) for a first offence, £100 or 3 or both;
(b) for a second or subsequent offence, £250 or 3 months or both.

£1,000 or 3 months or both."

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Lords amendment: No. 209, in page 68, leave out lines 7 to 22.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment seeks to delete paragraphs 15 to 18 of schedule 7, which provide for increases in the penalties for certain offences under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959. The penalties for those offences have been dealt with in the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1982.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 210, in page 68, line 32, at end insert—
The amendment increases for Scotland the penalties for certain offences under the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964. Similar increases for England and Wales are effected by schedule 3.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 211, in page 71, line 2, column 4, leave out "f200" and insert "—500"
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 212 to 214.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These amendments increase the penalty for offences under sections 98(2) and 132(2) of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 to a fine not exceeding £ 500.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 212 to 215 agreed to.

Schedule 9
AMENDMENTS OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS ACT 1980 RELATING TO REMANDS IN CUSTODY
Lords amendment: No 216, in page 76, line 21, at end insert
"(whether present in court or not)"
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to put it beyond doubt that a defendant's solicitor need not be present in court when the magistrates remand a defendant in his absence.
Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 10
AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 3 TO IMMIGRATION ACT 1971
Lords amendment: No. 217, in page 77, line 32, at end insert—
"1. In paragraph 2—
(a)in sub-paragraph (1), after the word "directs", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or a direction is given under sub-paragraph (1A) below," ;
(b)the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after that sub-paragraph—
"(1A) Where—
(a)a recommendation for deportation made by a court on conviction of a person is in force in respect of him; and
(b)he appeals against his conviction or against that recommendation,
the powers that the court determining the appeal may exercise include power to direct him to be released without setting aside the recommendation." and
(c)the following sub-paragraphs shall be substituted for subparagraph (5) —
"(5) A person to whom this sub-paragraph applies shall be subject to such restrictions as to residence and as to reporting to the police as may from time to time be notified to him in writing by the Secretary of State.
(6) The persons to whom sub-paragraph (5) above applies are—
(a)a person liable to be detained under sub-paragraph (1) above, while by virtue of a direction of the Secretary of State he is not so detained; and
(b)a person liable to be detained under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above, while he is not so detained."."
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 218.
Mr. Mayhew: Amendment No. 217 is concerned with cases where a court recommends for deportation a person
622
who has been convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment. Under that Act a person in that category has to be detained pending the making of a deportation order unless either the court or the Secretary of State directs his release. Previously, release had to be unconditional but clause 63 and schedule 10 to the Bill, which were introduced on Report in this House, enable a court to impose restrictions, so allowing persons to be released who may not otherwise have been released by the courts.
The amendment extends the process a little further by giving a court of appeal power to direct the release—unconditionally or otherwise—of a person recommended for deportation. It appears that at present some appeal courts do not have this power. It also gives the Secretary of State the same power as the courts to impose conditions in a case where he directs the release of a person recommended by a court for deportation. This amendment will help, albeit in a small way, to reduce the number of people in prison.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 218 agreed to.

Schedule 11
PROBATION AND AFTER-CARE
Lords amendment: No. 219, in page 80, line 8, at end insert—
"IA. In section 2(3) of that Act (probation orders) for the words "and 4" there shall be substituted the words ", 4A and 4B".
1B. The following sections shall be inserted after section 4 of that Act—
"Requirements in probation orders
4A. — (1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 2(3) above, the power conferred by that subsection includes power, subject to the provisions of this section, to require the probationer—
(a) to present himself to a person or persons specified in the order at a place or places so specified;
(b) to participate or refrain from participating in activities specified in the order—
(i) on a day or days so specified; or
(ii)during the probation period or such portion of it as may be so specified.
(2) A court shall not include in a probation order a requirement such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above unless it has first consulted a probation officer as to —
(a)the offender's circumstances; and
(b)the feasibility of securing compliance with the requirements, and is satisfied, having regard to the probation officer's report that it is feasible to secure compliance with them.
(3) A court shall not include a requirement such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a)above or a requirement to participate in activities if it would involve the co-operation of a person other than the probationer and the probation officer responsible for his supervision, unless that other person consents to its inclusion.
(4) A requirement such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a)above shall operate to require the probationer—
(a)in accordance with instructions given by the probation officer responsible for his supervision, to present himself at a place for not more than 60 days; and
(b)while there, to comply with instructions given by, or under the authority of, the person in charge of the place.
(5) A place specified in the order shall have been approved by the probation committee for the area in which the premises are situated as providing facilities suitable for persons subject to probation orders.
(6) A requirement to participate in activities shall operate to require the probationer.
(a) in accordance with instructions given by the probation officer responsible for his supervision, to participate in the activities for not more than 60 days; and

623
(b)while participating, to comply with instructions given by, or under the authority of, the person in charge of the activities.
(7) Instructions given by a probation officer under subsection (4) or (6) above shall, as far as practicable, be such as to avoid any interference with the times, if any, at which the probationer normally works or attends a school or other educational establishment.
Probation orders requiring attendance at day center
4B.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of sections 2(3) and 4A above, the power conferred by section 2(3) above includes power, subject to the provisions of this section, to require the probationer during the probation period to attend at a day centre specified in the order.
(2) A court shall not include such a requirement in a probation order unless—
(a) it has consulted a probation officer; and
(b) it is satisfied—

(i)that arrangements can be made for the probationer's attendance at a centre; and

(ii) that the person in charge of the centre consents to the inclusion of the requirement,

(3) A requirement under subsection (1) above shall operate to require the probationer—
(a) in accordance with instructions given by the probation officer responsible for his supervision, to attend on not more than 60 days at the centre specified in the order; and
(b) while attending there to comply with instructions given by, or under the authority of, the person in charge of the centre.
(4) Instructions given by a probation officer under subsection (3) above shall, so far as is practicable, be such as to avoid any interference with the times, if any, at which the probationer normally works or attends a school or other educational establishment.
(5) References in this section to attendance at a day centre include references to attendance elsewhere than at the centre for the purpose of participating in activities in accordance with instructions given by, or under the authority of, the person in charge of the centre.
(6) In this section "day centre" means premises at which non-residential facilities are provided for use in connection with the rehabilitation of offenders and which—
(a) are provided by a probation committee; or
(b) have been approved by the probation committee for the area in which the premises are situated as providing facilities suitable for persons subject to probation orders."."
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take Lords amendments No. 221 and 274.
Mr. Mayhew: This amendment gives courts power to include a range of requirements in probation orders—a power that was believed to exist until the recent judgment of the House of Lords in Cullen v Rogers. That judgment raised issues of great importance as to the nature and extent of requirements that might be imposed under section 2(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. In particular, it was said that no requirement made under that section could be properly imposed if it involved a substantial element of custodial punishment or if it subjected a probationer to the unfettered discretionary control of the supervising probation officer.
The amendment will overcome the disadvantageous consequences of the decision in Cullen v Rogers and permit in particular a probation order to carry with it a condition that the offender shall attend a day centre.
The amendments are all relatively self-explanatory.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 220 and 221 agreed to.

Schedule 12
COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS
Lords amendment:No. 221A, in page 83, line 18, after "officer" insert
"or by a social worker of a local authority social services department".
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 222.
Mr. Mayhew: At present a court may not make a community service order unless it considers a report by a probation officer about the offender and his circumstances, among other features, and, if it is considered necessary, hearing a probation officer. The additional words provide that the report may also be made by a local authority social worker, and the court may also hear a social worker.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 222 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 223, in page 86, line 39, leave out from beginning to "it" in line 48.
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 224 to 227.
Mr. Mayhew: The amendments make arrangement for the transfer of community service orders from England and Wales or England or Wales to Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 224 to 227 agreed to.
Lords amendment:No. 228, in page 91, leave out lines 16 to 41 and insert—
"(a) the said section 1 shall have effect as if, in subsection (2) thereof—
(i) paragraph (b)were omitted;
(ii) for paragraph (d) there were substituted the following paragraph—
"(d) it appears to the court that provision can be made by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland for him to perform work under such an order;";
(b)the order shall specify that the unpaid work required to be performed by the order shall be performed under the provision made by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and referred to in section 1(2)(d)of this Act as substituted by paragraph (a)above."
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 229 to 232.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These are purely technical amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 229 to 233 agreed to.

Schedule 13
MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
Lords amendment:No. 234, in page 98, line 46, at end insert—
"(2) The following subsection shall be added at the end of that section—
"(3) For the purposes of this section—
(a) section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (the standard scale of fines for summary offences); and
(b) an order under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which alters the sums specified in section 33(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, shall extend to Northern Ireland."."
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is consequential upon earlier provisions of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment:No. 235, in page 98, line 46, at end insert—
"Customs and Excise Act 1952 (c. 44)
. For section 283(5) of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(5) The proviso to subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to Scotland; and in the application of the said subsection (2) to Scotland the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed on summary conviction in the sheriff court shall be 6 months, and the penalty for an offence which is triable only summarily by virtue of paragraph(b)of that subsection shall be that to which a person was liable on summary conviction of the offence immediately before 29th July 1977 (the date of the passing of the Criminal Law Act 1977) subject to any increase by virtue of Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1982."."
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 249 and 284.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The amendments are designed to solve problems that exist in relation to the mode of trial and penalties for offence under the Customs and Excise legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment:No. 236, in page 99, line 29, after "custody"" insert
", and after the word "centre" where first occurring there shall be inserted the words "or a young offenders' institution" "
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Section 49(1) of the Prison Act 1952, which has application throughout the United Kingdom, makes provision for the arrest of persons unlawfully at large from sentences of imprisonment or detention in a detention centre imposed in Scotland. The provision has, however, never been amended to include persons unlawfully at large from sentences of detention in a young offenders' institution, and this amendment seeks to make good that omission.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 237 agreed to.
Lords amendment:No. 238, in page 100, line 14, leave out paragraph 12 and insert—
"12. The following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (4) to (7) of section 26 of that Act (transfer to serve sentence)—
626
'(4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person transferred under this section to any part of the United Kingdom or to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man there to serve his sentence or the remainder of his sentence shall be treated for purposes of detention. release, supervision, recall and otherwise as if that sentence (and any other sentence to which he may be subject) had been an equivalent sentence passed by a court in the place to which he is transferred.
(4A) A person who has been sentenced to a sentence of a length which could not have been passed on an offender of his age in the place to which he has been transferred, shall be treated for the purposes mentioned in subsection (4) of this section as the Secretary of State may direct.'
12A. The words 'youth custody centre' shall be substituted for the words 'Borstal institution' in section 29(1) (removal of prisoners etc. for judicial purpose) and section 30(3) (prisoners unlawfully at large) of that Act.
12B. In subsection (2) of section 32 of that Act (supervision and recall)—
(a) in paragraph (1) for the word 'section' there shall be substituted the words 'sections 206,';
(b) at the end there shall be added the following paragraphs—
'(f)section 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982;
(k)section 73(4), (5) and (6) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968.'.
12C. The words 'or of any authorised officer' shall be added at the end of section 33 of that Act (orders relating to transfers of prisoners and others to be under hand of the Secretary of State or of an Under-Secretary or Assistant Under-Secretary of State).").
11. 30 pm
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 238A, 239, 264 to 266, 271, 282, 289 and 290.
Mr. Mayhew: This amendment makes provision for the transfer of young offenders in custody between the various British jurisdictions consequential to part I of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 238A to 241 agreed to.
Lords amendment:No. 242, in page 102, line 38, at end insert—
"20A. The following words shall be added at the end of section 15(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (variation and discharge of supervision orders)—
"or power to insert in the supervision order a requirement in pursuant of section 12(3C)(aa)of this Act in respect of any day which falls outside the period of 3 months beginning with the date when the order was originally made.""
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment makes provisions consequential on the provisions in the Bill for the night restriction order.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment; Nos. 243 to 251 agreed to.
Lords amendment:No. 252, in page 107, line 35, at end insert—
"41A. In section 77(2) of that Act (power to fix a term of imprisonment and postpone issue of warrant of distress) after the word "imprisonment" there shall be inserted the words "or detention under section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (detention of persons aged 17 to 20 for default)"."
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 254.
Mr. Mayhew: These are minor and consequential amendments to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 253 and 254 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 255, in page 108, line 37, at end insert—
"Contempt of Court Act 1981 (c. 49)
50. The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2) of section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (which relates to penalties for contempt and kindred offences in proceedings in England and Wales)—
"(2A) In the exercise of jurisdiction to commit for contempt of court or any kindred offence the court shall not deal with the offender by making an order under section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (an attendance centre order) if it appears to the court, after considering any available evidence, that he is under 17 years of age."."
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 292.
Mr. Mayhew: This amendment imposes on the Crown court the same prohibition that already applies to magistrates' courts over making an attendance centre order on a juvenile who is in contempt. This is a consequential amendment necessitated by other provisions in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 14
MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS SCOTLAND
Lords amendment: No. 256, in page 108, line 40, at end insert—
"Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 (c. 56)
. In section 4 of the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 (apprehension and punishment of offenders) for the words from ", and on being convicted" onwards, substitute the words "; and every person committing an offence against the provisions of this Act shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale."."
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment derives from an undertaking given to the Committee on the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill. It removes the penalty of imprisonment for offences under the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865, replaces the existing maximum fine of £10 with a new maximum of £25 and deletes the provision which allows a person to be convicted on uncorroborated evidence.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment:No. 257, in page 109, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert—
"(b) at end of that section insert the following subsection—
"(4) Subsection (2) above shall extend to Scotland, but save as aforesaid this section shall not extend to Scotland.".
3. At the beginning of section 702 of that Act (offences punishable as misdemeanours) insert the words "Subject to section 703 of this Act,".
3A. For paragraph (a)of section 703 of that Act (summary proceedings in Scotland) substitute the following paragraphs—
"(a)subject to section 43(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 (which among other things makes certain offences triable either summarily or on indictment), any offence under this Act which was triable only summarily
628
immediately before 1st January 1980 (the date of commencement of the said section 43) shall continue to be so triable and shall be deemed to have been so triable at all times since that date;
(aa)subject to any special provisions of this Act—
(i) an offence under this Act described as a misdemeanour shall be triable either summarily or on indictment and, subject to any other penalty prescribed in respect of any particular offence, shall be punishable on summary conviction with a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both, and on conviction on indictment with a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both;
(ii) subject to sub-paragraph (i) above, an offence under this Act made punishable with imprisonment for any term not exceeding 6 months or with a fine or a maximum fine which does not exceed level 5 on the standard scale shall be triable only summarily;
(iii) an offence under this Act not falling within paragraph (a) above or the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall be triable either summarily or on indictment:
Provided that in relation to the period before the commencement of section 45 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 subparagraph (ii) above shall have effect as if for "level 5 on the standard scale" there were substituted "£1000";"."
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is designed to bring the mode of trial in Scotland for offences under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 into line with that in England and Wales, and in so doing avoid the anomalies which might otherwise arise in penalty levels for such offences in the different jurisdictions as a result of the provisions in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment:No. 258, in page 112, line 43, at end insert—
"Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)
.In section 6 of the Immigration Act 1971 (recommendations by court for deportation)—
(a) in paragraph(b)of subsection (3), for the words "first offenders" substitute the words "persons who have not previously been sentenced to imprisonment";
(b) in subsection (5), the words "except in Scotland," and paragraph(b) and the word "and" preceding it are repealed."
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 269.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The amendments effect two minor changes to the Immigration Act 1971 which are consequential on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. They should have been made when that measure was passing through the House but unfortunately they were overlooked.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 259, in page 113, line 1, at end insert—
" . In section 193A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (fines on conviction on indictment to be without limit)—
(a) at the beginning, insert "(1)";
(b) for the words "section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980" substitute the words "section 457A(4) of this Act";
(c) after the word "fine" where first occurring insert the words "of or";

629
(d)for the word "section" in the second and third places where it occurs substitute the word "subsection";
(e)at the end, insert the following new subsection—
"(2) Where any Act confers a power by subordinate instrument to make a person liable on conviction on indictment of any offence mentioned in subsection (1) above to a fine or a maximum fine of a specified amount, or which shall not exceed a specified amount, the fine which may be provided in the exercise of that power shall by virtue of this subsection be a fine of an unlimited amount."."
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 is designed to give the courts completely unfettered discretion as to the amount of the fine that should be imposed in cases where a person is convicted on indictment. It is designed to remove any limitation on the fine that can be imposed on conviction on indictment of any offence. The amendment simply corrects two technical defects in the existing section.
Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 15
REPEALS
Lords amendments Nos. 260 and 261 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 262, in page 115, line 23, column 3, at end insert—

"In section 55(3), the words "Subsection (2) of section twenty-two, and"."

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment disapplies section 22(2) of the Prison Act 1952 to Scotland. This provision is not required to be extended to Scotland because the Secretary of State for Scotland has a power similar to that conferred by section 22(2) under section 10(2) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 263 to 269 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 270, in page 116, column 3, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—

"In section 2, in subsection (6), the words from "under", in the first place where it occurs, to "Act", and subsection (8)."

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to make the wording and meaning of section 2(6) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 even simpler.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 271 to 293 agreed to.

Schedule 16
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Lords amendment: No 294, in page 123, line 34, leave out from "thereafter" to end of line 36 and insert
"have effect as if it were a requirement imposed under section 4B of that Act specifying as the clay centre which the probationer is required to attend the day centre at the premises of the day training centre"
Mr. Mayhew:I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment would enable a requirement to attend a day training centre, made under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, to continue in force after section 4 of that Act is repealed on the implementation of the provisions of the Bill. Without this amendment, requirements under that provision would cease to have effect, and that would be a bad thing.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment: No 295, in page 123, line 40, at end insert—
"Fines
17. Any provision of Schedule 14 to this Act which alters the penalty for any offence shall not affect the penalty for an offence committed before that provision comes into force."
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment provides that schedule 14 shall not affect the penalty which may be imposed in respect of an offence committed before it comes into force.
Question put and agreed to.

Title
Lords amendment: No 1, in line 1, leave out "the powers of courts with regard to"
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment to the long title was made towards the end of the passage of the Bill in another place to reflect more clearly the first purpose of the Bill as set out in the long title in the light of the changes that had been made to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No 3, in line 6, after "courts); insert
"to amend the law of Scotland relating to the mode of trial of certain offences and :he recall of witnesses"
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment simply amends the long title of the Bill to cover a new clause on mode of trial for Scotland, and a new charge on recall of witnesses.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos 4 and 5 agreed to.

Civic Government (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
Lords amendment to a Commons amendment, considered.

Clause 123
CONTROL OF THE SEASHORE, ADJACENT WATERS AND INLAND WATERS
Commons amendment:In page 79, line 31, at end insert:
"(2A) A district or islands council may make, in relation to inland waters, byelaws for the same purposes as they may, under subsections (1) and (2) above, make byelaws in relation to the seashore and adjacent waters.
(2B) Byelaws may be made under this section only if—
(a) the district or islands council have complied with subsection (2C) below and made such other inquiries as may be reasonably necessary to ascertain the existence and identity of each person having—

(i)in the case of byelaws under subsection (1) above, a proprietorial interest in the seashore;

(ii)in the case of byelaws under subsection (2) above, a proprietorial interest in relation to the adjacent waters;

(iii)in the case of byelaws under subsection (2A) above, a proprietorial interest in or in relation to the inland waters; and

(iv)in any case, a proprietorial interest in any salmon fishings;

being a proprietorial interest which may be affected by the byelaws;
(b)subject to subsection (2D) below, every person whose consent is required under paragraph (a) above has consented to their being made; and
(c)the district or islands council have, in connection with their proposal to make the byelaws, consulted such person or body, if any, as appears to them to be representative of persons who engage in each sporting or recreational activity which may be affected by the byelaws.
(2C) The district or islands council shall give public notice of their proposal to make byelaws under this section and of the effect of subsection 2B(b) above in relation to that proposal in a newspaper circulating in the area where the byelaws are proposed to have effect.
(2D) If a district or islands council have complied with subsections (2B)(a)and (2C) above, but the consent of a person whose consent is required under this section cannot be obtained because his existence or identity is unknown, or he cannot be found or fails to respond in any way to a request for his consent, the council may nevertheless proceed to make the byelaws but shall not proceed earlier than one month after the date of the advertisement under subsection (2C) above or, if there were more than one advertisement, the later or last of those dates."
Lords amendment,in section (2B)(b),leave out
"whose consent is required under"
and insert
"having a proprietorial interest such as is mentioned, in relation to the byelaws, in"
agreed to.

Insurance Companies Bill [Lords]
Considered in Committee
[MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4
EXISTING INSURANCE COMPANIES
11. 43 pm
The Solicitor-General Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move amendment No. 1 in page 3, line 23, after '(b)', insert 'it'.
The Chairman: With this we can discuss Government amendments Nos. 3 to 6, 8, 10, 12 and 13.
The Solicitor-General: The Committee will know that in considering these Bills we have the enormous advantage of the assistance of the Joint Committee and I am happy to tell the Committee that the amendments that we now have to consider have all been considered by Lord Roskill, who is the Chairman of that Committee. I shall be happy to enlarge, for reasons of clarity, if and when asked. The first group of amendments are of a printing or drafting nature.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9
APPLICANTS FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY
11. 45 pm
The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 8, line 22, leave out 'section 7 of the Administration of Justice Act 1965' and insert
section 38(7) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982'.
The Chairman: With this we can discuss Government amendment No. 14.
The Solicitor-General: These amendments merit longer consideration because they arise out of the necessity to cope with other Bills going through the House. Amendment No. 2 arises out of the Administration of Justice Bill, which has been returned to another place. It amended one of the statutes consolidated in this Bill by substituting for a reference to a section of the Administration of Justice Act 1965, repealed by the Administration of Justice Bill, a reference to a section of that Bill.
Amendment No. 14 is a transitional provision, which preserves the reference to the repealed section of the 1965 Act until the reference to the substituted section comes into force. It also preserves the penalty provisions in the consolidated statues until the new provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill come into force.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37
GROUNDS ON WHICH POWERS ARE EXERCISABLE
Amendments made:No. 3, in page 29, line 15, leave out from'(c)'to the end of the line and insert 'on the ground that a'.
No. 4, in page 29, line 17, leave out 'specifying' and insert 'specifies'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 38 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47
RESCISSION, VARIATION AND PUBLICATION OF REQUIREMENTS
Amendment made: No. 5, in page 36, line 12, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 48 to 52, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53
WINDING UP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES UNDER COMPANIES ACTS
Amendment made:No. 6, in page 43, line 21, after 'for', insert 'costs for' .—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 54 to 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71
OFFENCES UNDER PART II
The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 55, line 37, after 'conviction', insert
'in England and Wales and Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and, on summary conviction in Northern Ireland,'
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 9 and 11.
The Solicitor-General: These amendments take account of the new provisions for fines in the Criminal Justice Bill, substituting levels on the standard scale in place of monetary references in England and Wales and in Scotland for offences which can be tried only summarily.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 8 in page 56, line 17, after '51', insert '(other than subsection (2)(c))'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 72 to 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81
PENALTIES AND OFFENCES UNDER PART III
Amendment made:No. 9, in page 62, line 38, after 'conviction', insert
'in England and Wales and Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and, on summary conviction in Northern Ireland,' .—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 81, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 82 to 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84
LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS—FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Amendment made:No. 10, in page 64, line 44, leave out 'such'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 84, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 85 to 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88
UNREGISTERED COMPANIES
Amendment made:No. 11, in page 66, line 32, after 'conviction', insert
'in England and Wales and Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and, on summary conviction in Northern Ireland,' .—The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 88, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 89 to 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94
SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS
Amendment made:No. 12, in page 68, line 42, leave out
Subject to subsection (4) below'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 94, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 95 to 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4
SAVING AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Amendments made:No. 13, in page 83, line 5, after '1974', insert
'which repealed and re-enacted provisions of the Insurance Companies Amendment Act 1973'.
No. 14, in page 83, after paragraph 19, insert—
'—Until the coming into force of paragraph (g) of subsection (2) of section 46 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, the reference in section 9(7) of this Act to section 38(7) of that Act shall be construed as a reference to section 7 of the Administration of Justice Act 1965.
.—In relation to offences under this Act committed in England and Wales before the coining into force of section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 or in Scotland before the coming into force of section 53 of that Act the reference in each of the following provisions of this Act, namely—

(a)section 71(3).

(b)section 81(2) and

(c)section 88(2)

to level 5 on the standard scale shall have effect as a reference to £400.'.—[The Solicitor-General]
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.

Motor Vehicle Tests
11. 50 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the Motor Vehicle (Tests) (Extension) Order 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.
The order is part of a package of measures implementing the European Community directive on roadworthiness testing. The roadworthiness directive is probably not bedside reading for all hon. Members, so it may be helpful if I remind the House briefly of what it is, before explaining where the extension order fits into the wider scheme of things.
The roadworthiness directive is designed basically to harmonise testing arrangements for commercial vehicles in member States. It deals with the testing of lorries, buses and coaches, taxis and ambulances. It does not affect private cars, but it does cover large passenger vehicles—those with more than eight passenger seats—whether or not they are used for hire or reward. The measures we are talking about tonight therefore apply to vehicles such as works buses as well as to buses and coaches which carry fare paying passengers.
The directive does not specify in detail how tests are to be carried out. That is done nationally. It does, however, list the items which are to be tested—brakes, steering, lights and so on—and it requires that tests must be carried out annually, starting when the vehicle is one year old. It provides the basic framework of requirements which have to be embodied in the testing arrangements in each member State. Member States are free to impose more stringent requirements if they wish, but the directive lays down the minimum. It is on the whole a rather modest and sensible measure, and one which should bring some useful gains in road safety in many parts of the Community.
In this country our testing arrangements are already comprehensive, and for the most part already meet—or even exceed—the requirements of the directive. The inspection of public service vehicles goes back many years to between the wars. I shall not go over the history of this matter, but in general it is fair to say that our standards are at least as good as those in the rest of Europe.
We have had to make a few changes. The main one, which hon. Members with an interest in the bus industry will be well aware of, has been the introduction of a new formal annual testing scheme for public service vehicles, to replace the informal inspection system which we operated. The arrangements for that scheme were set out in the Motor Vehicle (Tests) Regulations 1981, which were accepted by the House last year.
The other principal change which we are having to make to implement the directive deals with the age at which vehicles have to be tested for the first time, and that is what this order is about. I have said that the roadworthiness directive requires vehicles within its scope to be tested annually starting at one year old. We are already home and dry with goods vehicles. Annual tests, starting at one year old, have been required for goods vehicles since the scheme was introduced in 1968. But the other categories of vehicles to which the directive applies come under a different testing scheme in a different legislative framework. Taxis, ambulances, big passenger vehicles which are not PSVs, and private cars all come
636
under the Ministry of Transport scheme. That scheme requires the first test to take place at three years old, not one year old. In order to comply with the directive, we have to ensure in future—from 1 January 1983—that all taxis, ambulances and large passenger vehicles, as well as PSVs, have their first test by the time of the vehicle's first birthday. That is what the order achieves.
I know that the order seems complicated. In fact, it is simple in its achievement. Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 which deals with compulsory test certificates for specified classes of vehicles, provides the teeth for the MOT test system. It makes it an offence to use a vehicle on the road that has not got a valid test certificate if it comes within the specified category.
Hon. Members will also know that the age for the first test under the MOT scheme has been progressively reduced from the original 10 years to the present three years, in each case by means of a Motor Vehicles (Extension) Order, much like the present one. The last was passed by the House in 1966.
The new order before the House revokes the earlier one. It brings down the age of first test from three years to one year for the roadworthiness directive vehicles—taxis, ambulances and passenger vehicles with more than eight passenger seats. Formally speaking, public service vehicles are under the same regime. They also come under section 44 of the 1972 Act. The provision therefore applies to them although the arrangements for carrying out the test are quite different.
The order begins on 1 January 1983. From that date, any vehicle which is within one of the specified categories and is more than a year old must have a test certificate. I can perhaps assure any hon. Member who feels that this is a short deadline that our intention to bring in the order was widely publicised in 1981 and that arrangements for testing vehicles in order to meet the proposed new requirements have been operating throughout the whole of this year. I must emphasise again that private cars are not involved. Hon. Members will see that article 5 of the order provides for the three-year period to continue in force for all vehicles except the special roadworthiness directive categories. For private cars there is absolutely no change. Indeed, apart from the new testing regime for public service vehicles, there is not much change at all.
I hope that, on the information I have given, the House will feel itself able to approve the order.
11. 56 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: The Opposition welcome the provisions of the order as—I suppose this is becoming a hackneyed phrase—a positive contribution to road safety. We appreciate the reasons for the introduction of the order and give our full support. We welcome the order even though some of the provisions, as the Minister has fairly stated, are unnecessary or even redundant. For example, taxis are already required to be tested at least once a year. In some areas, testing for taxis is required as often as every three months. It is interesting to recall that police authorities in Scotland—I daresay this also applies in England—are already issuing what are called certificates of compliance with the EEC directive.
As the Minister fairly stated, the intention to apply the directive from 1 January 1983 has been well canvassed. All the authorities are aware of it. I wish therefore to ask in all seriousness why it is necessary for the order to contain the obscure language which states:

637
"This Order shall come into operation on the fifteenth day after the day on which it is approved by resoltuion of each House of Parliament."
Why could it not simply have stated the date of 1 January 1983? The formal instruction given in Government Departments is that a positive order should include this general phrase just in case the deadline is missed. In this case, it should have been possible to use clear language. I hope that the Minister will therefore do better next time.
A similar order was last debated in 1968. On that occasion, the speech of the principal Opposition spokesman took four minutes. I do not know whether I have broken that record. I wish, however, to commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Extension) Order 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.

Council House Rents (Birmingham)
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Trippier.]
11. 59 pm
Mr. J. W. Rooker: I had not intended to be here at this late hour, though I make no apology for raising the issue of Birmingham council house rents. As is apparen: from the Order Paper, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Erdington (Mr. Silverman) was due to initiate the debate, but he was taken ill during the day and is now in Westminster hospital. I know that hon. Members and his constituents, of whom I am one, will wish him a very speedy return to full performance.
Fortunately, my hon. Friend had made preparations for the debate and a copy of his speaking notes came into my possession and will assist me in making the case. There are about 135,000 council tenancies in Birmingham. That represents a substantial proportion of the dwellings in the city and the tenants have recently suffered a rent increase averaging about 13 per cent. That represents an average of £1·75 a week, but in some cases it can amount to £3 a week.
It is the second rent increase in 1982. For the lower-paid workers in the National Health Service—and, contrary to current Government propaganda, there are many such workers in the NHS—the rent increase would more than wipe out the pay increase offered by the Government. Rent increases in the past three years have totalled about 130 per cent. I do not know whether that is a Birmingham figure or a national figure, but I know that rents in Birmingham have gone through the roof and I have had many complaints from my constituents.
Figures provided by the city housing department show that there are about 50,000 pre-war council houses. The gross rent and rates for a three-bedroomed, pre-war house, which is unimproved and not even modernised, are 34p short of £20 a week. It does not take much effort to calculate that it is possible for house-owners to be paying less than that in mortgage payments for similar properties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington has been an hon. Member since 1945 and he reminded me that he recollected that when he was a member of the city council 37 years ago the gross rents of those pre-war houses in Birmingham was 9s 6d a week—47½p. The increase has been 4,000 per cent., which is well above the rate of inflation over the years. The houses are the same bricks and mortar. Interest rates were 2½ per cent. when the rents were 9s 6d a week, but even at present rates of interest it is difficult to justify the current rents.
As I have argued on behalf of my constituents, the latest rent increase does not seem to be justified by the accounts of the housing department. There was no deficit which called for a further increase this year, and interest rates are falling rapidly because of the recession—as they did in the 1930s.
The average rent increase is alleged to be £1·75 a week. I do not know how accurate that is over the whole city, but I have three examples that I have managed to check with a constituent who raised the issue with me recently. A woman told me at a surgery that the rent of a four bedroomed house with two toilets and central heating, built about 10 years ago, was going up by £3 a week, while the rent of her three-bedroomed house, which is about a quarter of a mile away and has no central heating and only

639
an outside toilet, is going up by £2·40 a week—a difference of only 60p. That is in the Great Barr and Perry Beeches area. In Perry Common, the rent of a similar three-bedroomed, pre-war house, with an outside toilet and no central heating, is going up by £1·90 a week. So the same house has a substantial difference in rent increase of 50p, and for one of the houses the difference is 60p a week in increase, without the extra bedroom, without the privacy of one indoor toilet, let alone two, and without central heating. I asked the city housing officer for an explanation, but as yet I have heard nothing.
In addition to the greatly increased rents, there has been a decline in the amount and standard of repairs. Previous Conservative-controlled local authorities in Birmingham attempted to privatise, and that was before we even knew what the word meant. The result of that in my constituency was scaffolding falling down around four houses. It was a miracle that no one was killed. Subsequently, the Health and Safety Executive prosecuted. So there has been a decline in the amount and standard of repairs, notwithstanding the massive rent increases. My hon. Friend says that sometimes it has been difficult in his constituency to get any repairs at all done, and there are long waiting lists.
Moreover, there is the wholesale depreciation of many council houses in Birmingham, as a result of lack of repairs over the years, following various cutbacks. In the case of void houses—of which there are many in Birmingham—the depreciation is disastrous. No one is getting anything out of them in rent or accommodation. It is a ridiculous waste of public expenditure.
Council houses in Birmingham are not evenly distributed throughout the city. My constituency is not unique: about 35 per cent. are council dwellings, 63 per cent. are owner-occupied, and there is a small percentage of privately-rented property. I have a large proportion of owner-occupied property in my area which is in the north part of the city. In the south part, in a constituency such as Northfield which, as we all know, has no hon. Member to represent it because of the tragedy which took place, the percentage of council dwellings is 62 per cent. So people there who have had massive rent increases twice this year are suffering disproportionately to the rest of Birmingham.
I know that the Government are planning to remove housing subsidies next year. The housing benefit and rent rebate system is about to undergo a fundamental change, the significance of which I am sure neither the Government nor local authorities yet appreciate. Nevertheless, the council tenant in Birmingham will be paying not just an economic rent but in many cases one that is substantially more than can be justified as an economic rent. I know that the owner-occupier gets relief on the interest that he pays on his mortgage, and that the interest depends on the kind of mortgage. I make no criticism of that, although I believe that it should be limited to the fiat rate of tax. However, the council tenant is still paying his interest, via his rent. The council tenant pays his interest to the council and does not get the relief. There is no system such as the mortgage option scheme, brought in by a former Labour Government for low-paid people not paying income tax who could not get relief. It is true that in this respect the position of the council tenant is no different from that of the private tenant, who also gets no relief on his rent. However, the private tenant gets a compensating benefit of rent regulation which
640
at least stops his rent from continually going through the roof. I know that people complain about private rent increases, but there is rent regulation. In the case of the council tenant, the rent regulation is in reverse. During the past three years the Secretary of State has increased rent to levels which the Government consider desirable, no matter what the political complexion of the local authorities. It so happens that, at this moment, the present controlling group in Birmingham has taken an extra bite at the cherry. The Secretary of State forced even the last Labour-controlled council in Birmingham to increase rents to a greater extent than was justified by the figures in the books.
I want the Minister to explain to me, to my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington, who will read the debate, and to the citizens of Birmingham, particularly the 60 per cent. or more council tenants in Birmingham, Northfield, exactly how he can justify what is an unjust anomaly.
At the Conservative Party conference the Prime Minister said that we are one Britain. Yet at the same time the Government are treating millions of council tenants as second class citizens.
12. 10 am
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): May I endorse what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said at the beginning of his speech when he recorded his regret at the fact that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) was unwell? We wish him every speedy recovery from his ailment.
It was fortunate for the hon. Member for Perry Barr that the speech of the hon. Member for Erdington was so well written in advance and that he was able to use it. It is equally fortunate that there is apparently one subject on which Labour Members are prepared to agree. We welcome that rare degree of unanimity.
I am glad that we are debating the position of council house tenants in Birmingham tonight. However, I must say that the picture that the hon. Member painted was a partial one and highly misleading. If we look at the way that Birmingham is tackling its housing problems, we must recognise that the energy, drive and commitment of the city council is impressive. Its achievement over the past six months is commendable. It represents a far better deal for Birmingham tenants than could remotely have been hoped for, say, a year ago. In the spring of this year we saw the arrival of a new vigorous Conservative council, determined to sweep away the inefficiencies, restrictions and obstructions of its Labour predecessors. The proofs of its success are clear—startlingly so after such a short period of control.
I understand from the chairman of the housing committee that this financial year the council has completed 1,000 more repair jobs than the Labour council had managed to do by the same time last year. That by itself is excellent news for the tenants who have benefited directly. For each and every tenant it is a clear signal that past delays have been slashed in getting done essential jobs like re-roofing and re-wiring.
On average, the pace at which repairs are now being done is up to 20 per cent. higher than in the days of the Labour council, and that is in autumn weather. During the summer, I understand that the difference in output was over 25 per cent. I learn also that entry-phones are being put into tower blocks in the city. That is the sort of

641
initiative which every person living in tower blocks can welcome without reserve and which demonstrates a dedication to making the best of the housing stock and refusing to be overwhelmed by the problem.
Birmingham is also paying particular attention to installing wardens where staff on the spot are called for. It recognises that people with special needs deserve special measures. It is an impressive achievement, for instance, to have wired up flats which are under the care of wardens, not only to the warden's own flat but as a 24-hour emergency service to the housing department. That is the record which the city council displays after six months, and which the hon. Member did not refer to in his speech.
So far, I have concentrated on what is now being done for those Birmingham tenants who wish to remain so. However, there are many others who want to take advantage of their right, their unambiguous legal right, to buy their own homes. For far too long they were prevented from exercising their right by the deliberate obstructive-ness of the last Labour council.
The facts speak for themselves. Our Housing Act reached the statute book in the summer of 1980. The right to buy took effect from October 1980. Between then and May of this year, almost 5,000 tenants were accepted by the city council as having a right to buy. However, the remainder of the story is not hard to guess. There were delays, difficulties and dilatoriness. Over 100 tenants actually went as far as to complain to my Department about the frustrations they were suffering. At the end of the Labour period, a mere 300 dwellings had been sold. It required constant Government pressure to achieve even that miserable total out of the 5,000 admitted cases.
By contrast, over the past three months alone, the Conservative council has succeeded in getting more than 1,200 houses sold. The new applications have been flooding in. Over the past three months there have been 5,000 of them. They are still, I understand, coming in at the rate of 100 a day. In other words, the number of cases which the city council is prepared to accept as a result of tenants' action over the past three months is already the same as the number of cases admitted over a 19-month period by the Labour council. It hardly needs to be added that this is cast-iron evidence of the suppressed demand that was damped down during the go-slow period. At last, the right to buy in Birmingham is on the move. Both present and former tenants can see only too well who has their real interests at heart.
I should like to think that Government action will, wherever possible, reinforce Birmingham's own determination to increase efficiency and provide a better deal for its tenants. One contribution, which the hon. Gentleman touched on, will be the partial start of the new housing benefit scheme next month. This will enable rent assistance for tenants formerly on supplementary benefit to be paid direct to the city council. This step cuts down a transfer of cash via the tenant and thus eases his life as well as making for improved efficiency in the housing department.
I now turn to some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I ought to make it clear first that the central Government do not—as might have been inferred from the hon. Gentleman's remarks—control or carry responsibility for the level of council house rents in Birmingham—or, for that matter, anywhere else. Local authorities themselves have statutory discretion over the rents which they set for their tenants. Under section 111
642
of the Housing Act 1957, they are empowered to make such charges as they think fit for the particular circumstances of their area—as long as these charges are reasonable.
Against that background, it was rather invidious of the hon. Gentleman to direct his strictures at Birmingham in particular. There are in the West Midlands authorities whose average rent this year is likely to be at a similar, or even higher, level—examples are Nuneaton, the Wrekin, and—topping them all—Sandwell. Then again, Birmingham is not the only authority in the West Midlands to have gone for an autumn rent increase. This autumn Wolverhampton is reported to be making a rent increase of broadly comparable dimensions. Now all the authorities I have mentioned are perfectly entitled, like Birmingham, to exercise their statutory discretion as they choose. But each and every one of them is Labour-controlled. And the hon. Gentleman did not direct so much as a whisper of criticism in their direction. In attacking council house rent levels and rent increases he was somewhat selective.
We must, however, go further into the question of Birmingham rents even if they are not a direct Government responsibility. I have already outlined the improvements and achievements of the new Birmingham city council. It would be nonsense to claim that the improvements it has set its hand to can be achieved for nothing. There is a cost; it emerges in the mid-year because the new council only came into office and got things moving in May, and it is not unreasonable that it should be reflected in higher rents—especially given that the rents of the neighbouring Labour authorities that I have mentioned are either comparable or visibly higher.
Further, the hon. Gentleman conveniently ignored the fact that rents charged in Birmingham are not necessarily the same as rents paid by tenants out of their own pockets. Some 55 per cent. of tenants over the country as a whole receive rent assistance in one form or another. I do not have the precise figures for Birmingham, but there is no obvious reason to suppose that the pattern of these differs markedly from that applying nationally. On this basis, some 30 per cent. of tenants at present receive supplementary benefit. For them, the entirety of any rent increase is met in full. A further 25 per cent. of tenants—including, I hope, many of those on low pay whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned—are on rent rebate. This generally meets 60 per cent. of their rent increase. But it is only right to make the point that the rent assistance schemes are intended to, and do, cater for those on very low incomes or dependent on benefit. So in talking of rent increases, we need to take account also of the fact that protection for the least well off exists: and that it is misleading to quote rent increase figures as if they fall in their entirety on all tenants. There can be no question of rent assistance on its present scale being a palliative. It is a fundamental element in any discussion of policy nationally or of the impact on individual tenants locally. I hope that Opposition Members also see it in the same way and will do what they can to encourage the take-up.
I have concentrated on the position of council house tenants in Birmingham because that was the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. But, since the hon. Gentleman has commented on the role of the Government, we should get certain facts straight. The Government do indeed, around now, make known their expectations of the average rent increase for the financial year ahead. That is nothing new. It took place under the previous Labour

643
Government as under this Government. But our expectation of what the average rent increase will be does not detract from the responsibility of each individual authority to take its own decision on rent increases, and thus on rent levels. The difference, however, between the last Labour Government and ourselves is that we do not propose, as they did, to offer firm policies, and then take refuge in soft options when the going gets tough. The previous Labour Government, for example, proposed keeping rents
"broadly in line with movements in money incomes".
Instead, they handed over to us a position where rents had been allowed to decline over their period of office to their lowest real post-war level. The Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), actually said in the House:
"I believe that we are right to plan in the longer term for the proportion of housing costs to be borne by rents to grow from 43 per cent. in 1976–77 to 50 per cent. by 1980."—[Official Report,10 March 1976, Vol. 907, c. 453.]
He said that on 10 March 1976. By 1980, the proportion had slumped to 38 per cent. Had the Government carried out their policy, the increases which were subsequently introduced under the present Government would have been far less.
The hon. Member mentioned the withdrawal of housing subsidy which has affected Birmingham, among other authorities, since we took office. We have, indeed, introduced a new subsidy system—the same, incidentally,
644
as in the Bill which was introduced shortly before the previous Labour Government left office. We make no apology for cutting subsidies. Within the funds available nationally for housing, our priority had to be to safeguard capital investment, and to get it to increase which is now the position, and thus to curb the indiscriminate revenue support. I hope that these last few points place this debate in a national context. The hon. Member implied that council house rents in Birmingham were now above the fair rent level. I would like to see the evidence for that, as he implied that council house tenants did not receive the protection extended to private tenants afforded by the rent tribunals. He implied that council house rents were now above private rent levels. I should like to see the evidence for that. The hon. Member implied that, when he read the speech that his hon. Friend the Member for Erdington drafted for him. He also touched on subsidies to council tenants and to owner-occupiers. When I last examined the figures—this, I confess, was some months ago before the change in interest rates—the average subsidy per owner-occupier was less than the average subsidy per council tenant. As far as I can see, the new Birmingham council deserves to be congratulated, not least by its own tenants, on the initiatives that it has taken over the past six months. I hope that that is the message that will come through from this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRADE
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Steel Imports
  Steel Imports
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  Stansted Airport Inquiry
  Stansted Airport Inquiry
  Harbour Tugs (Mombassa Port Authority)
  Harbour Tugs (Mombassa Port Authority)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Accommodation
  Members' Accommodation
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Legislation
  Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Legislation
  West Yorkshire
  West Yorkshire
  Magistrates' Courts (Departmental Responsibility)
  Magistrates' Courts (Departmental Responsibility)
  Channel Islands and the Isle of Man
  Channel Islands and the Isle of Man
  No. 10 Downing Street (Pictures)
  No. 10 Downing Street (Pictures)
  Anglo-Irish Relations
  Anglo-Irish Relations
  Merseyside (Industrial Aid)
  Merseyside (Industrial Aid)
  Government Documents (Press Embargoes)
  Government Documents (Press Embargoes)
SCOTLAND
  Ian Breckenbridge
  Ian Breckenbridge
  Rabbits
  Rabbits
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Unemployed Doctors
  Unemployed Doctors
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Operation Countryman
  Operation Countryman
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  X-Ray Crystallographic Database, Cambridge
  X-Ray Crystallographic Database, Cambridge
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Newman College, Birmingham and Bishop Grosseteste College
  Newman College, Birmingham and Bishop Grosseteste College
  Education Act 1981
  Education Act 1981
  School Meals
  School Meals
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Chemicals (Exposure at Work)
  Chemicals (Exposure at Work)
  Journalists (Training Arrangements)
  Journalists (Training Arrangements)
  Training Schemes for Women
  Training Schemes for Women
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Unemployed Doctors
  Unemployed Doctors
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  March, Wisbech and Ely (Statistics)
  March, Wisbech and Ely (Statistics)
  Lyons Maid, Liverpool
  Lyons Maid, Liverpool
  Liverpool (Job Losses)
  Liverpool (Job Losses)
ENERGY
  Hydrogen
  Hydrogen
  Britoil
  Britoil
INDUSTRY
  British Telecommunications
  British Telecommunications
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Lyons Maid, Liverpool
  Lyons Maid, Liverpool
  Steel
  Steel
  Cable Systems
  Cable Systems
  Assisted Area Status (Derbyshire)
  Assisted Area Status (Derbyshire)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. Philip Myers
  Mr. Philip Myers
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Kellingley (Polling Station)
  Kellingley (Polling Station)
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey
  Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey
  Operation Countryman
  Operation Countryman
  Amateur Radio Licences
  Amateur Radio Licences
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Dental Health
  Dental Health
  Birmingham, Stechford
  Birmingham, Stechford
  Chiropody
  Chiropody
  Private Medicine
  Private Medicine
  Marple Dale Hospital
  Marple Dale Hospital
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Forms
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Drugs (Prices)
  Drugs (Prices)
  Death Rates
  Death Rates
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Departmental Offices (Staffing)
  Departmental Offices (Staffing)
  Hospital Consultants (Oldham)
  Hospital Consultants (Oldham)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
DEFENCE
  SS "Uganda"
  SS "Uganda"
  Gibraltar Dockyards
  Gibraltar Dockyards
  Falkland Islands (Transport of Civilians)
  Falkland Islands (Transport of Civilians)
  Ship Disposals
  Ship Disposals
  Falklands Campaign
  Falklands Campaign
  Sea Harriers
  Sea Harriers
  Cunard "Countess"
  Cunard "Countess"
  Mr. Alexander Cosgrove (Compensation)
  Mr. Alexander Cosgrove (Compensation)
  Ascension Island—Falklands (Ferry Service)
  Ascension Island—Falklands (Ferry Service)
  Greenham Air Base
  Greenham Air Base
WALES
  Hospitals (Costs)
  Hospitals (Costs)
TRANSPORT
  Tractors (Driving Tests)
  Tractors (Driving Tests)
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Milk Deliveries
  Milk Deliveries
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Cereal and Livestock Production
  Cereal and Livestock Production
  Milk Products (Intervention Stocks)
  Milk Products (Intervention Stocks)
  Fishing Industry (Support)
  Fishing Industry (Support)
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Fish Catches (Six to 12 Mile Zone)
  Fish Catches (Six to 12 Mile Zone)
  Forestry Commission (Sale of Assets)
  Forestry Commission (Sale of Assets)
  Land Drainage Schemes
  Land Drainage Schemes
  Abattoirs
  Abattoirs
  Torry Research Station, Aberdeen
  Torry Research Station, Aberdeen
  Farmers' Organisations (Talks)
  Farmers' Organisations (Talks)
  Commodity and Livestock Prices
  Commodity and Livestock Prices
  Rabbits
  Rabbits
  Agricultural Council (Meeting)
  Agricultural Council (Meeting)
  European Community
  European Community
  European Community (Soviet Imports)
  European Community (Soviet Imports)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  HMSO Bookshop (Cardiff)
  HMSO Bookshop (Cardiff)
  European Community (Contributions)
  European Community (Contributions)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Security
  Security
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
ENVIRONMENT
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Appeals Procedure
  Appeals Procedure
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Government Offices (Cleaning)
  Government Offices (Cleaning)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Wheelchair and Mobility Housing)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Wheelchair and Mobility Housing)
  Industrial Waste (Collection)
  Industrial Waste (Collection)
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Lyons Maid, Liverpool
  Lyons Maid, Liverpool
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Confidential Documents (Publication)
  Confidential Documents (Publication)
  Monaco Youth Football Tournament
  Monaco Youth Football Tournament
  Iraqi Ambassador
  Iraqi Ambassador
  Luxembourg Compromise
  Luxembourg Compromise
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Chile
  Chile
  Overseas Dependent Territories
  Overseas Dependent Territories
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Miss Sheila Rossall
  Miss Sheila Rossall
  South Africa,
  South Africa,
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Law of the Sea Treaty
  Law of the Sea Treaty
  David Kitson
  David Kitson
  European Community (Economic and Social Committee)
  European Community (Economic and Social Committee)
  Deep Sea Mining
  Deep Sea Mining

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

Argentina: Compensation
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 proposing to claim reparations against the Argentine in respect of the damage and loss suffered as a result of the Argentine aggression against British territory and ships in and around the Falkland Islands.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as was stated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on 30th July, we reserve the right to claim compensation from Argentina.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that not wholly informative reply, may I ask him when the Government intend to announce their decision? And will my noble friend confirm that it is in accordance with international law and precedent that, when aggression is committed by one power on the territory of another, it is normal for that power, when the aggression has been repelled, to make reparations?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we were wronged by the Argentines in their aggression and would certainly be entitled to claim compensation, as my noble friend says. However, there would be formidable practical difficulties in our securing payment. Our objective throughout the conflict was to restore the rights of the islanders. While we reserve the right to claim compensation, we do not believe that it would serve any useful purpose at this stage to put in such a claim.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would there have been any practical difficulty in requiring the Argentinian forces to clear up the land mines which they had strewn around before they left the islands?
Lord Skelmersdale: We seem to have got beyond that point, my Lords, because there are no Argentine forces on the Falklands.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, is there not a danger that any claim made against the Argentines for their aggression might hasten the collapse of the international banking system?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps that is a little wide of this Question.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, give an assurance that British information services throughout the world are making every effort to draw public attention world-wide to the gross violations of the Geneva Convention by Argentina, including the deliberate desecration of islanders' homes and, above all, the laying of unmarked minefields, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has just drawn attention?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I am well aware of the point which the noble Lord has made.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, considering that a very remarkable victory has led, or has foreseeably led, only to our behaving as though we had been defeated, what was the point of going there at all?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is absolutely no question of our behaving as though we had been defeated. What matters in all this is the rights and future lives of the islanders. Whatever we do and whatever policies we pursue, we will put them in the forefront of our minds.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has said that a claim is in the process of contemplation; that is what I understand him to have said. If that be the case, will he confirm that at some stage a claim will be made; and, if so, with what authoritative body will that claim be filed?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, misunderstood me. I certainly did not say a claim was in the process of being consulted upon in London or anywhere else; and I am not prepared to speculate on when and whether such a claim may or may not be made.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, did my noble friend's first supplementary answer to me and the supplementary answer he has just given suggest that in the view of Her Majesty's Government it would be more economical to commit aggression if one was a bankrupt state?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, they suggested nothing of the sort.

Disarmament Proposals
3.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the joint statement by the Soviet Peace Committee and the World Disarmament Campaign proposing among other things a move towards the dismantling of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO, the establishment of nuclear weapon free zones and the prohibition of chemical biological and radiological weapons; and whether they welcome this development.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government are aware of this statement, which contains a number of well-worn Soviet proposals. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Hurd) met members of the British delegation on 11th March and discussed their visit to the Soviet Union. We hope that the proclaimed interest of the Soviet Union in peace will be reflected in a constructive response to the fresh proposals made by the West for reductions in conventional and nuclear forces.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Yes, my Lords, but may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, two further questions. First, is it not the case that the Soviet Peace Committee seldom does or says anything that is not approved by the Soviet Government and therefore that anything in a statement entered into by the Soviet Peace Committee and the World Disarmament Campaign may be taken as an official statement by the Soviet Government, and will the British Government look at it in that light? Secondly, in a Written Answer that the noble Lord was kind enough to give me he said that the Government expected to have an opportunity in the near future to make known to the Russians the Government's views on their initiatives for a nuclear freeze and for a comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Is the noble Lord now in a position to say what those views are?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's second supplementary question, these views are still under discussion and I am not yet in a position to give the noble Lord the information he wants. As far as the Soviet Peace Committee is concerned, I agree with the noble Lord that it is a loose organ of the state but I cannot draw from that the same conclusions that he does because there are other peace movements which are under what I can only describe as subjection in the Soviet Union at the moment. For example, the noble Lord will know well the case of Mr. Sakharov, whose dissenting views are certainly not tolerated. There is also the fact mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in his letter to The Times today—and I quote:
"The 15 brave Russians who tried to form an equivalent of a CND movement in Moscow earlier this year were immediately imprisoned".
So I cannot subscribe to the theory that the views of the Soviet Peace Committee represent the views of the Russian people, although on occasions they may well represent the views of the state.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while welcoming my noble friend's statement, may I ask him whether it is intended to impress upon the Soviet Government that success in this matter depends upon multilateral disarmament and bona fide reciprocity?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, most certainly that is the intention of Her Majesty's Government; and further, we are absolutely determined to seek an agreement on the very difficult problem of verification, which will still take a long time to clear up, I am afraid.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would not the great and noble words of the Soviet Union be of infinite value if only they bore some relation to what they do?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with that view, because I noticed that, in Mr. Gromyko's recent speech to the United Nations, he said:
"The urge to give orders to other countries and to dominate the world must not be allowed to overshadow the experience of the past or muffle the voice of reason".
From that noble Lords can draw their own conclusion, as I have.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, the Minister has referred to proposals of the Soviet Government being in this document. Is he aware that it was not a device of the Soviet Peace Committee? Is he aware that I proposed it and I drafted the terms of the agreement with only slight amendments, and that the agreement proposes endorsement of the recommendations of the United Nations Special Assembly four years ago and makes a series of progressive proposals ending with the demilitarisation of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO? Are not those proposals worthy of the support of the Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was not aware of the noble Lord's involvement in all this, although of course I did know that he was a member of the delegation to the Soviet Peace Committee. However, I accept that there is good reason for looking at the proposals very carefully. I hope that some progress can be made on at least some parts of them. But I quite definitely do not think that the inference that all is sweetness and light can be drawn from these particular proposals. I think they ought to be looked at with a great deal of care.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it is really rather strange that there is no mention of Soviet nuclear disarmament in the Question?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government are not responsible for Questions on the Order Paper.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, if these proposals are to be taken seriously, perhaps the British Government, along with our allies, would make a fair challenge to the Soviet Government as to what are their views upon them?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful supplementary question.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in view of the dependence of the Soviet economy on the imports of American wheat, and on the supply of European technology, to sustain their economy, is not this the right moment to press the Soviet Government for new initiatives in this direction of securing a greater degree of multilateral disarmament?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid I am not prepared to commit myself on whether this is the right moment, but certainly the current multilateral negotiations going on between the EEC—both as a collective organisation and as individual

227
members—and the United States have this object partly in view.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, did my noble friend notice the possibly Freudian slip of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, when he said that the Soviet Peace Committee was an organ of the Soviet Government? Does it not debase the value of the world disarmament campaign if it gets into bed with such odd fellows, who seem to be part of the same Government which went into Afghanistan?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was a little thrown by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins' supplementary question, in that I would have thought it was an argument against proposals coming from the Peace Committee rather than for them.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that the fact that the proposals were originally drafted by my noble friend, and were subsequently endorsed by the Peace Committee in the presence of a Soviet Minister, indicates that the Soviet Government and my noble friend are in accord? It only remains for the Government to get into accord with my noble friend and then the Government could find themselves in the search for peace with the Soviet Union. Is not that something devoutly to be wished? Is it not desirable that the Government should find itself, if it can, on common ground with the Soviet Union, so that the world becomes a more peaceful place?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to make the world a more peaceful place is, quite definitely, the objective of us all, wherever we sit and wherever we may reside. However, the information imparted to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on his drafting of the original communiqué came to light and was given to your Lordships' House after I had answered the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. So I answered both questions at the time and in the light of what was presented to me.
Lord Soames: My Lords, may I suggest to my noble friend that he does not waste too much time examining these proposals? If the Russians really wanted to seek a reduction of tension and an increase in disarmament there is plenty of opportunity for them to put forward such proposals without using the Peace Committee as a stalking horse, let alone the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful for parts of that supplementary question by my noble friend, and I shall bear his advice in mind.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many issues on which I am not in accord with the Soviet Government and that I so expressed myself when I was in Moscow?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sure that that is the case, my Lords.

"The Legal Basis of Further Education"
3.20 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give a date on which they will make a statement on The Legal Basis of Further Education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): No, my Lords, but we hope to be able to make a statement shortly.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not very satisfactory reply. Is he aware that The Legal Basis of Further Education was published in June 1981, and that organisations, and so on, were asked to comment by, I think, the end of October, certainly about a year ago? The people who have responded are feeling concerned and disappointed that the Government have not taken a greater interest in this matter, since adult education is an area where the Government have not been very kindly. Those working in that field are very much hoping for an early response.
Will the Minister also agree that there are a great many anomalies in the education law as it stands, particularly where 16 to 19 year-olds are concerned? For instance, a young person in school never has to pay fees, but a young person of 16 to 19 years in further education may have to do so. There is also the matter of recoupment. An authority is bound to pay recoupment if a young person is in school but not for further education. Will the Minister urge the Government to respond quickly?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to the delay, as the noble Baroness described it, the latest comments on the report were not received until the end of last year and it is a very complex matter. On the friendship of the Government towards the world of further education, I shall only say that the Government have in this year alone given additional expenditure provision totalling about 100 million to enable more young people to stay on in education. Most of those extra people are, in fact, staying on in further education colleges. As to the anomalies, I think I should leave that to our response to the report.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that, when he is preparing his statement, full consideration will be given to young people between the ages of 16 and 19 who were the subject of special statements under the Education Act 1981 because of physical or mental handicap? Will he also include consideration for young people between 16 and 19 years of age who become handicapped, either physically or mentally, after they have left school but who need educational facilities up to the age of 19?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the importance of the 16 to 19 year-old bracket. What I have said refers to those staying on outside school. We do not disaggregate payments for

229
the 16 to 19 year-old bracket inside school. As to disabled people, the noble Baroness will be aware of our recent White Paper and the attention which my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security, in his special capacity as Minister responsible for the disabled, is giving to this matter. My honourable friend Mr. Hugh Rossi is doing a good job in seeing that the aims that the noble Baroness furthers are effectively pursued by local authorities.
Lord Plant: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that those who are economically and socially deprived are also those who are educationally deprived? Does the noble Lord also agree that the Department of Education and Science agrees that much of further education is almost certainly ultra vires and that the need to amend Sections 41 and 42 of the Education Act 1944 is pressing? Finally, will the noble Lord say what is the Government's attitude to the voluntary bodies on further education, such as the Workers' Educational Association, which seems to be bearing a disproportionate amount of economy cuts?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord's first premise would be the subject of an interesting sociological debate. I agree only that often social deprivation is accompanied by educational deprivation, although not always. His second question on the legality of further education is central to our response to the report, when it comes. If the noble Lord will remind me of his third question I shall answer it.
Lord Plant: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that my question was in relation to the Workers' Educational Association, which seems to be experiencing a disproportionate amount of cuts?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government are well seized of the value of the Workers' Educational Association, as indeed am I. We seek in no way to limit the good work which it does.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are many aspects of this issue of legal recognition of adult education? Is he further aware that Professor Roger Dyson has just been talking about grants to students at universities and taking courses? A 24-week course will now cost £45 for adult students. There is a great difficulty with the Workers' Educational Association, now celebrating in North Staffordshire 60 years of existence, in finding courses which the young unemployed can attend, because they can no longer afford them. The nation, having this unemployment situation, has an obligation to the young adults who have not had the opportunity of education that many noble Lords in this House have had themselves.
Lord Elton: My Lords, much as some of your Lordships may sympathise with the noble Lord's remarks, I have to remind him that the Question is whether or not there is a date on which we are to make a statement. I have had to say that I cannot say precisely when that statement will be made. When it is made it will be made in the knowledge of the noble Lord's views.

Fair Wages: Denunciation of ILO Convention
3.28 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: 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 benefits they expect will accrue to our economy now that they intend to proceed with plans to abolish the Fair Wages Resolution; and whether the International Labour Organisation has been notified of this intention to denounce the ILO Convention Number 94; and further when Parliament will be given an opportunity to debate this.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, industry and the economy will benefit by the removal of unnecessary and outdated constraints on the ability for people to reach settlements as a result of free negotiation on terms which suit their own circumstances. A Motion to rescind the resolution is to be put before another place in the next Session. Denunciation of ILO Convention No. 94 was notified to the International Labour Office on 20th September, 1982.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this issue of the International Labour Organisation on fair wages is of paramount importance internationally on contracts? It has been in existence in this form for 35 years. Is he further aware that efforts to get fair wages goes back 91 years and that the ILO was awarded the Nobel Prize for its efforts to get friendly relationships on the industrial front throughout Europe? We have now broken or intend to break this convention. The answers were fudged, inosculated and brought in quietly by means of Written Questions in the other place and here.
Finally, and then I shall sit down, when I asked the noble Lord opposite about fair wages I was partly told I did not know what I was talking about. I had already read Hansard, which he had not. There was a Written Answer, and I can give the dates. It is of importance—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Davies of Leek: Give me an introduction.
Several noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, I think the whole House realises that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, feels strongly about this matter. Could he just frame his question and ask it briefly?
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, every question has been framed with the question mark at the end. I read a piece in the newspaper about this when the other place had already discussed it. Will the Minister tell the House when the Government are to allow a debate on this issue as asked in the Question?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not realise that anything that I had said had insinuated that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, did not know what he was talking about. If the noble Lord reads my original Answer I think that he will find nothing in it to lead him to construe it in that way. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the present fair wages resolution goes back 35 years. He was not right when he said that we are breaking that convention. We have a period by which we can withdraw from the convention if we like. It comes once every 10 years. The date of our possible denunciation, which is the equivalent of withdrawal, goes from 20th September 1982 to 19th September 1983. If we give that notice of withdrawal it comes in a year later. So we are not breaking a convention.
The noble Lord asked whether I would answer the last part of his main Question. I did so when I said that a Motion to rescind the resolution is to be put before another place in the next Session. The resolution is a resolution of another place and it is for the other place to countermand that resolution; it is not a matter for this House unless the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, or anyone else wishes to put down a Motion.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, going back to the noble Earl's original Answer, may I ask: is he aware that a widespread and intellectually highly respectable case can be made out for the view that the obligation to pay fair wages, far from having adverse effects on the economy, has very favourable effects on efficiency? Therefore, it is quite possible that the abolition of the obligation to pay fair wages will encourage the survival of inefficient enterprises and will, therefore, act to lower our national wellbeing and not to raise it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am aware from what the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, has said that there are people who take an opposite view from that which the Government take—I accept that. However. I should tell the noble Lord that we consider the fair wages resolution to be obsolete. It refers to employees who are on Government contracts only; it does not help the low paid; it can be disruptive to companies who are in difficulties; and it does not mean that it will help companies, because very often they are obliged to pay what is the "going rate" in the industry and that is not necessarily the lowest paid rate. Also the complaints which we have had about the fair wages resolution, or the applications, have tended to come from those in the higher, and not the lower paid industries.
Lord Collison: My Lords, I have listened to the explanations which have been given. However, before this decision was taken, had the Government consulted the TUC, who obviously have a great interest in this particular convention, and also, of course, the ILO with which I was connected for many, many years? If the Government did not consult the TUC, can the Minister tell me why they did not do so?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government have consulted with a number of people, of which I think the Trades Union Congress was one, and they had a variety of different responses.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, are we to assume that the Government wish to be free to enter into contracts with people who pay unfair wages?
Earl Ferrers: Certainly not, my Lords.
Lord Spens: My Lords, can the noble Earl the Minister tell us whether ILO Convention Number 94 has ever been ratified by the United States of America?
Earl Ferrers: No, it has not, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his right honourable friend Mr. Tebbit in another place, when delivering a breakfast-time broadcast on the Thursday of the Conservative Party Conference, answered the contention of his right honourable friend Sir Ian Gilmour that the payments to the unemployed should in fact be increased, by saying that that would cause widespread resentment among the lower paid workers, some of whom were paid below that rate? Is it, therefore, the Government's intention that wages should now be driven down to below the normal unemployment rates?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I find the deductions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, quite astonishing. There is nothing in what I have said or in the abolition of the fair wages resolution which will encourage wages to go down below the unemployment level. What the noble Lord must know, if he knows about the fair wages resolution—which I am sure he does—is that it sets a wage rate which is at the "going rate" in the industry concerned. It may oblige certain companies to go above the minimum, to pay what is the "going rate", which may well put them in financial difficulties and thereby end the company and the jobs for the employees. The purpose of this action is to allow free negotiation.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister indicate how many countries or Governments have denounced the convention, or have indicated their intention of doing so?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can tell the noble and learned Lord that 55 countries have ratified the convention, which means that some 93 have not done so. Those who have not ratified it include the United States, West Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Portugal, Greece, Luxembourg and the whole of the Eastern bloc.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, that has not answered my question, but perhaps it does not matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord would be kind enough to repeat his question I shall listen with even more care and see whether I can give an even better answer.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I merely asked, how many Governments have denounced the convention or announced their intention of denouncing the convention?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in that case my answer will be briefer. I shall find out and write and let the noble and learned Lord know.

Duchy of Cornwall Management Bill
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (110) as first printed for the Commons]
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 17, after ("persons") insert (",or any class of persons,")
2 page 2, line 20, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("subsection (1)")
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Amendment No. 2 is a small drafting improvement. Amendment No. 1, however, is the substantive amendment and it makes it clear that the duty solicitor scheme could be confined to a particular class of persons if it appeared appropriate to do so. This reflects the fact that those in custody and those charged with serious offences are obviously more important candidates for a duty solicitor scheme than some others and it might be that it was necessary to recognise the fact. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's explanation is obviously a wholly satisfactory one. It may be necessary to establish priorities for defendants in custody as distinct from those who are not in custody, and the amendments proposed give greater flexibility and, indeed, strength to the duty solicitor scheme.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause:
("Legal aid for appeals in cases of contempt of court.
.In section 28(8) of the principal Act (legal aid for appeals to Court of Appeal under Part I of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968) for the words "the criminal division of that court" there shall be substituted the words "or to appeal to that court under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 against an order or decision of the Crown Court, the criminal division of the Court of Appeal".").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we now come to a new clause. I beg to move—and this will be the case as regards all the subsequent amendments—that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This amendment makes criminal legal aid available for appeals against orders and decisions made by the Crown Court when dealing with contempt of court. Civil legal aid is at present available for these cases, but, since the Supreme Court Act 1981 transferred them from the civil to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, it is desirable to rationalise the existing arrangements in that sense. This clause effects the change. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this, again, is a helpful amendment. The structure of the law and practice in regard to contempt is always subject to attack and it is very useful that, in the limited category to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, legal aid should be available.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
("Refusal of legal aid by magistrates' courts
.—(1) Provision may be made by regulations—

(a) for enabling a person who has been refused legal aid under the principal Act by a magistrates' court to apply to such other court or body as may be specified in the regulations; and

(b) for that other court or body to make any legal aid order that could have been made by the magistrates' court.

(2) Regulations made for the purposes of this section may make provision as to the manner in which, and the time when, applications may be made under the regulations and may make different provision for different cases.
(3) Regulations made for the purposes of this section shall be made with the concurrence of the Treasury.
(4) Where a legal aid order is made by virtue of regulations made for the purposes of this section, the provisions of this Act relating to legal aid contribution orders shall have effect with such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment. This is another new clause. It enables the Lord Chancellor to make regulations providing recourse to persons refused legal aid by magistrates' courts. The House will, of course, recall the debates that we had when the matter came before this House. I agreed to try to take this power, and I intend to carry out my obligation to do so by means of the regulations when they are provided.
It is a little more difficult than it seems. Ever since the Widgery Committee it was always held to be doctrine that it was impracticable to introduce a system of appeals against refusals of criminal legal aid. I could well sense the feelings of the House when noble Lords wanted me to make this promise, and I did make it, and it accorded with my own inclinations. My officials are now engaged in the process of consulting those concerned. I cannot yet say whether recourse will be to the Crown Court, to the legal aid committees, or to some other ad hoc body. But I intend to carry out

235
my obligation, and this is the means by which I intend to do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we—and I suspect the whole House—are pleased that the noble and learned Lord has accepted the principle of a right of appeal in respect of the refusal of legal aid by a magistrates' court. The problem that worried us very much when we discussed this on a previous occasion was the vast variation in the refusal rates of application for legal aid orders as between one magistrates' court and another. Indeed, it seemed that success in regard to such application very often depended not so much on the merits of the application but on in which court the application was made. We had the fascinating statistics that there were 33 per cent. refusals in Highgate, whereas in perhaps the more salubrious area of Hampstead there were only 4 per cent. refusals. Looking at the matter statistically, it indeed indicates a strange state of affairs, because I hardly venture to think that the nature of the cases coming before the Hampstead court would have been very different in substance from the nature of those elsewhere. This is one of the factors which certainly led us to stress the importance of this matter.
The noble and learned Lord has gone a good deal of the way to meet what was said in different parts of the House on this in Amendment No. 4. We wondered whether perhaps he could go further. As it stands, the amendment gives a power to make the regulations. We wondered whether it could be made mandatory. However, we appreciate that there are difficulties in the way of that. It is not contended that every case that results in a refusal of a legal aid application in a magistrates' court would necessarily call for the power of appeal. As I understand it, over a million of the cases that come before magistrates' courts relate to minor traffic offences. Nevertheless, the wide range of "(2)(a)" cases, as they might be called, remains for consideration.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could give us a little more guidance as to how he intends this power to be used and the kind of machinery that he has in mind. The amendment refers to the power to enable:
"a person who has been refused legal aid under the principal Act by a magistrates' court to apply to such other court or body as may be specified …"
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has been able to carry his thinking on what the nature of the other body ought to be further than the tentative suggestions that he helpfully made when we discussed the matter further. If further guidance could be given on those lines, I am sure that it would be well received.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Again, we had quite full debates on the matter when it was before the House, and I yielded to the pressure which was brought to bear on me. My concession was in the face of what was always held to be established doctrine, but I intend to find a way through it if I can, and I am sure that I shall be able to. It is, of course, true—and I agree that it has a relevance—that there is a surprising divergence
236
between individual magistrates' courts as to the rate of refusal. I did point out some of the difficulties because magistrates' courts have a different pattern of offences before them.
Moreover, it does not, of course, follow that those who refuse it in the fewest cases are those which are necessarily right. But the noble and learned Lord will remember that I have directed my office to investigate the reasons for that wide variation. As regards the type of body to which recourse could be made, I would rather leave the question open until the consultations that I am having are complete. The options really are what I adumbrated before. In theory, you could send it to the Crown Court; in theory, you could refer it to the legal aid committees of the Law Society; or you could create another body ad hoc for the purpose. It is precisely as between those three options that those consultations are primarily directed. I think that that is about as far as I can go. If the noble and learned Lord will look at subsection (3) of the new clause he will see why it cannot be made mandatory on me.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 5, page 5, line 6, leave out from ("income") to ("of") in line 9 and insert ("and disposable capital are treated as not exceeding the prescribed limits at any time when he is in receipt of supplementary benefit under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 and that a person's disposable income is treated as not exceeding the prescribed limit at any time when he is in receipt")
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment. The amendment ensures that those in receipt of supplementary benefit are not required to contribute from capital. The Bill already provides that they cannot be required to contribute from income by Clause 7(8). So this exempts capital as well. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my honourable friends in another place pressed this matter very hard in Committee and the right honourable and learned gentleman, the Solicitor-General, was good enough on that occasion to give an undertaking. That undertaking has now been inplemented and I am sure that we are all grateful for it. As the noble and learned Lord has said, it means that capital will not be taken into account where supplementary benefit is paid. That seems a very logical, sensible and humane thing to do.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for what he has said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Clause, line 10, leave out from ("paid") to end of line 11 and insert ("on the making of the legal aid contribution order, the court may direct that the legal aid order shall not take effect until that sum is paid.")
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their

237
Amendment No. 6. This is simply a clarification giving a clearer meaning to the word "forthwith" and I think it requires no further justification from me.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, here again this is a most welcome amendment. Your Lordships may remember that great diffidence was expressed—certainly on this side of the House but in many quarters of the House—about the power to revoke an order where a payment had been ordered to be made and had not been made. This makes it clear that the court will take into account various considerations before revoking the order. They are proper, just consideration, and I think we ought to be grateful for this amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
7 Page 7, line 14, after ("paid") insert ("by the legally assisted person")
8 line 17, leave out ("without first") and insert ("unless satisfied, after")
9 line 19, at end insert ("—

(a) that he was at that time able to pay the sum in question; and

(b) that he is able to pay the whole or part of it but has failed or refused to do so.")

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7, 8, and 9 together because they stand or fall together. I am not absolutely sure whether some of Lord Mishcon's remarks were not perhaps directed to these rather than to the previous amendment which was really of a drafting character. They are, as he indicated, intended to ensure that the courts shall not revoke legal aid unless they are satisfied both that the assisted person is able to pay at the time when he is required to do so but fails to do so, and also—and this is important—that he is able to pay all or part of the amount due at the time when the revocation is in question. That is the effect of it, and I think it is a liberalising amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we agree that these are beneficial amendments, and we agree with them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 Clause 9, page 8, line 1, leave out ("section 37(l)") and insert ("subsection (1) of section 37").
11 line 6, at end insert—
("(2) Provision may be made by regulations for prohibiting or restricting the receipt by counsel or a solicitor acting for a legally assisted person of payments otherwise than under the said section 37.").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their
238
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. They enable the Lord Chancellor to make regulations to prohibit or restrict the receipt by counsel or a solicitor acting for a legally assisted person of payments apart from those legal aid monies. This will be done by regulation under the amendments. It is designed to prohibit or restrict the process known as "topping-up", which will be familiar to noble Lords opposite.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while the expression, "topping-up", may be known to the legal profession, I do not know that it is known as familiarly to all your Lordships. It is, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, a rather objectionable practice that there would be of a solicitor, for example—I prefer to choose my own side of the profession in order not to be offensive to any other side of the profession—saying, "Well, I have got a legal aid certificate, but I am afraid that the charges that I would be entitled to thereunder do not console me at all, and therefore I would like to charge you, if I am to act for you, an additional sum." This is prohibited in the civil legal aid and obviously ought to be prohibited in criminal legal aid, and that is so. So that I do not leave the other side of the profession completely out of it, that would similarly apply where there was a question of a silk not being authorised and in fact a silk comes on the scene in order that payment may be proffered to him in respect of his services when that is not covered by the criminal legal aid certificates.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, this could in special circumstances work an injustice. With the greatest respect, I would hope that these special circumstances might be taken into account when the regulations are made in due course. Take, for example, the situation that you have a complicated immigration appeal or application going up to the Divisional Court. It comes, say, from Birmingham or Wolverhampton with an ethnic minority solicitor and an ethnic minority counsel on legal aid who have little knowledge of the practice and procedures of the Divisional Court, or indeed of the Court of Appeal.
There is a difficult point of law involved—perhaps a spin-off of Zamir, something like that. Then what happens is that the local head man of the community passes the hat round and gets a few hundred pounds together so that they can approach leading counsel and pay him some fee to conduct that case. I am speaking from a position in my own experience. From seeing the papers some leading counsel who knew what he was up to was certainly required, and in circumstances like these I am not sure what the basic morality is. If there is a conflict of moralities, I would have thought that one should err on the side of ensuring in special circumstances that everything is done to uphold the highest standards of representation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think my noble friend is for the moment forgetting that this Bill has to do with criminal legal aid and not civil legal aid. His example was a civil legal aid one. Under civil legal aid

239
"topping-up" is already prohibited, so that the point is not, as stated, a good one. But I would also point out that the power which I am taking if this be agreed to is one to prohibit or restrict, which I think would take account of any points which may arise but which do not immediately occur to me as I stand here.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
12 Page 8, line 13, leave out from ("proceedings') to end of line 15.
13 line 16, after ("(2)") insert ("If the solicitor assigned to the person in question by the legal aid order is the same as the solicitor who gave the advice of assistance")
14 line 30, after ("effect") insert ("in a case to which subsection (2) above applies")
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. They ensure that defendants are given a credit towards their legal aid contributions for any contribution paid in respect of advice and assistance even where different solicitors give them advice and assistance and act for them under the legal aid order. I think again this is a beneficial change.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I agree that this is also a beneficial change.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
15 Clause 11, page 9, line 16, leave out ("to him")
16 line 17, at end insert ("either to that person or to his solicitor or partly to one and partly to the other.")
17 Clause 12, page 9, line 41, after ('In") insert ("the definition of "legal aid contribution order" in section 25(1) of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, in section 92(1)(b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and in")
18 In the Schedule, page 11, line 12, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 4, paragraph 4.")
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 together. These-are all technical amendments. The first two are designed to ensure that sums due to an assisted person as a result of an order for costs made in his favour may be paid to his solicitor, while the second two amend references to "legal aid contribution order" in other legislation. For instance, Section 14 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1973 is covered by the first two amendments, and the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and repealing paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Legal Aid Act 1974 are referred to in the last two amendments. I think I can fairly describe them as technical.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting (Television Programme Contractors' Additional Payments) Order 1982
4 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th October be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 19th October and they had no comments. This draft order is intended to increase the ITV levy free slice, and thus to reduce the levy payments of the ITV companies, in order to compensate them for the increased subscriptions they will be paying to the IBA in order to meet their share of the costs of the Welsh fourth channel.
Noble Lords will recall that during the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1980 the Government proposed to concentrate all Welsh language television programmes on a single channel, and that that single channel solution was subsequently approved by Parliament. The Broadcasting Act 1981 accordingly made special arrangements for the fourth channel in Wales and for the establishment of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority. It was always recognised that these arrangements would be more expensive for the ITV companies, which finance both the fourth channel and the Welsh fourth channel through subscriptions paid to the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The Government therefore agreed that they should compensate the ITV companies for the additonal costs of the Welsh fourth channel by means of an adjustment to the ITV levy.
The additional costs of the single channel solution were estimated to be £10 million in aggregate. After consultation with the IBA and the Treasury, my right honourable friend announced in July of last year that he proposed to lay an order during the next Session which should have the effect of increasing the ITV levy free slice—that is, the amount of their profits on which ITV contractors pay no levy—from £250.000, or 2 per cent. of advertising revenue, to £650,000, or 2.8 per cent. of advertising revenue, whichever is the greater, with effect from 1st April 1982.
That is the draft order before your Lordships' House today. There has been delay, since it was discovered that the proposed order, which was intended to reduce the ITV companies' levy payments, would have had the perverse effect of increasing the levy liability of certain of the companies in the year of the change, because their accounting periods would be split as a result of the order. Amending legislation was therefore introduced in Section 144 of the Finance Act 1982, which made provision for the first order made after the passing of the Act to take effect from 1st April 1982; and noble Lords will note that this is reflected in the order now before the House. I apologise for the fact that this is inevitably a rather complicated and technical subject, but I hope I have provided a sufficient explanation to commend the draft order to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th October be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the details of the order. We are glad to know that it has been approved by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We are also glad

241
to know that the order will enable there to be sufficient financial support for the Welsh language channel. The figures in the order are, in a sense, slightly complicated because, on the one hand, one has the increase in the amount of the free slice from £250,000 to £650,000 before the payments start, but, on the other, those additional payments—the amount of the levy payments—are increased from 2 to 2.8 per cent.
Although presumably most contractors will, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, have a decrease in the amount of levy payment which they make—because of the increase in the size of the free slice—there must be a point at which they would be making an increased payment. Perhaps the Minister could say to what point advertising receipts would have to increase for a particular contractor to have to pay an increase in the amount of his levy payments. With those words, we welcome the order and the purpose for which it was made.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I had intended to preface my brief remarks by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for explaining the order so clearly. Unhappily, I was prevented from being here to hear the explanation, but I am assured it was very clear and I rise to say that we on these Benches welcome the order in so far as it will be of help and assistance to the independent television contractors and other broadcasters at a time of very great difficulty. Looking at the order and the legislation on which it is based, it seems that there is an element of assistance here and a recognition of the special problems they face.
There is a tendency at present for us to assume that independent broadcasting is free—that somehow it falls from the sky and does not have to be paid for—whereas the amount of advertising income available is necessarily limited. As we now diversify into a fourth channel and breakfast television. I can see a point when the independent contractors will be in increasing difficulty in meeting their obligations according to the high standards with which they have always met them in the past. And therefore, in so far as the order is of some temporary assistance to the independent contractors at present, I would merely say, "Thank you for small mercies", but will look continually at the increasing difficulties which the independent sector will face as we diversify into new fields and as, in other words, we dilute the possible revenue that can come forward from advertisers to support this very important part of our public service broadcasting.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in thanking noble Lords for their reception of the order, I can explain the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, expressed by saying that this works not unlike income tax. By increasing the exempt income of the companies, we are not drawing more money from them and any company would have to increase its advertising revenue by a greater amount than the amount by which the free slice has been increased before it started to pay more, and of course it would be paying it on a larger income. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his kind remarks and I hope that his break fast Hansard will have the effect of confirming his opinion of the lucidity of my explanation. If it does not, he has only to write to me.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ECC 15th Report: Natural Gas
4.8 p.m.
Lord Kings Norton Lord Kings Norton rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Natural Gas (15th Report, 1981–82, H.L. 190).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the report before the House stems from two communications received from the Commission. The earlier of these is a particularly useful document analysing the role of natural gas in the Community's energy supply. It points out the growing importance of imports of gas from outside the Community and discusses the difficulties which are consequently emerging. It particularly identifies the problem areas of security of supply and the prices paid to producers. This paper was considered by the Council of Energy Ministers in October 1981 and they asked the Commission to study the question further.
The first result of their further work is the second Commission document, in which possible ways of improving security of supply are discussed. They were, of course, studied in some detail in the inquiry conducted by Sub-Committee F of the Select Committee. The sub-committee includes a number of noble Lords with special knowledge of the problems of gas and oil production, and one of them, the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, will be making his maiden speech this afternoon. Knowing as I do the contribution that he makes to the work of the sub-committee, I look forward with more than usual interest to what he has to say.
The inquiry was spread over six meetings in the first half of this year, during which written evidence was received from a number of organisations. Representatives of several of these, including the Department of Energy, British Gas, Shell, BP, Elf Aquitaine, and Phillips Petroleum, gave oral evidence. I believe that the resulting report is a straightforward document, and that in introducing it I need do little more than indicate its scope and conclusions.
About one quarter of the energy demands of the Community is supplied by natural gas. The Community is however very far from self-sufficient, and needs substantial imports. Two Community countries are at present more conveniently situated than the rest. One is the Netherlands, which can supply its own needs: the other is the United Kingdom. Of our energy demands, 22.8 per cent. is met by gas, and of this gas, 76½ per cent. is from indigenous production. The rest comes from the Norwegian share of the Frigg field.
In the United Kingdom, we have, in consequence, little need to worry about security of supply for some time to come. We have substantial reserves on the United Kingdom continental shelf, and the Norwegian reserves can reasonably be expected to remain a secure source. The problems lie in the longer term. What, for example, when natural gas reserves available to us begin to decline, is the right balance between pipeline imports, imports of liquefied natural gas, and the manufacture of substitute natural gas from oil or coal? And what should be our contribution to the security of supply to the Community as a whole? Those problems

243
are bound to come. The question that comprehends them all is, when? The answer to that is the size and accessibility of the reserves on the continental shelves of the United Kingdom and its firm friends.
The importance of accurate forecasting of reserves is therefore obvious. Most of the witnesses examined in our inquiry believed that the reserves lie in the range 40 to 60 trillion cubic feet, but the Phillips Petroleum witnesses gave a much higher estimate, in the region of 110 to 130 trillion cubic feet. The higher figures would, if correct, ensure United Kingdom gas supplies until about the year 2020. The lower figures, however, would mean that sufficient gas from our own sources and from Norwegian imports at about the present level would be unlikely to last us beyond the end of the century, which, from the viewpoint of making and implementing a secure policy, is not all that far away.
Considerations such as these, elaborated as they are in the report, lead to the first, and perhaps the most important, of the report's formal conclusions, which is that more precise knowledge about the extent of natural gas reserves is essential and can be obtained only by increased exploration drilling. Exploration drilling should, therefore, be encouraged.
The form that this encouragement might take is discussed in Part II of the report. The possibility of funding exploration drilling at national or Community level is canvassed. Another suggestion is that the United Kingdom Government might offer for licensing such new acreage as would assist in the evaluation of reserves. Another, summarised in our second conclusion, is that in awarding new licences the Government should give more weight to the contributions to improving knowledge of gas reserves made by drilling on existing licences. We conclude also that disincentives to "farm out" activity should be eliminated, and I hope that in his speech the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, will discuss this somewhat technical point.
I mentioned a few minutes ago the possibility of the United Kingdom contributing to the European gas demand. This is discussed in Part III of the report, and while your Lordships' Committee counsels prudence, it believes that the United Kingdom Government should consider whether, and when, exports of natural gas to the Community would be justified. Obviously that conclusion, utterly dependent as it is on the forecasts of reserves and the progress of developments in substitute natural gas manufacture, introduces the notion of a cross-channel pipeline. Noble Lords will have gathered from the first paragraph of Part IV of the report that a mere cross-channel pipeline did not appear likely to attract finance from commercial, national, or Community funds, but from later paragraphs, that a more promising possibility is a Norway—United Kingdom cross-channel pipeline.
Here the basic idea is the connection of the large Norwegian gas fields via the United Kingdom and its fields to the continental gas grid. Certainly the Norwegian producers might prefer—they might prefer—to reach the continental grid by some other route, such as via Sweden, but the overland United Kingdom route is likely to be the cheapest. Your Lordships' Committee believes that it should be United Kingdom policy to encourage the construction
244
of such pipelines. It would be to the advantage of Norway commercially; it would be to the advantage of the United Kingdom in the long term when our own indigenous supplies are diminishing; it would be to the advantage of the Community, even when the present Soviet supplies are augmented by the Siberian pipeline, in that both available volume and security of supply would be increased. Indeed the encouragement of diversity of supply to the Community is one of the report's formal recommendations.
In Part V of the report the long term alternatives to United Kingdom indigenous natural gas supply are discussed. Witnesses generally agreed that pipeline imports should be the first option. An appropriate pipeline system could make available to us not only Norwegian gas, but supplies entering the continental grid from the USSR and Algeria. Beyond a critical distance, at present not accurately quantified, it is more economic to import liquefied natural gas in tankers than to pipe it. The other possibility, which I have already mentioned, is gas synthesised from oil or coal. At current prices this is certainly not economic but, with the vast coal reserves of the United Kingdom and West Germany, it is clearly a possibility always to be envisaged, and it is satisfactory to know that the European Commission supports research and development in SNG manufacture, and that the British Gas Corporation has a pilot SNG plant operating, financed partly by the EEC. With the long term future in mind, therefore, your Lordships' Committee recommends that both the Commission and Her Majesty's Government should regularly review the need for, and the timing of, LNG imports and SNG manufacture.
My Lords, I have nearly done. I have dealt briefly with all the conclusions of the report, except two. One of these is that the free play of market forces provides the best defence against unreasonable price demands. The other is concerned with gas storage. The Commission documents recommend the development of gas storage facilities as one insurance against interruption of supply. The British Gas Corporation already have storage for liquefied natural gas and salt cavity storage for natural gas. They are also developing the use of depleted gas reservoirs for storage. They view these arrangements, however, as an insurance against interruptions in supply, and as ways of meeting peak demand. They see no case for strategic storage. In this your Committee agree, and have reported accordingly.
My Lords, that is a brief review of the report on natural gas which is before the House. Your committee consider that it raises important issues of policy and principle, and we shall he interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, the views of Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether the committee formed any opinion about converting natural gas into methanol in order to transport it, rather than to transport liquefied natural gas?
Lord Kings Norton: My Lords, I must confess to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that we did not consider that possibility, but it is one which, now he has mentioned it. I will bring before the committee.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of

245
the European Communities Committee on Natural Gas (15th Report, 1981–82, H.L. 190).—(Lord Kings Norton.)
4.22 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, for initiating this debate, and I think it is appropriate, as I am sure the House will agree, that he should do so as the noble Lord is, as the House knows, the distinguished chairman of Sub-Committee F, which has produced this thorough and far-reaching report. I should like to congratulate him, if I may, on the clear and concise way in which he has introduced this complicated subject.
Of course, the subject is also an important one, as he has said, since, as the Commission's documents make clear, natural gas meets around a quarter of the Community's domestic, commercial and industrial market. The Commission recommends that in view of the rapid growth of imports from outside the Community, including imports from the USSR, future supplies should be secured, and indeed improved, by encouraging, in particular, more indigenous production in Community countries. The United Kingdom has, as we know, substantial reserves of natural gas on the United Kingdom continental shelf, and there are also substantial Netherlands and Norwegian reserves, as the noble Lord said.
As the report makes clear, the problem lies in the longer-term. When natural gas reserves begin to decline, there must be a balance struck between imports by pipeline, imports of liquefied natural gas and the development of substitute natural gas from coal and oil. One of the difficulties seems to be, as the report points out, that there is by no means full agreement on how long the United Kingdom's reserves are likely to last—and this was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. The most pessimistic forecasts estimate until about the year 2000, while the more optimistic predict another 20 years on—until, say, 2020. The most optimistic prediction of all, from Phillips Petroleum, one of the leading oil companies, concludes that the United Kingdom's needs could be satisfied until the middle of the next century. The only way to prove which is right among these various "guesstimates" is surely to have more drillings of both exploration and appraisal wells. The report suggests various ways in which this can be done.
The committee has also proposed that more weight should be given in future, when awarding new licences, to the contribution made by drilling work on existing licences to any knowledge of the gas reserves in the area concerned. This, I think, is a very important point which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will be able to comment on when he comes to reply. I should like to ask the noble Lord also to tell the House when he replies how the Government propose to encourage more drilling, and whether they think that the recent legislation has had any effect, or whether the onerous tax regime is proving more of a disincentive. Can the noble Lord let the House have some idea of Government policy, if it exists, on long-term export commitments when knowledge of the extent of our reserves is so hazy and apparently dependent on a fog
246
of conjecture? Here, the committee comes down firmly on the side of prudence, against the advocates of free market forces. Will the Government tell the House where they stand?
The committee's report considers the possibility of a cross-channel pipeline to bring the gas from the large Norwegian reserves due to come on stream in the 1990s to the European continental grid via the United Kingdom. This, I think, is a very interesting point, which was also alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. Some of this gas could be delivered en route to the United Kingdom's grid. It is thought that an overland United Kingdom route might be cheaper than the seabed alternative. The committee concludes that such a pipeline would be an advantage to this country and also to our Community partners, and that it would improve Europe's security of supply in general, as this surely can only be increased by such a diversification of sources. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will be able to tell the House what the Government think of this proposal.
Whatever the timespan for our reserves of natural gas, not even the wildest optimist would predict that these will last beyond the middle of the next century—a mere lifetime away for a 1980s child. Let us hope that one day substitute natural gas, SNG, which can be synthesised through coal and oil, will be available to meet some of our everyday energy needs. The European Commission support research and development in this field, and I believe the British Gas Corporation have a pilot plant in Scotland which is part of the EEC research programme. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, when the Government think that SNG will become commercially viable, and what are their long-term plans for large-scale production.
There are several other matters which I should have liked to allude to, but I think there is no time available. These would have been particularly liquefied natural gas, its import and storage; but I know that many other noble Lords have their names down to speak, and we are also looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington. In conclusion, therefore, may I say that we are grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this report, and I commend it to the House.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I want to echo the remarks which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. It has been a privilege to serve on his committee and to be part of this really excellent report. I think the staff who helped prepare it deserve considerable congratulation on the way it is presented and on the way it can be read. I think that the speeches will be extremely short, because virtually everything we should like to say has almost certainly been said rather better in the report which is before us. I should like also to say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, because he made some very high-quality contributions to the subcommittee, and I look forward particularly to hearing what he is going to say to us in this debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has said, the report raises a number of questions for which Her

247
Majesty's Government should have some answers, or at least they should be in a position to indicate, at the same time perhaps, the longer-term thinking of the Department of Energy and the right honourable Minister concerned. But, for me, there is one question which the evidence in the report answers, which is the so-called energy crisis of resources. So far as gas is concerned, for me it appears to be over.
We have much more time to work out our policy than was thought two or three years ago. I feel that it is very important that we use this time wisely to present policies, not only for this country but for the whole Community, in order that gas supplies remain stable as do their prices for the next 30 years. The sources of gas supply, whether they are to be found under the land or under the sea, whether they are liquefied natural gas or substitute natural gas, are there to a certain degree in abundance. The only question that remains is that of the price to the consumers. This, of course, in turn, must depend upon the cost of production and delivery. Therefore, if I may paraphrase, supply stability must equal price stability. That, to me, is what should be the objective not only of Her Majesty's Government but of the Governments of the EEC in their future thinking about gas and its position in the energy programmes.
The only problem with the EEC is that they have a different approach, in that they are mainly importers of natural gas, whereas we in this country are in the fortunate position of having our own reserves. Therefore, the EEC may approach the subject from a different angle: although, basically, I do not think so.
The problem of forecasting has been mentioned. If I may put it in gambling parlance, you either go for the low field or for the high field on the estimates that have so far been given. The only way that we can get nearer to the truth of the matter is by a rapidly increased programme of exploration—and the incentives put forward in the Oil and Gas Bill are perhaps a start. The question is whether they are going to activate further exploration at a level and a rate which can give us some of the answers upon which to formulate an energy policy for the future.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, if he would ever consider incentives to smaller, independent owners of land actually to dig for gas—if that is the right expression—at a low level. This has proved a very successful policy in the United States; and it need not necessarily be very expensive for a riparian owner to conduct his own search for natural gas on his own property. This may be a wasteful and expensive matter for the individual concerned but I should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government would consider at any time giving incentives for riparian owners to do their own research at their own cost.
To return to forecasting, if we reach the high-field option or if the indications show that the Phillips Petroleum estimates may be more correct and are deliverable, then I believe that there is a case for the United Kingdom to consider exports to the Community. If, on the other hand, the increased exploration indicates a low field, then perhaps we might have to reconsider the matter of exports. My own guess, for what it is worth, is that the figures
248
contained in the high-field estimate show that the high level table may prove more correct than the more cautious estimates. In that case, I think that a pipeline network in the United Kingdom, including a cross-Channel link to look after the transport of the gas from the large Norwegian fields, is something we on these Benches fully support.
There is one matter which has already been touched on briefly. It is the Siberian pipeline, which will prove to become the biggest single supplier in Europe apart from Norway. Again, if I may go hack to the paraphrase of supply stability equals price stability, the diversity and continuity of supply for the Community must be at the forefront of any energy policy for the Community itself. I think it has been embarrassing to those of us connected with the subject of energy to see the efforts the United States Government have made to dissuade manufacturers from taking any part in this programme, and its quite considerable efforts to block this project in the form of technology. It could also be a costly policy to the Community, if it was successful, in the sense that it would create unemployment and would also create difficulties for those American subsidiary companies operating in Europe.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, if he can give reassurance on the Government's position here to those companies that have been involved with the supply of technical apparatus for this pipeline. I believe that there are legal problems connected with this, and I think that some clarification would be helpful—as much for the reassurance of employment in France and Scotland as for those companies which are directly connected with the supply of gas equipment. When all is said and done, gas is not a very complicated item to supply. This technology ban would only make it a more inefficient supply; it would not stop it. A number of Press reports have indicated that, if the Americans were to effect a proper embargo on this technology, then the Siberian gas pipeline deliveries would be unable to go ahead. I am informed that that is not so. They may not be able to produce gas as efficiently as they would with this special turbine equipment; but it would not stop it.
Again a matter of principle is involved here. I do not want to widen the question into foreign policy or to deal with Poland. It is a question of a fair price for gas for the future of all in Europe. I believe that the Siberian gas contribution (which will amount to 22 per cent. of the European uptake) will go a long way to stabilising gas prices for the citizens of the EEC. I do not think it is any business of the United States to interfere with this policy, for whatever reason they may give. I cannot see the logic of it either, in the sense that they appear quite happy to export grain, possibly to feed the workers who are actually building the Siberian pipeline itself.
I do not want to enter into the wider context of this, but it raises a matter of principle which I think that we in Europe could do without at the moment. We wish to maintain the friendly and harmonious relationship with the United States on which the whole security of the Western Alliance depends. I think that this has been a silly, misguided policy which is creating unnecessary misunderstanding and certainly a lot of doubt about the long term future of Scottish employment, as well as unnecessary frustration for those of us

249
who are trying to involve any government which is part of the Community in a sensible energy policy for Europe. I hope that the Government, without affecting in any way our friendly relationship with the United States, will make their position more firmly felt than they have done to date, in that perhaps this matter can be dropped and the Community can plan its gas supplies rather on the lines that have been suggested in this report, without any disturbance for political reasons from our allies.
4.39 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lords, Lord Kings Norton and Lord Tanlaw, for their introductory remarks. I had thought to open by saving that natural gas seemed a very appropriate subject for a maiden speech; but I think that that perhaps would be to treat it with undue levity. The benefits of natural gas now reach into a vast number of homes and commercial enterprises throughout this country. If we are going to continue to enjoy those benefits beyond the year 2000, we must take a number of important decisions in the relatively near future. I must declare an interest in this subject in that, outside this House, I am a director of a small gas and exploration company.
As a number of speakers have already said, and I agree, the most interesting aspect of the report is the very wide diversity of views over the ultimately recoverable reserves of gas from the United Kingdom continental shell. As has been said, we will only ascertain the truth by drilling a very large number of exploration wells. In order that the industry can raise the capital to drill those wells two important aspects need to fall into place. The first is that the industry should he permitted to make the best possible use of the very small supply of prospective exploration acreage; and the second is that a market should exist so that when an explorer makes a discovery he knows that he may sell his gas.
The raw material of the exploration industry is of course the exploration acreage and I must welcome, obviously, the decision of the Government to award new licences in the southern gas basin in the forthcoming licensing round. But in many ways we must be more concerned as time goes on with what I call secondhand exploration acreage. A great deal of prospective exploration acreage is now held by companies who have fulfilled their initial drilling obligations and whose original geological concepts have been shot down. The companies at the end of a primary term of a licence have to give up half the area and they give up the least interesting area.
But, at the same time, they find it difficult to persuade their managements to make additional drilling expenditures. Waiting on the sidelines of course there are a number of companies with different geological concepts of a given piece of acreage and the funds to pursue their ideas. This is in effect the traditional basis for a farm out where he who has the acreage gets together with he who has the funds and the new idea and together they pool their interests and drill another well and possibly make another discovery.
However, it is my impression that the Department of Energy in the past has not welcomed farm out
250
arrangements, possibly because they have tended to put a value on acreage which was handed out by the Government originally effectively for free. At the same time, the Inland Revenue has in a number of cases endeavoured to recognise this value and seek to charge a capital gain on he who is farming out the acreage. I am not aware that they have successfully recouped any tax on this basis, but obviously it is a disincentive especially as in quite a large number of farm-outs no cash actually arises in anybody's hands with which to pay the tax.
Geologists are artists rather than scientists and the oil companies are their patrons. We must ensure that the very small supply of canvas is used to the maximum efficiency and that the bad pictures can be repainted. I certainly ask her Majesty's Government to consider easing and encouraging farm out activity.
The other important aspect that I mentioned was market, and a very prominent aspect of the market is price. I do not think that it is appropriate for me today to say very much about price except that the pricing policy of the British Gas Corporation during the latter half of the 70s resulted in virtually no exploration activity at all. I hope that we are now about to see a change in that situation.
As to the market itself, which is what will give the security to the explorer, the United Kingdom is a closed market. Gas may come into it but it may not get out. The domestic explorer is therefore faced with the situation that if he brings a discovery on stream he may be trying to sell gas into a saturated market, either saturated by other discoveries or saturated by an over-commitment to Norwegian or Algerian LNG imports. At the same time, the Norwegians have recently discovered a number of very large potential fields in the northern North Sea which will be slow and very expensive to develop. They have to take careful decisions. They appear to be faced by two markets: one, which is nearer, is the United Kingdom; but, as I said, it is a closed market and from the Norwegian point of view the problem is exactly the same as for a British producer.
The European market is probably insatiable, although rather further away. Unless we take certain steps to encourage the Norwegians, I think that the bulk of Norwegian gas will go to Europe; but this need not be so. As another noble Lord has already said, the United Kingdom is a logical route for a grand trunk gas line. If such a gas line existed with the cross channel link, the Norwegians would be able to sell into the United Kingdom without the fear that perhaps domestic preference for a major, indigenous discovery will squeeze them out. The United Kingdom producer will be able to develop his field, knowing that if the market is saturated he will merely displace Norwegian gas which will travel on to Europe or (dare I say it?) maybe his gas will be exported. What is perhaps most important of all is that the United Kingdom consumer will have the bulk of the supplies of gas available to Western Europe passing through his back yard. That must be a very valuable aspect.
This is not really a European Community matter; it is more a matter for Westen Europe and we might still be having this debate if the EEC did not exist. It must he to the benefit of the whole of Western Europe that Britain is encouraged to find and develop its gas reserves to the maximum—and this is so for

251
Norway—so that ultimately the large anticipated imports of gas from Eastern Europe remain merely a useful palliative and not an addictive drug to Western Europe. My Lords, I commend the report to you.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, it is my good fortune immediately to follow my noble friend Lord Torrington and to congratulate him on his superb maiden speech. He has demonstrated in this speech his very powerful analytical mind, his great knowledge of the industry and the extraordinarily constructive comments that he always has to make on very complex subjects. I was one of the many on Lord Kings Norton's Sub-Committee F who learned a great deal from my noble friend Lord Torrington. It is customary to say on these occasions that we all hope that the maiden speaker will speak much more frequently in future. This is certainly the case with my noble friend. In this House I have noticed, as a sometime attender, that either the very young or the very old speak best, and those of us in the middle do not speak too well. I think my noble friend Lord Torrington, although no longer in the very first flush of youth, is one of the younger speakers whom we would like to hear very much more.
It was a great privilege to sit on Sub-Committee F under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. It was an interesting investigation, we had excellent witnesses and the documentation of the report which, as has been said, was so well put together, will provide a source book for many years to come on natural gas matters.
It is said in the beginning of the report—this is in paragraph 7—that gas reserves hold the key to policy making. I think the range of gas reserves in the North Sea is perhaps even wider than has been already mentioned. The firm reserves, the reserves that people are absolutely sure about, are about 25 trillion cubic feet. In the upper range, the possibility, which was the one mentioned by Phillips Petroleum, is 130 tell So the ratio between what is certain and what might be is six to one and that is a very wide variability.
It was generally agreed by the oil companies and the Department of Energy that the probable and possible reserves will ultimately turn out to be from between 50 tcf and 60 tcf. But to determine this figure will require a great deal of additional drilling. I should like to put into perspective the figures of 25 tcf which are the firm, indigenous reserves on the United Kingdom part of the North Sea shelf. They are about 1½ per cent. of known world reserves. Similarly, if further drilling proves right at 50 tcf, it will still be about per cent. of the probable world reserves. So although natural gas is so important to us, it is really a very small fraction of world resources, and as a lot of the gas which exists is in countries which have no specific use for it, we obviously should consider importing some of our needs in future years.
Why do we not know what is in the North Sea? The obvious answer: not enough drilling. Why did we not have enough drilling? I think the basic reason is that the fields found early were very large indeed and the British Gas Corporation was able in the 1960s and early 1970s to enter into contracts which ensured its needs for some 15 years ahead.
252
British Gas concentrated on premium outlets and were able to develop those premium outlets because they were able to offer advantageous prices to the customer. British Gas did not want to establish great quantities of new reserves. They felt that if they did so the demand to use up those reserves by the producers who had spent their money on exploration would be to degrade the end use of natural gas. In other words, instead of being reserved for premium uses, the gas would start being burned under boilers. This is what happened with the Gruningen gas from Holland, and I frankly think that the policy of the British Gas Corporation turned out to be the correct one for the country.
British Gas was able to develop this market because of its extraordinarily good service, because its price was right and because it did a brilliant job all round. It did an excellent job on transforming all domestic appliances to use natural gas, and the way it put up the equipment to handle the gas coming ashore was very well done. The land distribution of the natural gas was a major enterprise, again extraordinarily well done, and I think that the whole way in which British Gas tackled this wonderful new benefit to the country is deserving of the highest praise and credit.
The low prices which British Gas offered, by which they were able to take the market from electricity and other energy forms even at lower purchase prices—and it must be remembered that some of them were very low—were freely entered into at the time by the producers, and this gave British Gas great cash resources. They used these progressively to write off all their obsolescent plant; they used it to pay off their debts and they invested heavily and wisely. As my noble friend Lord Torrington has said, British Gas perhaps got a little complacent about the strength of their position and in the mid-1970s were not very popular in the North Sea. At the time, if I might declare an interest, the British National Oil Corporation had a 50 per cent. share in the Viking Gasfield and I struggled very very hard indeed to get a rather better price from British Gas for the supply. I had to do it from BNOC because our partners, Conoco, were so intimidated by the British Gas Corporation that they did not like to do the arguing themselves.
The British Gas position, as sole monopoly buyer, was extremely strong. I might mention that the price British Gas were paying in 1975–76 was as low as 2p per therm, or even less. Since 1976–77 there have been progressive increases. British Gas has been more accommodating to adjusting southern North Sea prices. They have had to pay a higher price for Frigg gas and for gas from the Brent field; so we have seen this progressive increase in the last few years in the price paid by British Gas. In the last financial year it was up to 10.5p per therm, which is five times what they were paying a few years earlier—still very low, but more satisfactory.
All the indications now are that British Gas is having to adapt to a new position. It coped very well with very wide seasonal demands: the difference between peak demand and the low summer demand is a factor of about four. British Gas renegotiated many of its contracts for the southern North Sea to cope with this to ensure that there was no hitch in supplies. But by now their comfortable position is going. Those

253
original contracts are coming to an end, some of the southern gas fields are becoming exhausted and more than half the gas has already gone. It realises that it is going to need new gas, certainly in the second half of the 980s—some figures put it as near as 1985 and others in 1988. But in only a few years from now British Gas will want fresh gas and this has altered its outlook on the price it is prepared to offer.
As my noble friend Lord Torrington said, price is a very keen component in the whole exploration and development scene and the latest news is that for the associated gas from the North Alwyn field it is prepared to offer something like 22p per therm. The gas which British Gas was expecting from the North Sea spinal pipeline has not matured because the pipeline has not been proceeded with. Brent gas will be rather late and I think it has been rather below expectations in quantity. So we are going to have a change from the picture of a satisfied buyer with adequate gas and strong contracts into one of a buyer which needs extra gas; and all the indications are that the British Gas Corporation will be coming close to what is now the accepted price for new gas in Europe, whether it is from Algeria, Tunisia or Russia, of round about 25p per therm. So I think the anxieties of the producers and explorers, which were very real indeed for most of the 1970s, will now be a thing of the past.
It is essential that the Government take steps, as outlined in the report, to make sure that more exploration is done. If we are going to get the extra gas we need, not just for the 1990s but even for the second half of this decade, exploration must take place now and development must be put in hand very shortly. I think the idea that the new Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act will greatly change the position of British Gas as a main buyer is not well founded. We did not find anyone in the witnesses from the oil companies who thought that being able to sell the gas directly to perhaps industrial consumers in this country would make any great difference. As my noble friend Lord Torrington said, selling into this closed market, the British Gas Corporation has an overwhelmingly dominant position. My own view is that with supplies of gas so uncertain this factor of six between what we know is there and what possibly might he there, and probably only a factor of two over what we know is there (and even that is dependent upon a great deal of exploration), does not really leave us with much room to export to the Continent, not if we are to safeguard our own position. If in fact some of the exploration produces major fields, then, as the report indicates, the Government could reconsider the position.
I have paid some compliments to British Gas, and I think rightly, because their contribution in making possible the development of the North Sea has been really quite amazing and they have finished up providing tremendous assets for the nation. At current prices, the British Gas balance sheet is about £10.5 billion. Their capital liabilities, which are normally regarded as equity capital, are under £400 million; and even offsetting the £400 million British Gas have £300 million on loan to the National Loan Fund. So to all intents and purposes this immense asset of £10.5 billion has been provided by British Gas by clever
254
commercial operations with no load on the taxpayer whatsoever. For the future I have fears that the Government will try to take too much out of the gas industry, as undoubtedly they are trying to take too much out of the oil industry at the present time. It seems reasonable, I suppose, when the Gas Corporation get into the position of lending the Government money that they should take the money from it directly: hence we have the gas levy, which was about £300 million last year and will probably be between £400 to £500 million in the current year.
However, when one looks at the figures of British Gas, one finds that their selling prices are now up to about 30p per therm, their buying price, plus the levy, is up to about 13p per therm and, if they have to pay—as they undoubtedly will have to pay—the going market European prices for the extra gas, which will be around 25p per therm, then the selling price for British gas, both to industry and to domestic consumers, will increase quite markedly over the next five or six years. It is most important that we do not get into a position where British industry is penalised by paying more for gas than its industrial competitors in Europe.
I think that the Government have fairly asked British Gas whether the operating costs, which in the last year's accounts are 16.5p per therm, can he reduced. But if they cannot he reduced, then any further loading of taxation or levy on the British Gas Corporation will make the position both of the domestic consumer and of the industrial consumer of this country very much worse. I think that we must do everything we can to encourage more gas production. Our taxation system is already too onerous on the producer, and we must not make the parallel mistake of making the taxation system too onerous on British Gas.
The report brings out that there is a great deal of natural gas in the world, and your Lordships will probably have gathered that I believe, as the report states, that British Gas should keep their options open when it comes to the importation of natural gas from other sources. It makes great sense to have this trunk pipeline from Norway, through the United Kingdom, across the Channel and into the Continent. We shall require a great deal of nursing to get this done. Our relationships with the Norwegians on previous negotiations have not been too happy. Maybe we were asking too much: maybe they got suspicious of us. But the fact remains that there are fences to mend there. Although there is a great deal of gas in Norwegian waters, it is not thought that it will be either very easy or cheap to extract and to get the full benefit of North Sea reserves in Norwegian waters passing through this country and on the Continent is going to take at least 10 years, as I think most experts would agree, and a great deal of money. Therefore, if we are to have our share in the 1990s we must get negotiations starting now.
With regard to substitute natural gas from coal, I think that this is for the very distant future. Even the evidence from the Coal Board put it in the decade 2000 to 2010, and even that is probably optimistic. When one thinks also that, to provide even half the present natural gas that we are using from the North Sea by substitute natural gas would take 40 million to 50 million tonnes of coal, it does not seem to be an

255
extremely sensible thing to base our future gas supplies on gasifying coal. It would be much better to scour the world to see what other supplies of natural gas we can import or, even more importantly, do everything possible, as outlined in the report, to get more exploration of the North Sea to make certain that our own reserves are established at a firm figure as soon as possible.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I have had the privilege of being a member of the sub-committee which produced the draft of this report and I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, for the admirable way in which he introduced it in this debate today. I declare an interest, as I have in the past, as having worked during the last seven years for an oil company which is the operator of one of the largest fields producing oil in the North Sea at present. I am very glad to be following the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, because I am well aware of the great achievements which he made as the first chairman of the BNOC, which was a partner in the consortium for the field which I have just described.
We have had the pleasure of listening to an outstanding maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Torrington and I congratulate him upon it. He can speak to us with great knowledge and experience from his position as a director of a company that is engaged in exploring for oil and gas. He said that geologists are artists, rather than scientists. He was certainly an artist today, with his brush painting the picture of farming out acreage in the North Sea. I know that we all look forward to hearing him many times in this House in the future.
Already speakers have pointed out that there is a very wide range in the estimates of the remaining gas in the United Kingdom's sector of the North Sea. If one takes the minimum figure which the Department of Energy puts forward, and compares that with the maximum which the Phillips Company puts forward, the difference is enormous. I think we all agree that we need more knowledge, not only in order to evolve a policy for natural gas for our country, and also for Europe, but because it is basic to an informed policy on energy as a whole for this country. The question is: What are the best methods of finding out more information about our reserves?
Hitherto, after the 1960s, there was little incentive for the companies to explore for gas; the gas had already been discovered in the basin off East Anglia. Companies were naturally attracted in the early 'seventies and onwards to finding oil further north, which led to the discovery and the development of the major oilfields east of Shetland. Those were, indeed, successful discoveries, because our self-sufficiency today depends to a great extent upon the oil flowing from those fields. But because the companies felt that it was not worth while or economic to find and produce more gas in those days, we have not gained as much knowledge, or as much gas, as we could have done.
Of course, associated gas has been produced with the oil in oilfields and that will, no doubt continue. The point about that is that, in most cases, the gas has to be produced at the same time as the oil, if one is to get the oil. It has been important to make sure that as
256
much gas as possible was saved, either by being used on the platforms for power, or by being pumped back into reserves in the sea, and not simply flared. Those operations will still be necessary, but new, deliberate searches for gas are now required. I believe that the Government are aiming to encourage this—certainly, their new legislation appears to have that as an objective—and, for various reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, said, prices are likely in future more to reflect the costs of producing natural gas from the North Sea.
As regards the recommendations in the report, I should first like to turn to licensing. There are many factors to be considered when a Government are awarding licences to applicants. But I believe that the recommendation in the report should be taken very seriously; that is, examination of the extent to which companies have in the past gone out of their way to try to find gas. That mentions a past contribution, but I suggest that it should not be exclusive; after all, some companies have not had the opportunity to seek for gas in the past. So that recommendation should not be carried out in a kind of rough justice way. To some extent, it has been a matter of chance. So I should like to add a footnote to that recommendation, and say that Government should consider the general performance in the past of companies, and the likelihood in the future of their being able to add to knowledge, from the programmes which they are putting forward, of our reserves of natural gas. So it is also the contribution which can be made and is to be made by companies, as well as their past performance, which should be considered.
I now turn to taxation, which is mentioned in paragraph 10 of the report. As the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, indicated, the North Sea tax regime has become oppressive so far as oil is concerned and it is now. I believe, a deterrent to development plans. This is not the only factor which deters companies but it is one which the Government can control. Most of the other factors are not within their power.
Of course, it is not exploration that is as seriously affected by the tax régime as decisions on development. It can be pointed out that there are applicants who come forward, apparently eagerly, at succeeding rounds of licence awards, and that will no doubt continue. But it is the later development decisions which are very much more expensive and which indeed involve huge quantities of money. Exploration is expensive but it is small compared with the amounts of money involved when a field has been discovered and decisions have to be taken about development. The lead times for both oil and gas are very long. In order to ensure the supplies which the Government and the country will expect in the 1990s, decisions on the development of fields need to be taken in the near future and not delayed. The fields on which these decisions will be taken are, on average, going to be considerably smaller than the ones which have been found and developed in the past. Most of the large fields in the North Sea have been discovered.
Another point is that the supporting industries, especially the platform building companies, are finding themselves without work while development decisions are being delayed. They may dwindle, and later we might have to go to foreign suppliers because our own industries have declined.

257
As I have said, I do not expect the applications for exploration to be much affected by the oil tax régime. It is the very important development decisions concerning our future supplies to which I draw attention. I urge the Government to re-examine very seriously the effects of the North Sea tax régime with their eyes on the 1990s and the quantities of both gas and oil which we ought to be producing in those years. I am not suggesting that there should be massive expansion. I am simply considering self-sufficiency in those years. But decisions will need to be taken now in order to ensure supplies.
I come to the pipeline which has been suggested in the report: a pipeline for gas from the Norwegian sector to the United Kingdom and then another pipeline, which would be part of the scheme, from Britain to the Continent. It looks as though this scheme will be needed. It will provide flexibility of supplies and it will enable the price mechanism to operate. As other speakers have pointed out, this seemed to the Committee to be desirable and necessary in the future, but it will take some years to bring to fruition. It seems that recently gas pipelines have been bedevilled with difficulties. I refer to the gas gathering line which eventually did not come about and also to the Siberian pipeline. But in this case I suggest that the pipeline must be so clearly advantageous to all concerned that there should be no difficulty about the financing of it, whether from private sources or public, or a combination of both. Those decisions, however, must clearly be taken before the pipeline scheme is embarked upon. As regards this pipeline, I do not think there would he any difficulties about the strategic side.
With those comments, adding to the recommendations of the report which I fully support, again I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, on introducing this debate.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, from this side of the House, I should like to join in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, upon his informed speech. I hope that we shall have many more opportunities of listening to him. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and his expert team upon this splendid report which I have read, including that part where the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, expressed his doubts about the marginal development of gas from coal.
I shall not detain the House for very long, because there are speakers yet to be heard with much more expertise than I have. However, I have a number of points to make. What has to be remembered is that the onshore infrastructure for the supply of gas from our indigenous offshore supplies was completed—and suprised us all—in the mid 1970s. It was a massive job, and it has proved effective. It proved so reliable that the demand for gas from industry as well as from domestic users almost outstripped supply. This was because of the excellent pipeline communications. To meet this demand the industry planned to increase capital spending from £300 million per annum in the current year, to about £400 million in 1983. It would be absolutely foolish of the Government to cut down
258
on that capital development. I am not going to discuss whether private or public enterprise should be involved. However, if Britain is to be less moribund than it is at the moment, it is vitally important that our sources of energy should be co-ordinated.
This gas industry—it is God's gift to us, together with oil—is not being exploited and organised as it should be. Lack of capacity to meet today's demand for gas has placed a restraint on the industry's freedom to set prices. This is a political area. There must be a reasonable price, whether it be public or private enterprise. A private entrepreneur must get his price per therm for the gas which will allow for development. We want reasonable exploration and a reasonable rate of profit for those who are courageous enough to enter this difficult area. As I have already said, the demand for gas has placed a restraint upon the industry's freedom to set prices. The public do not seem to be aware, although I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, who mentioned it in his speech that the Gas Council did a magnificent job. They capitalised the expenditure programme with no recourse to national funds. This was an achievement in itself, proving that public enterprise has done a good job.
Let me turn to Cmnd. 1978/7049 and Cmnd. 1979/7439. Without boring the House with the details, what do we find? In 1978–79 there was a drop in the estimates of capital expenditure by 50, in the following year by 149, and in the next year by 188. Then it crept up a little to 100 in 1981–82, because there was supposed to he a re-phasing of major transmission projects. The steel industry is of paramount importance to the gas industry, because it will supply the pipelines. What is the good of discovering gas in Morecambe Bay and the Irish Sea unless one can guarantee that British Steel will provide the pipes? We should not forget that President Reagan threatened not to provide steel for the transmission of gas from Siberia. We do not want to be in the hands of a Reagan or anybody else.
We want our British steel industry to be kept alive, and if this Goverment had courage they would take the opportunity now of seeing that South Wales and other steel areas get cracking on producing. Once you lose good steel labour it is like losing miners, and the young ones will not come into it. Not any Tom, Dick or Harry can cut coal at the face; it is nothing like a factory. Once you lose these men and their strength (and, God forbid, they are good for Rugby only until they are 25, and then they are finished, with pneumoconiosis) it is very difficult to get the training undertaken for coal cutting. It is exactly the same in the steel industry. Although we are discussing gas, we are also discussing gas pipelines for communication, and the Government must be alerted to this point.
Domestic, industrial and commercial consumers need as much energy as we can get. This Government's job—because they now have the job of running the country and I do not want to make any party politics out of this—is to get down to co-ordinating energy supplies. Do not let us forget that ruthless competition could be a drag on the co-ordination of energy supplies; competition, yes—but do not let us get ruthless about it.
Finally I should like to ask what progress is being made with the Morecambe Bay sites in the Irish Sea.

259
We have heard very little about this although it is in the report. Will the Government act on the expertise which has been presented by the assiduous progress of the noble Lords who sat for weeks to produce this report? Something should be done with this report. One other point; it is important to develop new resources and technology. I remember that on a visit to China I learned that the Chinese were trying fluidised combustion, which they had just heard about, and the liquefaction of coal. I am not qualified enough to get an in-depth argument going on that point but, from my reading and discussions, a coal-based natural gas is now already beyond the experimental stage. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, who is well informed, thinks that this is so far beyond the experimental stage that it is nevertheless worth dealing with that side of producing gas.
My final point—and it is not a crack at the noble Lord the chairman—is that I have here a little book of initials and what they mean. I paid a lot of money for it. It states:
"This is a guide to initials, acronyms and abbreviations designed to soothe the temper of everyone who suffers from the current worldwide initial mania".
In the name of the Lord above, I was on a committee to which I suggested that on the first page of its report we put a list of the abbreviations so that when Lord Davies of Leek looked at SNG or ABC and has forgotten from three pages previous what those initials stood for, he could turn to the list and find the meaning. That is a bit of a jocular remark but to a student of these problems and to men who are busy, it would be time-saving and good for the English language.
5.24 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I wonder if I shall ever listen to a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, when he does not refer to acronyms. Of course, one starts one's contribution to this debate by joining with other noble Lords in their accolades to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Torrington. It was a very well-informed speech: clear, precise, instructive. It so happens that we got him interested in the sub-committee as a result of my meeting with him at a dinner, when I asked him, "Why not come and test the temperature and see how you like it for one morning a week, with two or three hours' reading a week?" He came and we on Sub-Committee F were all enchanted and instructed by his contributions. He has now gone a stage further and taken the temperature of the House itself. This is clearly welcome to us all and there is no doubt of the sincerity of successive speakers' conventional assurances that they look forward to hearing him again.
I should disclose an interest in that I too am connected with a company that gave evidence to the committee. But nothing I have to say now has come out of my office nor from any kind of briefing they have given me. I always feel overwhelmed in these energy debates by the expertise of those who have gone before and those who threaten to come after. One is comforted by sitting for week after week under the distinguished and genial chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and in company which is always stimulating.
260
Most of the things I wanted to say have been said already but, to abbreviate a little, the short point of our report is that both Britain and the EEC will need a lot more gas than they at present know where to find—and it will certainly he needed if the famous upturn in the economy ever comes about. In our consumption in this country of about 50 billion cubic metres per year, we have to import one-third from Norway. The EEC, consuming five or six times as much as Britain, will face a yearly shortfall greater by about half than our total annual consumption—and that even when they have supplies from the Soviet Union. As has already been said, the difficulty is that nobody really knows where further gas is to be found nor indeed whether the Phillips estimates make sense or not.
The first question that arises is, what about the gas in the Norwegian sector south of the 62nd parallel? There are not less than 500 billion cubic metres there and north of the 62nd parallel there may be anything up to 3,000 billion cubic metres, although the safe guess is about half that. It will he difficult to get—costly in deep water and stormy seas and, moreover, there is oil beneath the gas which the Norwegians will naturally want to take out first. There are two big Norwegian fields in production now, Frigg and Ekofisk, and shortly there will be gas from Statfjord and Sleipner for which it is worth bearing in mind that BGC are now in sharp competition with European consumers to obtain an adequate share. The bargaining is, of course, about price.
How does one discover more gas? The answer revolves around gas price on the one hand and fiscal disincentives on the other. We know that as a monopoly BGC did pretty good business for itself and paid chickenfeed for the gas supplies available from the British side of the continental shelf. Then they had to go to Norway and pay a great deal more, as the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, has reminded us. Until the Government agree in principle to the export of gas found on the British side of the shelf there will be no free market such as was adumbrated in the recent legislation. Until that happens the price of gas cannot rise to its natural level and therefore provide the price incentive for exploration and development that is needed.
Although the Government are now inviting applications for new exploration licences—and in the Southern gas basin in particular—this is no guarantee that gas will be found. Nor is it any guarantee that if gas is found, those who find it will feel it is worth while developing it. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed out, there is a big difference between the cost of exploration with a wildcat well and the actual development of a field. One is going to cost up to £50 million or so, but a field may cost more than £1,000 million. No wonder companies are hesitant about going for the development of a field even when they know pretty well what is there.
The Government are busy putting out—I call it propaganda—information from the press department of the Department of Energy that things are going very well, that no fewer than three big field developments are under way now or in early prospect. Well, at least two of them—and I speak with knowledge of one—could have been under way 18 months ago but for the extraordinary and almighty confusion which

261
subsisted in the Department of Energy focussing on the gas gathering pipeline. If ever a department has missed the bus I am afraid that is true of the Department of Energy. It reminds me of Rossini's words:
"Look in my face. My name is 'might have been'; I am also called 'no more', 'too late', 'farewell'."
Of course, but for the violent fiscal disincentives to which the Government continue to be deaf and blind (despite arguments for months all over the country from economists, from businessmen, from oilmen, from gasmen, from investors)—I say, but for those disincentives, to which the Government are blind and deaf, there are certainly smaller fields which could now be on the way to development.
We read in today's paper that the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association are still deadlocked in their talks with the Treasury: those talks have been going on half the year. One can imagine the sort of wisecracks that these weary people must toss at one another: if we are to continue advance PRT, "give me today and take tomorrow". One pictures the exhausted negotiating team emerging from their long talks with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue wringing their hands and saying, "no use planting boiled potatoes; no use pumping a dry well".
As to getting the gas ashore, the scheme for what has been called a gas land-bridge pipeline has already been well spoken of in this debate, and it is a particularly important recommendation in the Committee's report. But one or two points about it have not yet been made. Such a pipe ought to cheapen the transport of Norwegian gas from the northern areas of Norway down to continental Europe. Secondly, it ought to enable the British Gas Corporation, as a result, to offer a more competitive price to the Norwegians when the time comes. Finally, it should eventually facilitate the inward movement of Algerian gas from across the Continent.
But there has been no sign, overtly at any rate, that the Government are much interested in this idea—rather the contrary. The word that one gets in talking to people in Whitehall is that if this or that private enterprise company cared to launch the idea and put up the money, HMG would not stand in their way—not much at any rate—and might even allow a tax concession here and there to help it on. This was the trouble about the ill-fated gas-gathering pipeline scheme. Private enterprise was expected to fund this public utility, earning a return at public utility rates without a Government guarantee. Without a Government guarantee there never can be a public utility of this sort funded by private enterprise, so far as I can see. In all these matters I am reminded of a useful phrase which appeared in yesterday's London Times:
"In the administration of inertia, Britain has led the world".
These energy debates always produce interesting questions, and I believe there would be more energy debates and certainly more energy questions at Question time if we had the good fortune to have the noble Lord who is going to reply as in fact a Minister of the department concerned. This is no criticism of him at all. We know him, we like him, he is assiduous in his studies, he never misses an opportunity of trying to learn more about energy, he has a bright and sharp
262
intellect and a ready wit as well. But he is not a Minister of the department, and because of that I am afraid we have to expect—I say it in the nicest possible way; I hope he will treat me as a friend afterwards—little more than a dose of passionate apathy. We could wish that the apathy, when it does come, would be a hit more authoritative.
There are more than 80 Ministers in the Government but not more than a dozen in this House. This is an opportunity to say, once again in the nicest possible way as I always do, that if the Prime Minister does not take the House of Lords more seriously and substantiate the familiar lipservice which is paid to a bicameral legislature, then the Government are likely to face more defeats in this House than they have had already. This is said in the most gentle and friendly way to my colleagues on the Front Bench, and I do not want to labour the point unduly and spoil the moderate temperature of this debate. But of course a dose of indignation does do one good.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Hinton of Bankside: My Lords, I must immediately apologise for the fact that I was not able to be in the House when the debate was opened. I shall certainly read the speeches that were given then, and particularly I shall read with interest the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington.
When I try to study the problems of supply and demand in the gas and oil energies I always feel like a rookie who, somehow or other, has managed to get himself into a poker school where all the other players are professionals. The energy correspondent of the Financial Times, when he was writing last August about the Siberian pipeline gas supply project, said:
"Bluff hard and play your cards close to your chest. These are the tactics currently being employed."
It seems to me to be obvious—and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy as well as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, have underlined the fact that it is obvious—that sooner or later western Europe will need to import gas. It seems to me that that is likely to be sooner rather than later.
But there seems to be a wide difference of opinion about when additional supplies from outside Western Europe are going to be needed. In July of this year The Times correspondent said that Europe badly needs the 40,000 million cubic metres of gas that the Soviet pipeline can supply, but only three months before that Peter Odell had said:
"I do not think 1982 will be out before Westen Europe as a whole does not need Russian gas".
As World Gas pointed out, Peter Odell was "never one to avoid controversy", and in the past he has made forecasts which were so widely different from those made by other experts that they were thought of as being derisory. I was among those who did think of them in that way. But a few months ago I was examining some of my old files and I came across letters and papers which Professor Odell had written in 1967, and I found that time has shown that the forecasts which he made in those papers were nearer the mark than the forecasts that were fashionable at that time.
Professor Odell's present prediction is for the end of this year, and I very much doubt whether he intends it to be taken as a long term forecast. Even in the short

263
term he may be thinking only about supplies from Russia through the proposed new pipelines and not of the very considerable quantities of gas that reach Western Europe through existing pipelines. As the Committee's report points out, there is little unanimity even among the major oil companies about the size of the United Kingdom reserves of gas. Most of those companies gave figures of between 1.1 trillion and 1.7 trillion cubic metres, but the Phillips Petroleum Company, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed out, gave a very much larger estimate of about 3.4 trillion cubic metres. Your Lordships' sub-committee was not able to obtain a logical explanation of this major difference and we were left having to accept it simply as a "gut reaction" to the evidence that was available.
An article which was published in the Westminster Bank quarterly review in August of this year gives the probable reserves in the Community of Ten as 4.2 trillion metre cubes, with a life of 25 years. Their figure of 4.2 trillion cubic metres compares with the Brussels figure of 3.2 trillion for the EEC. The consumption of gas is given by the EEC as 0.167 trillion cubic metres per year, but, of that, 25 per cent. is imported. Those imports are mainly of piped gas which came in from the USSR, the Middle East and North Africa—countries which between them contain some 70 per cent. of the world's natural gas reserves.
I think that those figures give a picture of the Community's present dependence on imported gas which is surprising to those of us who are not professionally engaged in the gas industry. When one realises that already a quarter of the gas that is used in the Community reaches us through pipelines which cross international frontiers, a man who is as politically naive as I am is inclined to wonder why the proposals for additional pipelines from Siberia which extend into France have caused as much friction as they have done.
The production of indigenous gas within the EEC is likely to rise only slightly, if at all, above its present level and increased demand can only be met by imports of gas or by gasification of coal. Gasification of coal is not at present attractive. It is expensive and I have been unable to find any process which claims an efficiency of more than 70 per cent. for the coal conversion processes. Moreover, indigenous reserves of coal are limited within the EEC and they are, in effect, restricted to Germany and Britain, where supplies may meet further restriction by labour and by environmental limitations.
It is likely that any coal for conversion would in the long run have to be imported into the Community, so that even when economical processes for the manufacture of SNG—perhaps I should say "substitute natural gas," in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said—have been developed.
The raw materials of supply would have to cross frontiers, or more probably cross oceans, and they would not be immune from interruption. The alternative of importing natural gas by pipeline with cryogenic transport is difficult. Your Committee was told that this was cheaper than the conveyance by pipeline for distances of more than 3,000 to 4,000 miles, but it is quite certainly not proof against
264
interruption. Moreover, it may be difficult to find sites for terminal facilities. My own reluctance to live on the doorstep of a liquid methane terminal may arise from ignorance, just as the widespread reluctance to have nuclear power plants as neighbours arises from lack of familiarity with them, but in both cases the restrictions must be recognised.
It seems to me that for many years to come the Community must rely, as it does now but to a far increasing extent on imports by pipeline and that whatever its origin the gas or the raw materials from which it is made are hound to cross the frontiers of some countries with which our relationships are not always cordial. If I take a relaxed view about possible hazards arising from this it may be because, having been in the electricity supply industry. I know how often supplies of electricity have continued to flow between countries which, to say the least of it, have had no friendly relationships with one another.
It is true that gas pipelines may be more vulnerable than electricity supply lines, but if gas has to be imported into the Community by pipeline—and commercial considerations seem to demand that there should be such imports—I suggest that this is a reason why there should be many pipelines from many sources bringing gas in. As the article in the National Westminster Bank review points out, price as well as reliability of supply emphasise the dangers of overdependence on a limited number of sources of supply. As availability and demand for natural gas have grown, many countries have built and are extending distribution grids in which flow can be in either direction so as to give greater security of supply. Although these national gas grids have been built, little if any thought seems to have been given to the desirability of an international gas transmission grid.
Now that additional pipelines are being built across frontiers, one wonders if they could be routed so that they could ultimately form a real international gas network instead of following discrete paths. It would, for instance, be possible to bring one of the Siberian pipelines through Finland to a point in Sweden, perhaps south of Stockholm, where it could join up with pipelines from Norway and run from there to cross through Denmark to Germany, having linked up with a line from the west coast of Norway and our own North Sea continental shelf gas. That line might run southwards through Britain to cross the Channel into France, and the ring could be completed by a pipeline from the Gulf States which could pass through Turkey and link up with lines running southward from Siberia through the Moscow area; interlinking rings could pick up gas from the North African countries.
I obviously am not trying, nor if I tried should I be able, to design such a system; I am doing no more than to suggest it as a possibility. If that possibility has a basis of realism I am not so unrealistic as to imagine that the construction work on a complete system could be started now; I merely suggest that the skeleton of such a scheme could he prepared and that, as the need grew, each succeeding pipeline could be so designed and routed as to conform with the ultimate plan. This plan would obviously have to be prepared in collaboration between the countries concerned but, in so far as the Common Market countries are concerned, the responsibility might be placed with the EEC which

265
could organise collaboration across frontiers in a way that could hardly be arranged by any one of its individual members.
It can, of course, be argued that the fundamental weakness of the idea is that gas supplies might be exhausted before the network is complete. We do not know what reserves and resources of gas are available, but the USSR is at present negotiating its contracts to run for 25 years. If they do not have very large resources it is hard to understand why they are using gas to supply 40 per cent. of their boiler fuel (a most wasteful use of a premium fuel); why (according to the Financial Times) gas supplies 90 per cent. of the fuel that the Russians use in their iron and steel industry; and why 60 per cent. of the fuel used in their cement manufacture is gas. If they are wise in using gas in this way, it suggests that they must have immense reserves. In the longer term, we should remember that the gas network could be used for distributing gas brought in cryogenically from further afield and for distributing gas which is made from coal, as will ultimately be necessary. I suggest that at least the possibility of such a grid system is one that should not be discarded without thought.
5.54 p.m.
The Duke of Portland: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, on his admirable maiden speech to which I listened, I must admit, with a measure of envy remembering my own effort some 18 months ago. I can do little but echo all that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has said with humorous emphasis and deep knowledge of the subject.
As is shown in the committee's report, exploration has been inhibited by the low prices offered by the British Gas Corporation for gas from the United Kingdom sector. Consequently, we do not really know what the resources of that sector may be. Competition from members of the European Economic Community has forced the British Gas Corporation to offer higher prices for Norwegian gas than they are prepared to offer for gas from the United Kingdom sector. Nevertheless, the British Gas Corporation have been recently outbid in their efforts to purchase gas from the Norwegian sector and most of this gas will now go to Emden.
As my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has said, negotiations are taking place for gas from the Norwegian Sleipner field, which contains, I understand, as much gas as the Frigg Field, perhaps more. It is well known that the British Gas Corporation are making a very determined effort to obtain this gas. If they fail, they are likely to be short of gas by the end of the present decade, or at any rate in the early 'nineties.
It is said that Her Majesty's Government are trying to remedy this situation in the eighth licensing round by licensing areas of the southern North Sea, but this would only succeed if the British Gas Corporation are prepared to offer good prices. The measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to permit direct sales of gas to United Kingdom companies are unlikely to have much effect and could well be frustrated by tariffs inposed by the British Gas Corporation for the transport of this gas. In those circumstances the most
266
effective step which can be taken is to allow sales of gas from the United Kingdom sector to be made freely throughout the European Economic Community. That would stimulate both exploration and development; it would not diminish Government revenues since tax is based on sales price, and overseas earnings would be increased. Moreover, it would help to dispel the illusion that we are not good Europeans. I am well aware that the United Kingdom reserves are limited—we do not know to what extent—and it could he argued that these should be preseved for United Kingdom use. But in the present circumstances and in our present plight, it is surely to the immediate benefit of industry in the United Kingdom that the gas deposits should be developed now rather than hoarded for the distant future.
5.57 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend the Duke of Portland because he always gives us very briefly a very wise message. I am, of course, also delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, in his Motion drawing attention to this report, and to have the opportunity of congratulating my noble friend Lord Torrington on his admirable maiden speech. It looks as though he has left the Chamber for the moment, but I must none the less pay my tribute to his work on Sub-Committee F. Why he has not taken part in our energy debates in this House previously, I fail to understand for he is perhaps as qualified as man), of us, if not more so, to speak on this subject. I hope that he will indeed address us again frequently, especially on energy questions.
We have indeed had some interesting meetings in Sub-Committee F, discussing this subject with the various witnesses listed in paragraph 4 of the report. I need hardly add that I warmly endorse the conclusions, markedly brief and to the point—exceptionally brief and to the point—that are given in paragraph 32. Most of the points that I should like to make have already been made, but I think that I should repeat as others have done that there should be increased exploration drilling, and certainly in my view the Government should give more weight to the contribution made by drilling on existing licences to improve our knowledge of gas reserves.
I agree, too, that the Government should consider whether and when exports of natural gas to continental member states of the Community would be justified. In that connection—and, incidentally, having visited that part of the Frigg Field which falls within the Norwegian sector—I think it most important that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom should encourage construction of the so-called "gas land-bridge"; that is to say, the Norway-United Kingdom cross-channel pipeline.
In advocating this I would not consider this pipeline as taking the place of the proposed Soviet pipeline. There must, as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, said, and as many other noble Lords have said—and I listened particularly carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, has just said about a Eurogrid network—be a diversity of supply to the European Community. I feel certain that the Norway-United Kingdom cross-channel line would be of' great value,

267
especially to continental member states of the Community, and especially in the event of any interruption of supplies from Siberia.
I would like to add here (although it was not, I think, a matter specifically raised during the deliberations in Sub-Committee F) that I strongly support the Government's attitude, as I am sure do other noble Lords—and indeed the attitude of other member states in the Community—in authorising the export of turbines and other equipment needed by the Soviet Union to complete the Siberian pipeline as soon as possible. I feel sure that if we do not supply the turbines the USSR will be capable of manufacturing them themselves. Moreover, I completely fail to understand the United States' Government's attitude in this matter considering the quantity of grain that they are supplying to the USSR.
I trust that the hopeful signs which were mentioned by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place yesterday, that agreement could he reached which may result in a lifting of the American pipeline sanctions, will be translated into fact, and that all members of your Lordships' House will urge the United States Government to reverse their policy in this respect. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale may be able to add this evening to what my right honourable friend said yesterday on this matter.
On a semi-personal note (and I hope that late in the debate your Lordships will permit me this personal note) I well recall how my great-grandmother, a distinguished Welsh lady—her name was Lady Charlotte Guest of Guest Keen—when she was managing the ironworks at Dowlais, in the latter part of the 19th century, supplied all the rails for the construction of the Trans-Siberian railway. She negotiated personally with the Czar. There were some who criticised this because there were many who criticised some of the policies of the Czarist regime.
Nor do we now approve the present policies of the Soviet Union in their own country, Poland, or in their invasion or penetration of Afghanistan, Africa and, indeed, in other parts of the world. However, most sensible people in this country in the 19th century thoroughly approved of our helping to build the Trans-Siberian railway and considered it a great tribute to British industry, and especially to those working at Dowlais, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, knows so well, who played such an important part in its building.
I think, too, now that we should take this opportunity of congratulating John Brown on having contracted—and I emphasise the word "contracted"—to supply turbines for the Siberian pipeline. I would indeed congratulate the other firms in France, Germany and Italy for being capable of making their own contribution to the laying of this pipeline. This is indeed a notable achievement in West European technological and industrial co-operation.
In respect of our other conclusions, I hope that noble Lords will read the report in its entirety and also glance through the transcripts of the evidence from our witnesses, and perhaps especially that given by Mr. Robert Belgrave, on pages 91 to 97. There are a great many points that I would like to underline in regard to the evidence given by our witnesses, but in this
268
relatively brief speech I would particularly draw attention to Mr. Belgrave's remarks regarding relations between the British Gas Corporation and the Norwegians. While supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, said of the British Gas Corporation's remarkable achievements, like him I regret that British-Norwegian relations have not been altogether happy and that Norwegians involved in the negotiations are said to have been distinctly cool towards our own gas corporation. It is in my view unfortunate that a senior executive of a Norwegian company could have been led to say that we, the British, missed a chance last year, but that there might be a second chance as a result of the new discovery. We must not miss that second chance, and it looks as though we shall not do so. I think that we were glad to learn from Mr. Belgrave that he did not think that there was any underlying hostility in Norway towards us, and I felt that he was right in saying that the Norwegians were merely fed up with our method of negotiation. I certainly hope that that will change.
I think that one of the conclusions of our committee is that the European Commission—and, as your Lordships know we are particularly concerned with their proposals—and our own Government will regularly review the need for and the timing of liquid natural gas imports and also synthetic natural gas manufacture, and that regular reviews on the subject will be published. Incidentally, I was very glad—as obviously my noble friend Lord Lauderdale must have been—to read over the weekend that Total and Elf Aquitaine, the French oil companies, have submitted development plans for the £12 million North Alwyn oil and gas field and that the Department of Energy hopes to give the go-ahead for these plans well before Christmas. Again, I hope that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will confirm that this is indeed the Government's intention. My Lords, I warmly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and other noble Lords have said, and also the conclusions of the report.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Briginshaw: My Lords, I sincerely wish to associate myself with the congratulations extended to the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, on his able maiden speech and, with so many other noble Lords, I look forward to hearing him address this House again. In my view, the report before us fully warrants the serious attention that previous speakers have given it. It justifies the time and expertise that the committee has given to it throughout and, together with the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, I commend detailed attention to the whole of the report.
At this time, after a comprehensive discussion of the character that has taken place, I propose to rationalise my contribution. As I have indicated, I associate myself with the appreciations to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, for initiating the discussion on the report before the House. I think he had the advantage of a concise presentation, which appeals to me in particular. He was not at any stage talking for the sake of talking. It was a presentation that was apposite to the report itself.
I would accept the general direction set out in the report on the export of gas resources, in particular by the submissions of the Department of Energy. I do not

269
accept that a flexible tax régime should not be equated with definite obligations. I appeal, and I think join others who in varying phraseology have appealed for flexibility. The obligation on the operators is the key question, and is one of control, and that clearly remains with the state, which in my view expresses the national interest at this time.
The obligations are set out and restated in paragraph 14 and in Parts II and III on gas exports, and I understand those finally to contest the Phillips contention, which has been mentioned in this discussion. I suggest that that is a proper contest because I do not see the basis for it, even with all the expertise that has been presented to us.
I see no advantage in weakening our security referred to in paragraph 16 in Part IV. Surely the alternatives set out in paragraphs 16 and 17 move in the right direction. Paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of Part V are long-term alternatives which have been the centre of the last part of the discussion here on alternative supplies for the United Kingdom. These are set out in precise form in a few words, which again appeals to me. Paragraph 20 sums up much of our discussion and presentation.
Imports by pipeline would need least in the way of new facilities and would pose fewest environmental hazards. Witnesses generally—and this gives us a wide sweep when one studies the report—agreed that the pipeline import should be the first option.
"Norwegian gas is an obvious source. A cross-Channel link, if suitably designed, would permit access to supplies entering the European grid, including gas from the Soviet Union and Algeria".
It says so much in such a little space, but it is consistent with the whole of the discussion.
In saying that at this time of the discussion, and with a thin House, I think it is sensible to rationalise the presentation, and I find the summing up in the report itself another shortened version of a logical and sensible presentation to the House at this time. May I, without wearying your Lordships, go through it, because I am sure that I should save so much time in rationalisation if I could take advantage of an easy presentation, which is yet so important. In (b), the report says:
"In the award of new licences the United Kingdom Government should give more weight to the contributions made by drilling on existing licences to improve knowledge of gas reserves".
We have all been asking for more knowledge.
"Disincentives to 'farmouts' activity should be eliminated.
"The United Kingdom Government should consider whether and when exports of natural gas to the Community would be justified".
I am sure that that is correct.
"The United Kingdom should encourage the construction of a Norway/UK cross-Channel pipeline.
"The European Commission and the United Kingdom Government should regularly review the need for and the timing of LNG imports and SNG manufacture and should publish the results of such reviews.
"Diversity of supply to the European Community should be encouraged.
"Market forces are the best defence against unreasonable price demands".
Finally in their summing up, they say:
"No convincing economic case can be made for strategic storage of natural gas in the United Kingdom".
I would disagree with that. Of the nine points in the summing up, I would give six, and in order to save the
270
time of your Lordships now I should like to leave it there and say that on the three I have not marked favourably I should be open to conviction by the many noble Lords who have the expertise. Thank you very much.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Polwarth: My Lords, in the course of this debate, there has been a wide measure of agreement with the report of the committee, which is hardly surprising seeing that out of the 12 previous speakers no fewer than 10 were members of the committee. Perhaps that is my only possible excuse for detaining your Lordships at this time by coming in myself as an outsider, perhaps with the excuse and the interest, which I declare, of being involved in various activities such as pipe laying, platform building, and the supply of equipment and services to the oil and energy industries.
We are enormously grateful to the committee, first of all, for tackling this vitally important subject, for looking at it so thoroughly and so expertly, and for commending it to us for debate. They have done us a great service. They are a perfect example of what we in this House can do in a field where we can apply our specialised knowledge. What better example of that than the splendid maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, with all his personal experience in the oil industry. I hope that he will come to us regularly. I know the difficulties. It underlines Lord Lauderdale's point, that when people like him and others who are very busy in such activities take the time and trouble to come down here and contribute to our deliberations, perhaps they are entitled to the occasional ministerial reply. Again, I emphasise that this is absolutely no reflection on the noble Lord who is to reply. I have the greatest sympathy with him and admiration for the way in which he handles a plethora of different subjects for us.
I am so glad that we are looking at the Community aspects of this subject, because in this whole energy field we have tended to be rather inward looking and chauvinistic in the light of our good fortune in having these resources. Why do we not know what are the reserves of gas in the North Sea? Many noble Lords have already made clear the reason; namely, that there has not been the inducement, the encouragement, to producers, in the form of a reasonable market, to make it worth their while to do the vital development drilling needed. I need not reiterate that or the reasons.
On the gas front, we had for a long time the British Gas Corporation monopoly, and a good job indeed they have done. As the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, said, they have created a great asset; but of course ultimately it was not they who created it. It was the consumers of the gas who created that asset, through the good offices of the Gas Corporation.
The other aspect that is perhaps not emphasised so much in the report is the tax régime as it applies both to oil and to gas. I found it intensely disappointing to read another article yesterday in the Financial Times indicating that the talks between the industry and the Government on the tax régime seem to be just as much at a stalemate as ever, the Government insisting they are not convinced that an easier tax regime is necessary to encourage further development. I can only assume that this is not through ignorance but

271
through stubbornness. The evidence is there; as we heard, it was only in the last few months that three new field developments have been announced, the first since 1980, and some of those after a good deal of arm-twisting.
Perhaps the prospect is a little better now. There is the prospect of some competition in the purchase of gas, but it will not be a really free market until, as other noble Lords have said, we are able to export. There can be much argument about how long we should hold on to those resources for our own use or how soon we should be prepared to export. I believe we should show a little more courage and faith in the undoubted reserves there are or must be. It is, after all, a little ironical, is it not, that the French, who played such a leading part in developing our gas resources (with a little help from my noble friend Lord Lauderdale) should be unable to enjoy directly the fruits of all that work in the North Sea?
There is the very exciting prospect raised by the committee of the eventual trunk gas line through Norway via this country to the Continent and, as we know, the Continent is already linked to the Continent of Africa. The security aspect has been emphasised. While I do not for one moment agree with the American view of the problem—indeed, I think it was misguided and improper of President Reagan to be trying to cause our companies to break contracts freely entered into; as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, one particular company, John Brown, were suffering considerable hurt, financially and otherwise, from the policy adopted towards them—nevertheless, it will be all to the good if the Continent of Europe can be less dependent on the existing supply.
That will not merely be us doing them a favour. One can envisage a scenario well ahead when North Sea reserves might begin to run down—and who knows by then what other discoveries may have been made in the African Continent?—and we might be very glad indeed to have pipeline to bring gas to us from south of the Mediterranean. I appreciate the problems of pipeline schemes. We saw them with the proposed gas gathering scheme, on which, incidentally, the Bank of Scotland, with which I am connected, did a great deal of work to produce a viable financial arrangement, but it foundered because there were factors of monopoly and a failure of the Government to be prepared to give it real backing.
I believe—this is the view of nearly every noble Lord who has spoken—we should give every possible encouragement to exploration for gas and oil because I cannot conceive that we shall not need all we can find. The market will dictate what should be done, if we allow it to, and we must always remember that there is a need not merely for fuel but for feedstock for our petrochemical industries which will continue to be important and grow in importance. I think it is never the right policy to leave one's talents in the ground. After all, we have the highest authority for that, and we know what happened to the one who did!
There is a further reason for encouraging development in gas and oil more than we are at present, and that is because of the substantial industry we have built up in support of oil and gas. It has been the deliberate policy of successive Governments, through the Offshore Supplies Office, to create a
272
British industry for supplying and contracting to oil and gas, and they have had great success in doing so. It has been a real success story. The proportion of components of British content in the industry is now. I believe, up to about 70 per cent., and this has created a great deal of employment. It would be the greatest shame if that were allowed to languish, and I can tell your Lordships at first hand that a number of companies in the construction industry on this front are in a very uneasy position at present through the lack of orders coming forward as a result of the lack of new development. There could well have been substantial lay-offs and there could well be considerable, more, most of them in areas where there is very little alternative employment. That is another good reason to back a highly successful British industry that is not only supplying in this country but for export as well.
At the end of the day, I fear that one of the main troubles has been the dominance of the Treasury over the Department of Energy. We had high hopes of the translation of the present Secretary of State from his previous Treasury post, and I believe we have seen some progress since that move. I hope we shall see more. We read yesterday of the translation of a senior official who played a great part in developing the oil and gas industries, being moved to another sphere outside, and rumours as to the succession to the senior post in that department, rumoured to be a Treasury man. One could take that in one of two ways. Will it bring Treasury views into the Department of Energy, or, more hopefully, will we have a gamekeeper turning poacher who will teach the Department of Energy how to tackle the Treasury on equal terms? Let us hope it will be the latter in the interests of the development of these very precious resources which we are lucky to have, not just for ourselves but for the benefit of the Community of which we are part.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know whether my correct course of action is to blush or hide. Whichever it is I should be doing, before beginning my daunting task of replying on behalf of the Government to the debate, I must apologise for rising to my feet for the third time today. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek—if I might have a quick aside to him before I start—made a comment which comes often from his lips on the subject of acronyms. When I was studying for my second Question, one of the prepared supplementaries I was given to read and consider was headed, "Non-First Use of Nuclear Force" with the acronym in brackets, "NOFUN". I am sure that is not in the little book.
The House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and his sub-committee for initiating today s debate, which I may perhaps summarise as covering the role which gas will play in the national, Community and international context. I was somewhat alarmed when I saw the list of speakers and related it to my experience of their erudition, but I need not have worried. It is a credit to the noble Lord to have collected such a list, not forgetting the expertise of my noble friend Lord Torrington, whose excellent maiden speech will repay much study. I hope your Lordships will have the opportunity to hear him again both soon and often.

273
The future of the natural gas industry is of great importance to both the United Kingdom and the European Community. It is important to us as a country, as we are both a major gas producer and consumer; and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that we as a nation sometimes play down the immense success of the development of our reseves in the North Sea and onshore, and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred to that. His idea of incentives to smaller independent owners of land to dig for gas is a most sensitive area. Safety, environmental and planning considerations are of great importance, and it is of course essential that the best oil industry expertise is utilised in such drilling and production operations. The Government are confident that their current onshore licensing procedures are effective in ensuring that such expertise is appropriately employed. I would add that it is not as yet—although the situation could change, and I take the noble Lord's point—generally considered that onshore finds are likely to make a significant contribution to the totality of United Kingdom gas reserves compared with prospects for additional offshore gas discoveries.
We can, and should, be justly proud of our achievements over the past 20 years in this industry. The rapid discovery and development of the North Sea gas fields and the efforts of the British Gas Corporation in building with impressive speed the national gas transmissions system, have been major factors contributing to the situation where the gas share of domestic energy demand has doubled in the last 10 years, and where natural gas now accounts for about 56 per cent. of the total energy consumed in the United Kingdom domestic sector. My admiration of the British Gas Corporation's role in all this is obviously equalled by that of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton.
This subject is important to the Ten as natural gas consumption in the Community virtually trebled in the 1970s, triggered initially by the development of the huge Groningen gas field in the Netherlands and spurred on by the oil crises of 1973 and 1979. The Community understandably hoped that this growth in the use of natural gas would reduce Europe's dependence on the fickle and politically volatile international oil trade. However, it is now apparent that Europe has in part decreased its dependence on imported oil at the expense of increased dependence on imported gas supplies. Imports accounted for only 5 per cent. of Community gas supplies in 1975, grew to 27 per cent. in 1980—which is a fraction more than the figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, but I hope that we shall not argue on this comparatively small point—and are now projected to reach some 40 to 50 per cent. of Community gas demand in 1990. Although, to be fair, gas imports will represent less than 10 per cent. of total Community energy consumption in 1990, it is, even so, an issue of major importance.
It is therefore an appropriate time to review the role of gas in the European Community as a whole, and I should like to round off this debate by running through the main conclusions of the Select Committee's report, touching on some of the many important points that have been made this evening. The committee has highlighted that, in order to make the right policy
274
decisions, it is essential to find out more about the extent and nature of the United Kingdom's indigenous natural gas reserves. To that end it proposes three measures. The first is that the Government should encourage gas exploration drilling. On 24th September, the Government published the formal invitation to apply in the Eighth Round of offshore petroleum production licensing. The aim is to license up to 85 blocks in the round. Thirty-eight of the blocks on offer for licensing lie in the southern North Sea, where most of our existing gas reserves were discovered. We are confident that this licence round, together with the freeing of the gas supply market in the recent Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act—I do not share the rather shallow doubts of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on this—will stimulate renewed North Sea gas exploration efforts.
I shall return to this point later, but before I leave it I should like to tell my noble friend Lord Bessborough that press reports about North Alwyn are accurate, and I expect formal approval to be announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in the very near future—certainly well before Christmas.
Most noble Lords I think have mentioned the thorny subject of reserves. The Department of Energy estimates that the remaining gas reserves lie in the range of from 33 to 64 trillion standard cubic feet. That includes allowances for as yet undiscovered fields. My noble friend Lord Hinton of Bankside highlighted the problem of the difference between my department's estimates and those of, for example, Phillips, one of the oil companies. In an aside I should like to say how nice it is to see my noble friend with us again and to hear yet again his visionary ideas, which in the past have come to fruition in other fields with which he has been interested, and with any luck will do so again.
The Phillips Petroleum reserves estimate is about twice that of my department's upper figure for total United Kingdom remaining gas reserves. The official figures were supported by the other industry witnesses to the committee. The United Kingdom proven reserves are equivalent to 14 years of consumption at 1981 levels. Using the official estimates of total remaining reserves—that is to say proven, probable, and possible—increases the figure to between 20 and 40 years.
If I got his expressions right, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, equated supply stability with production stability, and I must say that I completely agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, said that British gas purchases must be at the right price to ensure supply stability. I agree with that analysis, too. I was less clear on the points made by my noble friend Lord Torrington on capital transfer tax in regard to farming out, and perhaps if he has any evidence on the point, he might write to me.
Secondly, the committee urges the Government in awarding licences to give more weight to the applicants' record in drilling and evaluating existing licences in the area in question. I should like to make it clear to your Lordships that the past drilling performance of each company is examined when applictions for new licences are considered. I am pleased to inform the House that the Government indeed intend to increase the weight given to the relevant past drilling record in the evaluation of

275
applications for the current Eighth Round of production licensing, though I am bound to say that I do not feel that the prospective records of the oil companies in this respect have very much hearing in our thoughts. The extent to which it is practicable to allow that factor to influence awards is however limited, since the composition of licence applicant groups changes from round to round and often varies from one area of the United Kingdom continental shelf to another.
However, in respect of the Eighth Round blocks on offer in the southern North Sea, where most existing gas fields were discovered, there is a likelihood that applicant group composition will in many cases be the same as the groups already holding licences in the area. There should therefore be more opportunities for making a direct link between the award of new licences and the past performance of the applicants.
Thirdly, the committee proposes that disincentives to the "farm-out" of licences should be eliminated. The Government believe that in practice our "farm-out" procedures are no disincentive to additional exploration and appraisal drilling. Admittedly, it is necessary to obtain Government approval for such transfer of licence rights and obligations, but we generally take a favourable view of "farm-in" proposals that contain plans for additional or earlier drilling in the relevant blocks—and that, I would submit, is what we are all seeking.
On exports of United Kingdom gas reserves, the Select Committee endorses the present Government caution, but suggests that the Government should consider whether, and when, exports of United Kingdom natural gas would be justified. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked whether I would come down firmly on that point, and it seemed to me that my noble friend the Duke of Portland was asking for the same thing. The position of the Government on the point is well known. We have said that we will consider exports if substantial new gas reserves are found and the United Kingdom gas supply position is thereby consolidated. I would tell my noble friend that I disagree with him, at least where he seems to be advocating exports whatever happens to supply. I would not condone that.
As I said earlier, we are confident that North Sea gas exploration efforts will be pursued with renewed vigour, and will help to prove up new reserves. In fact, we have evidence that the encouragement which the Act is intended to give to the oil industry, together with the British Gas Corporation's expressed willingness to pay realistic prices for new United Kingdom sector gas supplies, is already beginning to work.
My evidence is that in the three years before 1981, when our proposals for legislation were announced, there was not a single exploration or appraisal well drilled in the southern North Sea. Last year two such wells were drilled. The tally this year is already 11, and indeed I must tell the House that a week ago, when I was first studying this speech, the figure was 10. So things are increasing quite fast, and I suggest that the figures speak for themselves.
The House has been obviously intensely interested in North Sea taxation, as evidenced by parts of the speeches of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Lauderdale. The Government are of course
276
well aware of the continued oil industry representation that the present tax regime is too onerous. I think that my noble friends will not take it too hard if I say that we are not exactly minnows in this particular sea. We are constantly monitoring exploration and development activity and have seen a substantial rise in exploration drilling in the last two years, while indicators of development activity are also showing signs of some improvement. On gas developments, we are confident that more competitive prices will now be paid to North Sea producers as a result of the Act, and that there will be no shortage of projects coming forward.
The Government also made clear their position on the tax regime in the recent response of the Secretary of State to the report of the Select Committee for Energy on depletion policy; but we are not ignoring the industry's pleas, and will continue to keep the tax position under review. I thought that both my noble friend Lord Polwarth and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy were more than a little unfair on the Government's record on tax, because it will not have escaped their notice that there were in fact considerable, very useful and, I believe, welcome tax changes in the recent Budget. A number of these important structural changes were introduced, as I said, in the 1982 Budget, and they have since been modified by the changes announced by the Chancellor on 9th June. All these changes move in a direction sought by critics of the tax regime, so it really is not fair to say that the Government are totally obdurate in this respect.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to interrupt him. I should just like to say that this is really not the moment to go into all the details of a very complicated tax régime, although in fact I was a Front Bench spokesman in April 1975, and about the only speaker besides the Minister, when the original tax regime for the North Sea was introduced. I acknowledge that there were changes in structure, which were the ones asked for by the industry and which the Chancellor himself had foreshadowed; that is, the disappearance of the temporary tax—the supplementary petroleum duty. But the main point is that the changes which have been made have very little effect in altering the deterrent to development—not exploration, but development.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall refer the words of my noble friend to my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor, naturally. The Select Committee recommends that the Government should encourage the construction of a Norway-United Kingdom cross-Channel pipeline, and my noble friend Lord Bessborough and the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, among many others, drew attention to this. As the primary purpose of such a scheme would be transhipment of Norwegian gas to European markets, it is clear that Norwegian participation is essential before the idea can be pursued. On a number of recent occasions, we have indicated to the Norwegian Government that Her Majesty's Government would be willing to consider any specific proposals for such a pipeline. So far, it is true, no such proposals have come forward, but we shall he ready to examine them positively if and when they do.

277
The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, raised the spectre—if I may so call it—of paying for this pipeline, and I would agree with him that this is obviously an important point in the whole agrument. It is, however, much too early to speculate on this. If the need for a land-bridge were established to the satisfaction of the Norwegian Government, of the United Kingdom Government and of other Governments concerned, it would still be some time before details of the scheme could be worked out. Only then would it be possible to establish the parties with the main interest in the project, to mobilise the banks and other sources of finance, and give detailed consideration to the financing problems, so perhaps the noble Lord is being a little previous on this.
While talking about exports and imports, perhaps it would be as well to discuss the problem of the Siberian pipeline. It is, of course, for the individual Governments concerned to ensure that they have given adequate attention to the security of supply question. However, studies have also been made by the European Commission, which give confidence that these matters are being fully considered. We note, for example, that the West Germans plan to limit their dependence on gas imports from any one source to some 30 per cent. of their total gas supplies, or only some 5 per cent. of total primary energy demand. Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency is conducting an IEA-wide study of the gas supplies and requirements of its members, including arrangements to cope with emergencies.
Turning briefly to the United States embargo on exports to the Soviet Union of goods for the pipeline project manufactured by European licensees of American equipment, as your Lordships will be aware my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade has directed six United Kingdom companies not to comply with these measures in order that these companies can fulfil their contractual obligations. My noble friend Lord Bessborough made reference to what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, and I am afraid I have nothing to add to what he said then.
The Committee also urges that the European Commission and the United Kingdom Government should regularly review the need for and the timing of liquefied natural gas imports and substitute natural gas manufacture. The Government are aware that work on this subject is continuing in the European Commission. Within the United Kingdom, the Government are confident that the gas supply industry is monitoring the development of the gas markets, and will initiate projects of this sort when they believe them to be necessary to meet projected demand. That answer may not please the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, but that is what I believe. It is, however, much too early to say when SNG will become a commercial proposition, and I hope the noble Lord will accept that.
I would draw attention to the British gas industry's international reputation for both its pioneering work in the liquefied natural gas trade in the 1960s and its current research and development programme on substitute natural gas manufacture. It is therefore well placed to introduce these technologies to the United Kingdom when there is a market for such supplies.
278
Finally, regarding the broader question of gas supplies to the European Community as a whole, the Select Committee responded to three specific recommendations made in the earlier studies by the European Commission which were the starting point for the committee's deliberations. First, the Commission recommended and the committee endorsed that the Community should aim to diversify its import sources of supply. The Government agree with this principle and know that those of our European partners who are increasingly reliant on gas imports are actively reviewing possible new gas supplies on a worldwide basis. The United Kingdom itself is fortunate in getting 75 per cent. of its gas, via a number of separate pipeline systems, from its own offshore gas fields. The other 25 per cent. is imported from Norway, which we clearly regard as a politically secure and reliable source of supply.
My Lords, with so many speeches I am sure that I shall not have answered many of the points that I should have answered. I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow, and, if I may, I shall write to those noble Lords whose dose of passionate apathy has been a little too little. I should like to conclude by recording how valuable I feel this evening's debate has been in bringing the attention of your Lordships' House to this important subject. I think its usefulness is due in no small part to the excellent report of the Select Committee, which has been the focal point of these stimulating discussions. I believe I am doing no more than echoing the sentiments of your Lordships in congratulating the committee on its report and noble Lords on their speeches today. I would end by saying that I believe that this report and today's debate have put another dent in the by now increasingly battered image that we in the United Kingdom have as bad Europeans.
Lord Kings Norton: My Lords, the House has a lot of business still to do this evening, and I do not propose to delay it any longer except to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his comprehensive comments on the debate. I shall read Hansard tomorrow just as carefully as he to make quite sure that Her Majesty's Government are as enthusiastic as I hope about the conclusions of the report.
Secondly, I should like to take this opportunity to add my congratulations to those that the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, has received on his extremely articulate, very expert and most interesting speech. It was all that I expected it to be. Finally, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in what I believe has been a most interesting and valuable debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ECC 13th Report: Noise in the Environment
6.49 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Noise in the Environment (13th Report, 1981–82, H.L. 175).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, noise is a difficult subject to define, and difficult to quantify. It is perhaps most simply defined as "unwanted sound"; but

279
whether or not that sound is wanted depends very much on the interest of the hearer in the source. Noise is difficult to measure, but, nonetheless, noise is a form of nuisance about which most people have strong feelings. In noise control legislation a distinction is made between noise in the workplace and environmental noise. Housewives may not be pleased to know that for this purpose the home is classed with the environment rather than as a place of work, but it is a fact that noise intruding into the home often causes the greatest annoyance.
The report which I bring before your Lordships this evening is concerned with noise in this broadest term of definition of noise in the environment. The review of the activities of the European Community in environmental noise control was carried out by Sub-Committee "G" of the Select Committee with the help of Lord Hayter, temporarily seconded to us from Sub-Committee "B". Speaking as chairman of Sub-Committee "G" I should like to record our gratitude for the specialist advice provided by Mr. Nigel Haigh and for valuable written and oral evidence which was given by the Departments of the Environment, of Transport, and of Trade and Industry, the Health and Safety Executive and the Consumers' Association.
In addition we had a particularly fruitful meeting in Brussels with the Commission's Services, chiefly involving the staff of Directorate-General XI but with members of DG III and DG XII also present. A memorandum which was prepared for that occasion by the Commission's Services is published with the report. I should like to express the warmest thanks for this contribution and I should like also to express my thanks personally to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for her support on that visit and to express my regret that she is unable to be present here tonight.
The report has a double function. Its lesser role, in my opinion, is to record the committee's reaction to three recent proposals for directives concerned with noise from different sources; that is, from subsonic aircraft, from helicopters and from household appliances. Its second role, much more important, is to review the whole range of Community involvement in the control of noise emissions in general. As the report shows, since 1973 the subject of noise control has found a place in successive action plans for the environment. It has therefore implicitly received support and the approval of Council. Earlier still, before the adoption of a Community policy for the environment, legislative action was taken in the area of noise control. I refer noble Lords to Annex 1 of our report and also to Annexes I and II of the evidence of the Department of the Environment. These sources provide a useful list of directives in the field of noise abatement, both those agreed and those still in the form of proposals.
The earliest of these directives was 70/157. This had the objective of setting limits for levels of noise emission from motor vehicles and, since it was adopted before the United Kingdom acceded to the Treaty of Rome, it was adopted by our Government on accession in 1973. The point is that this first directive did not originate out of environmental concern but as part of the general programme for the elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade between
280
members under Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome. In fact, as is pointed out in paragraph 11 of the report, to date all Community legislation on noise relates to articles in trade between member states. All directives have been promoted under Article 100, with the aim of providing uniform technical standards for the products in question; that is to say, in turn, four-wheeled motor vehicles, tractors, motor-cycles, construction plant, subsonic aircraft, helicopters, lawn mowers and, finally, household appliances.
I hope that the point is clear because I believe it to be rather important. It is that whether or not an agreed environmental action programme exists—and there have been disputes over the legality of such an action programme—the Community will still inevitably be involved in legislation to control sound emissions of these essentially noisy products which are in trade between member states. From this point of view, I am particularly pleased that we have the Commission's permission to publish as Annex II of the report the brief memorandum prepared for us in Brussels on 6th May last by Directorate-General XI. This is entitled "The European Corn mission's Programme against Noise". I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that this is an important document and that it is a privilege that, through one of the Select Committee reports, we should provide the medium for the first publication of an itemised programme against noise from the Commission.
This memorandum lays out the main objectives of the Commission in a clear and concise fashion. It also draws attention to the mechanism by which individual member states can influence, and have influenced, the Commission's choice of priority in the field of noise control. This is through the operation of what is called the Information Agreement of 5th March 1973, under which the Commission is notified of proposed national legislation in the environmental field and then has an option within a time-scale—in the words of the report—within time-scales that have
"proved to be reasonably elastic".
Some of them might be considered excessively elastic. The Commission then has the opportunity to introduce harmonising legislation.
The memorandum continues by observing that noise emissions can be controlled in two principal ways. First, they can be controlled by specifications relating to use; secondly, they can be controlled by specifications in manufacture. In comment on the first method of control, the Commission's Services take the view that.
"in general, specifications relating to the use of a product are more appropriately pursued at the level of national, regional or local authorities of the Member States".
Holding this opinion, the Commission's Services have taken a policy decision to pursue harmonisation at the European or the wider level in specifications to be taken into account during manufacture. This, in effect, leaves the control of use of noisy products to the member states.
In previous debates on Community environmental matters, speakers have often urged that there should be an agreed partitioning of areas of action between the Commission and national or local Governments of member states at appropriate levels. Here is a proposal from the Commission for just such a

281
separation of objectives. It leaves the United Kingdom Government free to take all action such as that already empowered under Part III of the Control of Pollution Act, for instance, for the control of noise on construction sites or in streets, noise abatement orders, quiet town experiments, noise insulation standards in building construction, and so on. Community legislation will he confined to the control of the noise emissions of manufactured products in trade between member states.
I hope to hear from my noble friend Lord Avon that the Government view this proposed division of effort with favour, and I hope that he will agree that it is a useful and proper standard to apply to the level of appropriateness. If so, can we further hope that there will be an improved exchange of information and ideas between the relevant departments of our own national Government concerned with noise control and the Commission's Services? There were certain remarks of witnesses that appeared in our report which gave Members of the Sub-Committee cause for concern at the limited flow of information and mutual interaction between our own departments and the Commission's Services which exist at present.
This led Members of the Committee in the report (at paragraph 71) to make a proposal that, in their opinion, would facilitate the exchange of ideas and of other developments in the field of noise control. It is suggested that the Commission should set up an informal advisory body to review the noise policies of the member states and the Commission. If my noble friend agrees that this will be beneficial I hope that he will ensure that moves are made to promote the formation of an advisory committee.
I am not able in the time available to me to repeat all the remaining conclusions of the committee. They are summarised shortly and tersely in paragraph 78 of the report. But I wish to lay stress on one important issue which I believe affects many people: lorry noise. The rather sad story of the Commission's slow progress towards effective reduction of the noise of lorries—or "heavy vehicles" as they are referred to—is outlined paragraphs 74 to 77 of the report.
Originally the United Kingdom took a lead in the development of the quiet heavy vehicle. As long ago as 1971, the Department of Transport financed research that led to the production of the combined Rolls-Royce Fodens quiet heavy lorry in 1978. This was a real juggernaut of 350 bhp. Yet its noise emissions registered no more than 80 to 82½ decibels, the different results depending on the different methods used to measure the noise emission. I understand that the manufacturing costs were not more than 7 per cent. above those of conventional vehicles of comparable power, and the running costs as a result of a fleet test were of the order of 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. higher, and fuel costs only some 1 per cent. higher.
The lorry perhaps did not totally achieve the target of 80 decibels that had been set by the Council declaration in 1977 and which reflects the United Kingdom Government's own long term target. But its development clearly shows that considerable noise reduction is possible, and that it could probably be further improved by extra R and D effort. In the 1981 White Paper, Lorries, People and the Environment, the Government's target was set for a progressive
282
reduction in the perceived noise from new heavy lorries coming onto the road to
"less than half the 1981 level".
If I take the 1981 level as being something up to 91 decibels—and I remind your Lordships that noise scales are logarithmic so that to halve this value we have to subtract 10 decibels—that halving 91 brings us to 80 or 81 decibels, which is in the region of the Government's target and also the Community's target. It was also stated in the 1981 White Paper that,
"The Government will press other European countries to adopt this target".
If I may, I shall ask my noble friend: What has happened to this programme? Can he tell us if further R and D support will be forthcoming? Does he agree that the United Kingdom should not lose the lead which our manufacturers have apparently gained in the research into a quiet heavy vehicle? Do the Government support the Select Committee's conclusion that the biggest and most desirable contribution towards the reduction of environmental noise that can now be made through Community means lies in the quiet heavy vehicle project? If there is anything of truth in the short report that appears in The Times today, maybe we shall have something interesting to hear shortly.
In conclusion, I believe that this report of the Select Committee has produced a useful review of a subject that is of real concern to many people in this country, and to many people throughout the European Community. I hope that our own Government, through Community institutions, will press for rapid and effective action in the matters which we have highlighted. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Noise in the Environment.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
7.6 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am sure we are indebted to the Select Committee under its chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who has just introduced the report. We are grateful to him for the way in which he has outlined this very detailed report and has referred to its conclusions. We value the contributions made by all those who gave evidence, both in this country and abroad. The subject of course is one of great importance at a time when all forms of pollution seem to be increasing, and the quality of life is diminished because of it. Noise is one of the factors in this because we gradually get used to higher noise levels, and we may not realise the effects of it on individuals and on the local environment generally.
To see the extent of the noise problem, we need to define what "noise" is. I was very pleased that the noble Earl, in his introduction, referred to that straight away. The report refers to it in paragraph 60, which says:
"Noise has been defined as unwanted sound".
This is not the best of definitions as there are many things that we do not want to hear, but they are not necessarily a noise. I think that it might be better for me to quote my own definition:
"A loud noise which annoys should not be allowed".
I think that sums up the position and the criteria which we might look for in studying the report.

283
While that is a desirable aim, there are noises which not only annoy but can cause harm within the environment and indeed to individuals, impairing their hearing and their health. I should like greater consideration to be given to the health aspects. Although "unwanted sound"—as it is described—is a factor, there are often hidden dangers and hazards for health and hearing. The report led me to look at the Health and Safety Commission's consultation document entitled Protection of Hearing at Work, which comments that, although noise at work has been known for many years as a cause of hearing loss, it is only during the past decade that major scientific studies have allowed a reliable estimate to be made of the relationship between noise exposure and the risk of hearing damage. Although high noise levels exist in many major industries, including among others, construction, agriculture, quarrying, shipping, transport, entertainment and a few others, it appears that with few exceptions no estimate of the percentage of the workforce exposed to various noise levels is available. This is a shortcoming which ought to be rectified soon.
The Health and Safety Commission's report stresses:
"Noise represents a serious problem",
and recommends uniform controls for workplaces. The health factors need more attention. While I am referring to this aspect, may I say that I am pleased that the document of the Health and Safety Commission's Working Group on Machinery Noise, published on 5th August 1981, allowed for consideration and consultations during the past nine months. I hope there will be positive results in the future. I do not know whether the Minister might comment on the possibility of the report of the Health and Safety Commission's Working Group receiving some consideration from the Government and whether he will let us know something about their proposals.
Regarding the committee's conclusions, there are many of great weight and it would be impossible and undesirable in a short debate to go too deeply into them. I feel sure that there will be general agreement with the Select Committee's conclusions. One difficulty was to sort out the priorities on a matter which is not only a national or even an EEC issue but indeed is international. The claim to reduce pollution in the community by reducing noise levels has to compete with commercial and other considerations. Another problem is the practicality of reducing noise levels, because what is desirable may not be technically possible, or indeed commercially acceptable, in a fiercely competitive world of trade imports and exports.
The first conclusion of the committee shows the right priority in that it recommends that the EEC should produce an overall policy to combat noise. This is vital if the most appropriate action is to follow and if the areas for action are to be limited, as they must be. Such aspects as timing, noise levels, harmonisation and enforcement must have their proper place in the overall plan and in this, of course, we should have regard not only to action within the EEC but to those outside, and not least to third world countries. I was very pleased to see that stressed in the report.
284
Harmonisation is important; research and development will be increasingly necessary, and we must bear in mind also that higher technical standards necessary to reduce noise levels could be costly. One has to balance the interests there. The Community is already involved, as the noble Earl has said, in prescribing noise levels between member states and is concerned about two of the most important areas—those of traffic noise and aircraft noise. I think it is necessary that the EEC should enforce noise levels agreed by members and should also comply with other bodies such as ICAO. So there is a need for a comprehensive approach which cannot be underestimated.
Paragraph 70 of the report suggests that the EEC's Second Action Programme accepts certain actions where appropriate at Community level and some at other levels, two—national, regional and local. There must he co-ordination of the work and a decision taken as to who will ensure it. This is another important point, because there must be some responsibility of Governments or other bodies in industry, trade, local authorities, transport and other interests. It cannot be left without some authority to shape it up and get it moving.
Recommendation No. 3, regarding an advisory committee to keep the EEC informed of activity in member states and to ensure direction of an orderly development of the EEC anti-noise programme, is most desirable. I think that efforts must be made not only to ensure that there are no gaps but also that overlap of effort is avoided. Technically, this could cost huge sums if, unknown to one another, companies and countries are pursuing similar research and development programmes at the same time.
A fair amount of legislation in the United Kingdom concerning noise has already been produced. I would remind the House that the Wilson Report was issued in 1963, and we are still waiting for some action on its proposals. I wonder whether the Minister would comment on the possibility of the proposals of the Wilson Report being reviewed and acted on so far as may be necessary.
One test of progress will be the extent to which the targets are met for noise limitation. Under the 1977 Council declaration, the EEC is working towards a limit of 80 decibels for all categories of new vehicles by 1985. I note that the British Government, in the evidence, aims for the meeting of that target by 1990; and it would be helpful to know what chances there are of achieving that target through the motor industry. Of course, this means consultation with those who have to bring it about.
Aircraft noise is an international problem, especially for those living near airports. I think I am right in saying that, from the evidence, the Department of Trade believe that the EEC should not initiate aircraft noise standards but should follow international bodies such as ICAO. While ICAO may well know what is desirable and what is practicable, there seems to be no reason why we should not have an independent view on this, given the facts about practicality and the costs required to achieve lower noise standards.
I think the Government should determine reasonable criteria in view of the continuing public concern which may not be matched by those who take the responsibility for noise standards in the airline business.

285
Even if limits set by non-governmental bodies are accepted, they must be enforced following directives. One factor to which our attention is drawn is the domination of markets in respect of aircraft, especially helicopters, by the United States, so that European reductions in noise levels may not be matched by the United States. This is a factor which could be damaging to our industry. Our Government departments, in their evidence, are rightly concerned with the effects of limits imposed internationally upon our own environment and upon our trade. They point out the need for exchange of information and the need for further investigation.
Transport, as the noble Earl said, is a big area for work in the limitation of noise, The enormous increase in transport and also in the size and weight of vehicles and the movement of vehicles across frontiers produces a problem which is becoming even more intense. There has been a great deal of controversy about the size of lorries from the Continent, hurtling their smoky, noisy way through some of our charming but Dickensian villages; and so transport is another urgent aspect.
Motor cycles seem to make their presence known, and indeed heard, in most of our towns and villages where the noise from the machines seems to be a modern virility symbol. Hordes of motor-cyclists screeching through our communities seem to have put the fear of God into more people than all the churches put together. I notice that the Consumers' Association—which of course should know what we all want, as consumers—considers that we should have more information about the goods we purchase, including test results and labelling. They rightly think that the EEC should bear in mind to a greater extent the view of consumers. Clearly, the Commission must do more to satisfy the Consumers' Association and those of us they represent; and I believe that the Government should be pressing for more assurances in that direction.
The noble Earl mentioned household appliances. I notice that the Consumers' Association report on the measurement of human responses indicated that the majority of persons interviewed regarding their feelings about domestic noise emitted by vacuum cleaners and washing machines gave a neutral response—25 per cent. and 28 per cent. respectively disliked the noise and I notice that 16 per cent. in both categories actually enjoyed the noise. I am not sure what that may be interpreted as meaning. But there are some noises we get used to—perhaps I should say not "noises" but "sounds", because it may be that we are getting used to the sound of church bells, which appeal to many of us—and of course we know that some noise is acceptable because it is part of the price we pay for higher living standards, especially in the case of domestic appliances.
These are the only observations I would make. One could go into greater depth, because the report is so comprehensive; but, to sum up, I think we are greatly indebted to the Select Committee for the work they have done in bringing this report to the House and in drawing the attention of the House and of the country to this problem, which is already well under way within the Community. We generally back their
286
conclusions, especially the demand for an overall policy and for considered priorities which would include noise from motor vehicles, construction plant, aircraft and some domestic appliances.
I believe there is need for greater co-ordination in planning, research and development, and the testing and setting of standards, and also with enforcement, because without enforcement all this work and all the efforts involved will not be satisfactory. In this I believe the Government must play a major role in getting progress and in representing the views of our people, recognising that there are vital health factors also to be taken into account.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the Select Committee for the work they have done on this extremely important subject and I should like also to thank the noble Earl for his introduction. Both speakers so far have started by defining noise and the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, seemed to be complicating the matter with his "noisy noise which annoys", rather like the riddle we all knew in our youth, I think:
"What kind of noise annoys a noisy oyster?"—
to which noble Lords will remember the answer is:
"It is a noisy noise that annoys a noisy oyster".
There are all kinds of different noises, some of which we find pleasant, some of which we do not, but which, in large quantity at high levels, we find extremely annoying. We can find them in every branch of life. We can find them in the goods that we have in our homes. We can find them even in the countryside where at times, particularly in contrast with the stillness around, they are extremely annoying. Since I am in a reminiscent mood, I remember the Saki poem, where he asks:
"Have you heard the groan of a gravelled grouse, or the snarl of a snaffled snail? Brother or husband like me or spouse. Have you lain awake in a darkened house where the wounded wombats wail?"
We may not suffer from problems of that kind, but there are major ones with which we have to deal. Two of them, which I want to deal with, have been mentioned already and the first is the noise caused by transport. There are the lorries, which the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, have covered in quite a detailed way. This noise is something to which we must continue to pay a great deal of attention. It is exportable noise. The lorries that we send to other people's countries cause trouble, and the mere fact that you have to fix some kind of limit for them is something which affects the terms of trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, mentioned the noise of foreign lorries, but one correspondent who has written to me on this subject says about the problem in Ilford;
"It is the British lorries which make even more noise than the foreign ones".
Unless we get some kind of control right across the EEC, we shall have a situation where, because of the advantages to be gained from not having controls, countries vie with each other and we get more noise rather than less. That is one reason why it is extremely important to insist on noise limits.

287
This is particularly so because, as noble Lords will know from experience, it is almost impossible to pin down and do anything about the noise of a vehicle in transit. How often have we seen a lorry go past and thought, "I wish I could report that, because it is obviously making a noise which must be well above anything that the law allows." But, of course, we never do anything and, if we did, it is almost certain that absolutely nothing would happen. So we have to rely on controls on lorry makers and on customs checks when lorries move from country to country. It is very important that we move as quickly as possible towards the quiet, heavy vehicles which are mentioned in the report, because to have to wait until 1990 is a very long time for people who live in areas which are badly affected by noise.
Of course, there are certain matters which are under our own control. While talking about the European Communities' report, I do not think I should fail to point out that more action should probably be taken domestically to direct heavy and noisy traffic away from residential areas, and also, perhaps, to increase insulation grants which are very helpful where the noise cannot be avoided. The rules governing insulation grants sometimes do not make a tremendous amount of sense. I have a letter here from the London Borough of Redbridge:
"Noise resulting from new or altered highways produces premises eligible for noise insulation. Noise resulting from increased traffic flows on existing highways does not, of itself, make premises eligible for noise insulation".
So there is plenty that we can do in the domestic area, but, primarily, we must forge ahead in the European area.
Aircraft noise is something which the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, mentioned, but I want to deal with it in slightly more depth. It is rather more serious than is often appreciated, if only because it is very often a fairly limited number of people who suffer really badly from it over a long period of time; in fact, they suffer from it every hour of the day. I am particularly referring to those who live in the vicinity of airports. The ECC should certainly do something to limit the nuisance, because, if they do not, the fact that there is not a proper law which fixes limits will affect the terms of trade on which passengers and freight are carried.
The Wilson Committee said in 1963:
"Traffic produces a serious noise problem in the air. Aircraft noise at Heathrow is more than people should be required to tolerate".
The committee recommended that the noise should be reduced progressively, but, in fact, it has increased since then. In 1963, there were 60,000 jet movements per year, while on 1982 there were 248,000. There are the problems of noisy aircraft. The Airbus has a takeoff noise of 85db, while the Concorde, about which I have spoken before in your Lordships' House, has a take-off noise of 111db, compared with the 78 to 86db of motorcycles.
This has an international dimension, because, primarily, travelling across borders from country to country is what air travel is all about. According to the report, the,
"Trans-frontier effects of noise are … localised and cannot readily be called upon to justify Community involvement".
But that is not so, because a major share of air traffic is inter-European, and therefore the EEC must have a
288
role to play in controlling this nuisance. The EEC need not involve itself in formulating noise standards. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, about the ICAO levels and about our having a say in formulating the levels, because only in that way can we also control the use that we want to make of them. If we accept the ICAO methods of noise measurement, but apply EEC controls to enforce them, it will have, more or less, the main effect.
One or two of the countries involved in the EEC are not enforcing ICAO standards. Italy, I believe, is an example of failure to comply. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, spoke about helicopter standards. This is a matter upon which we should concentrate, because we can obtain some benefit for ourselves, in trade terms as well as in environmental terms, by developing a quiet helicopter. We ought definitely to pay more attention to the problem of supersonic aircraft. It may be that supersonic aircraft have a short life and that in the future we shall not have this major problem in front of us. Nevertheless, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Concorde produces a noise which is considerably worse and less tolerable than other forms of aircraft noise. It is far louder than all other jets, yet it is not included in the monitoring figures, nor is it included in noise infringement statistics.
There is also a problem about night noise. I do not see why the EEC should not take the lead in directing all European airports, certainly those with international trade, to close at night. In certain countries—Switzerland. Japan, Australia—there is a complete limit in many airports on the landings and take-offs which can happen at night. That would make a very great deal of difference to the many people who live near our major airports. Responsibility for noise seems to be largely the responsibility of the Department of Trade. In terms of the EEC, this obviously makes sense, but I wonder whether the Department of the Environment ought to have a greater say. A very interesting answer was given in evidence. At page 38 of the report, the witnesses from the Department of Industry and the Department of Trade were asked at Question 77:
"Will Europe fall in line behind France?"
The answer was:
"Not if we see it to be detrimental to our own industry, no".
One has considerable sympathy with that answer. We must do the best we can to keep our industry competitive. Nevertheless, there is a real sense in which we should try to do the best we can, regardless of the situation in which we find ourselves, in trade terms, to make certain that the environment is respected and that noise limits are acceptable to our citizens.
There is one other question that I want to ask, of which I am afraid I have not given notice to the noble Earl; it relates to the legal situation and the recourse which is open to citizens. I said earlier that there is a problem for us all with really noisy lorries. In the Noise Abatement Act 1960, noise became a form of nuisance against which local authorities or private individuals could take action, as the report says. So far as I can gather, this does not apply to aircraft noise. May I ask whether it would be possible for the GLC or local authorities to complain and to bring prosecutions on a noise basis against aircraft and airlines which disturb

289
the rest of our citizens? I do not think that it would be at all a bad idea if popular control of that kind existed.
Finally, it seems to me that the most disturbing part of this admirable report is to be found at page where it is recorded that the member state which is strongly opposed to the total harmonisation solution put forward by the Commission was said by Commission officials to be the United Kingdom. If that is so, it is most unfortunate. I should have hoped that this country, which has always had a reputation for civilised living and for trying to ensure that its citizens can live in peace and quiet, would be one of the leaders in Europe. It is a great shame if we are not, and we should certainly reform.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I apologise for not having put down my name to speak. May I also apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for not being in my place when he opened the debate. I shall take up only a couple of minutes of your Lordships' time. This has been a very interesting debate. I agree entirely with most of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, spoke about aircraft noise, and I understood him to say that aircraft noise was louder than motor-cycle noise. In my opinion, the reverse is the case. The aircraft comes and goes but the motor-cycle whizzes down the street and the noise reverberates between the buildings. I should like to know whether the Minister has got anything to say about motor-cycle noise.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, also spoke about airports. Those who design airports may put an airport in the middle of nowhere, but in no time at all there are houses all round that airport. Therefore one is in a cleft stick as to who is right and who is wrong. The people who work at the airport have got to bear in mind that they will have to live with the noise.
7.38 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for introducing this subject today in such a lucid form, thereby offering to the House an opportunity to debate the report by the European Communities Select Committee on action by the European Community to control noise in the environment.
The Government welcome the review as a timely, useful consideration of what is going on in this field. As has been well demonstrated in the debate, noise nuisance touches all our lives in one way or another. It is quite clear when we are being bothered by noise. Unfortunately, it is not always so clear as to how to control, or who should control, that noise. So far as the European Community is concerned, it is a question of what is appropriate at Community level as part of the European Community action programmes on the environment under the Treaty of Rome. In looking at this issue, the report raises important matters of policy and principle.
The Government recognise the importance of these matters and appreciate the strength and breadth of interest which has been expressed. Noise pollution has been referred to on occasions as the Cinderella of
290
pollutants. Control of noise nuisance has a relatively short history throughout the world, but increasingly more concern is being shown about the need to control it. In 1963, the Wilson Committee, to which noble Lords have already referred, defined noise as "sound which is undesired by the recipient"—a slightly different definition from those which have been mentioned tonight. However, I believe that that definition still holds good today, almost 20 years later. Since that date the United Kingdom has made substantial progress in controlling noise from air and surface traffic at source as well as, for example, controlling noise at construction sites, from factories and between neighbours under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, asked particularly about the recommendations of that committee's report. I think I can fairly say that most have been implemented to some degree and that a considerable number fall within the scope of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. We in the United Kingdom are fortunate. We have a reasonably comprehensive legislative system for meeting our prime objective, the reduction and containment of noise wherever possible, both in the environment and in the workplace—although the latter was not considered in this report.
In the context of a European Community, the Government recognise that in certain circumstances noise causes nuisance and distress. For that reason we are far from complacent about noise problems. We recognise that our policies must keep pace with the times, and be geared to our internal domestic needs within the United Kingdom, and at the same time reflect the needs of a member state as part of the European Community. I can assure the House that all Government departments will continue to keep a watching brief on the activity of the commission on noise control which affects them. This will, I hope, become clear from what I shall say shortly about some aspects of noise responsibilities as they affect various departments.
As this report concludes, it is desirable that there should be an overall policy to combat noise on a Community basis where Community action is appropriate; as the report further concludes, control of products is just such a sphere of noise control. The United Kingdom welcomes Community involvement in the fight to control noise nuisance—provided, of course, that it is a balanced, discriminating involvement. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook will be pleased to note that, for this reason, the Government would welcome the creation of the advisory committee referred to in the report to take an overall view on the Commission's "anti-noise" programme. In this context, we recognise that the European Commission is concerned to investigate questions of noise pollution identified in the environment programmes.
We certainly attach importance to the Commission having full information, in advance of any action it may take, about the situation in and the views of, the member states. It is apparent from the wide range of this debate that noise is a complex subject, with many different facets. It is for the Commission to decide how they can best take advice to help them to identify policies and priorities on the European scale. We would certainly see merit in some form of mechanism;

291
for example, an advisory committee meeting occasionally to make sure that both the Commission and the Government are informed. That would help to avoid the risk of individual proposals coming forward out of context and perhaps at fairly short notice. As far as contact between the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission is concerned, officials of Government departments are together meeting Commission officials at the beginning of next year to discuss noise matters informally in addition to ongoing commitments on specific proposals.
Clearly, as the report recognises, there are some aspects of noise pollution, such as neighbourhood noise, which are more appropriate to control within member states and which do not lend themselves to action at Community level. Indeed it is not appropriate in all cases to legislate even within a national framework; many noise problems stem from inconsiderate human behaviour. We cannot legislate to improve that, but we can hope to educate and inform. To bear witness to this, there has been the recent publication of the Bothered by Noise booklet and, before that, the codes of practice on, for example, model aircraft flying.
If I may turn now to road vehicle noise, which all speakers have mentioned, attention has been drawn to the report's comments on Community action to reduce noise levels for road traffic vehicles—heavy lorries, motorcycles and cars. Let me stress that the Government are well aware of the public concern about vehicle noise and the sub-committee's report reflects this concern. We are determined to see that action is taken to improve matters. There are two aspects to this problem: first, to make sure that new vehicles are as quiet as possible; and, second, to see that they remain quiet in use.
New lower noise limits will apply to vehicles coming into use from next year and we are already urgently looking at what further reductions would be possible in the future. The United Kingdom was instrumental in the setting up of a European Community Working Group which is looking at all aspects of future noise limits. The working Group reported in July, and discussion of its report is taking place in Brussels this autumn. The Government will press for the lowest limits that are technically feasible at an acceptable cost. We are also working with the motor industry to develop a quiet heavy vehicle for the 1990s that should be no noisier than present day cars.
The existing law and the annual testing of lorries and cars generally work well in ensuring that the agreed limits are maintained in use. But there is a problem with motorcycles, particularly because of the fitting of inadequate replacement exhaust systems. As a first step, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport laid regulations on 14th October 1982 which will make it absolutely clear that a replacement silencer must enable a vehicle to meet the same standards as the original equipment silencer did. We are also looking urgently at other ways of improving enforcement of the noise regulations in respect of motorcycles, bearing in mind that only an irresponsible minority do flout the existing regulations. I hope that it will be clear from what I have already said that the Government fully share the sub-committee's wish to see further substantial
292
reductions in vehicle noise limits—subject, of course, to feasibility and cost.
We must take issue, albeit slightly, with the report's concentration on the 1977 declaration by the Council of Ministers that the community should work towards a limit of 80dB(A) for all categories of vehicle by 1985. First, the declaration set a goal rather than making a definite commitment. Secondly, the proposal was made on the basis of the test procedure then current. The test procedure has been tightened and will bring reductions in noise limits for many heavy lorries and some cars even though the numerical values are unchanged. This has, as the department's oral evidence made clear, made the goal more difficult to reach, particularly for heavy lorries and large motorcycles. Thirdly, the majority of new vehicles are already meeting this goal.
The European Commission is expected to make known its proposals for future noise limits early next year. Until they are available, the need for additional measures to promote the introduction of quiet vehicles into traffic cannot be assessed. However, the Secretary of State for Transport has already announced the collaborative research and development programme to take forward the work with the department's quiet heavy vehicle to show how the techniques may be applied to production vehicles. Work will begin on the project itself in the next months.
As the Secretary of State for Transport announced in last December's White Paper, we have put in hand the next stage in taking forward to the production stage the techniques domonstrated in the quiet heavy vehicle. Some projects supported by the Department of Industry are already under way and we are heavily engaged with manufactureres to define further projects. There is a tentative provision of £5 million from the two department's funds, which, if matched by industry, would give a total £10 million programme. Part of the reason for a collaborative research programme involving vehicle and engine manufacturers is to ensure that British industry is as well placed as its competitors to meet this major technical challenge of meeting a noise limit of about 80dB(A). Nevertheless, a ceiling of 80dB(A) remains the government's broad objective, and to answer one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitely, we are working towards it as quickly as possible in conjunction with our Community partners.
Turning now to aircraft noise, which was particularly mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Bishopstone and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the Governments agree with the committee's conclusions that the amendments to the Subsonic Aircraft Directive are a natural extension of the present directive and should be adopted. Since the Thirteenth Report was published, the Council of Ministers has approved the directive on Limitation of Noise Emissions from Subsonic Aircraft (EC 8153/82). Legislation to amend the 1979 Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order, which will incorporate the provisions of the directive, will be laid before both Houses during the next Session.
The Government also accepts the committee's conclusions on the proposed helicopter directive. As suggested by the committee European pressure has been brought to bear on the United States, within the

293
International Civil Aviation Organisation, to reconsider its decision to defer helicopter noise standards, but so far to no avail. Further pressure will be brought to bear through the relevant working groups of the organisation, but it appears unlikely that the Americans will change their attitude before 1984/85.
Another area of EC action, following an initiative by an individual member state, is that of the proposed directive of noise labelling of houshold appliances. Let me say at once that the Government have noted the report's conlusion on this; and also let me say that we entirely take the point made by consumer bodies that labels showing only noise emitted by household appliances might confuse a purchaser. They might for instance, confuse low noise with good performance, or even high noise with high power. The way out of this difficulty is to provide that noise information is not mentioned in isolation but is always accompanied by other information, for example relating to energy rating.
I note the consumer point, that the unit of noise, the decibel, and its relationship with everyday experience of noise is not familiar to the general public. I am sure that in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was using the term they will become aware of it very soon. It is, however, a well established unit that has a sound scientific basis and is internationally recognised as a method of measuring noise. In view of this we do not think it would be practiclabe to attempt to introduce any other method of indicating noise emitted. We would rather prefer to rely on the public's often under-rated ability to absorb and put to practical use the terms involved in new technology. This they have quite easily done, for example, in the case of film speeds for photography and distortions in hi-fi systems.
It must also be remembered that the main aim of this directive is to remove barriers to trade, and we already have at least one member state anxious to introduce mandatory noise labelling. It is important, therefore, that we establish harmonised methods of measuring and quoting noise emitted, so that we do not find ourselves having to submit household appliances to a number of testing authorities in order to export to other member states. This is a most important consideration. We believe, therefore, that we should support the introduction of this directive, if only to prevent the emergence of barriers to trade.
My Lords, a number of other points were raised on specific matters and I might perhaps just deal quickly with one or two of them. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, mentioned particularly noise at work. This forms part of the Community's action programme on safety and health at work as set out on page 20 of the report, and we are awaiting the proposal for a directive which the Commission mentions in paragraph 5 on page xxxi. When the proposal has been received its details can be studied, to consider how far they are sensible.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned specifically the sound insulation of dwellings against traffic noise. Recognising that noise is one of the most disturbing features created by a new road, particularly when it cuts through a residential area, the United
294
Kingdom Government adopted the approach that where the coming into use of a road would result in more than a specified level of noise outside a dwelling house, there should he a right for the householder to claim and a duty on the highway authority to provide such insulation. This approach has been given practical effect in Part II of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the detailed regulations made thereunder. The Department of Transport undertook to keep the regulations under review and for this purpose a working party was set up to review their scope in the light of experience and the implications of any change. My right honourable friend is awaiting the working group's report, which is expected shortly.
The noble Lord also referred to lorry controls or controls on lorry routeing. We are encouraging local highway authorities to make greater use of their powers to control the routes that lorries may use as part of our package of measures to control lorries. We have offered technical advice from the Department of Transport where required. Further encouragement will be offered through favourable treatment in transport supplementary grants settlements to councils making good use of these powers. Good progress has already been made in recent years with some 850 lorry bans made on amenity grounds.
My noble friend mentioned motor-cycles. As he is well aware, there are limits on how far we can go in this field. There are already rules on how noisy new machines are allowed to be and these rules have just been tightened. Consideration of further reductions is likely. There are rules about not making excessive noise or tampering with exhaust systems. We are looking into ways of controlling inadequate replacement silencers. But modern motor-cycles used sensibly are already fairly quiet. The problems are largely caused by an anti-social minority of young riders who seem to take delight in drawing attention to themselves. The police do their best but it is difficult for them to take effective action against such mobile offenders. In some cases we are getting into deep questions about the alienation of some young people from society, and vehicle regulation is perhaps not the best way of tackling this.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, also referred to the noise at Heathrow Airport and from aircraft generally. At Heathrow itself, although aircraft movements have increased year on year, peak noise levels are already falling, and we believe they will fall further by 1st January 1986, when no older, noisier aircraft on the United Kingdom register will be allowed to operate in the United Kingdom. We and most other European Community countries greatly prefer to initiate aircraft noise proposals within ICAO, because, first, we have always done so, and, secondly, we feel that our own national interests are best represented in a wider international context. We are also anxious to avoid duplication of effort.
My Lords, if I have not covered any specific points I hope the House will allow me to do so by writing. To conclude, the Commission of the European Community has included a section on noise pollution in its proposed programme for environmental action between now and 1986. These proposals have been endorsed by the European Parliament and will be put to the Council of Ministers later this year. I assure your Lordships that the views expressed in this House this

295
evening will form a valuable basis for the United Kingdom's contribution to the Council debate, particularly in seeking to guide the Commission's priorities for future action.
I would like to end by saying that I am sure all noble Lords would like to join me in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for initiating what I believe has been a valuable discussion on noise pollution in the European Community. The Government appeciate the contribution of your Lordships, both in debate now and, more importantly, in the preparation of the Select Committee's report. This useful document will assist future progress on noise control both in the United Kingdom and in the European Community.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I hesitate to cross the indefinable barrier and from being a mere sound become an unwanted sound and therefore a noise. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, spoke of the appeal of bells and my noble friend Lord Avon spoke of the appeal of decibels, as a unit of measurement. But seriously, my Lords, I thank your Lordships very much for a fruitful and useful debate. The sub-committee will note with interest the remarks of noble Lords on the other side of the House, and I think they will note with particular gratitude two firm statements by my noble friend on this side: first, that the United Kingdom Government firmly supports the proposal for an advisory committee for exchange of information on developments in this field, and, secondly, for the assurance that there will be a grant of £5 million from the Government, which I sincerely hope will be matched by the £5 million from industry, if only to make true what we read in The Times today. My Lords, I thank you for participating in this debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Badgers: Tuberculosis Control
7.58 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that thousands of badgers gassed since 1975 under the requirements of the Ministry of Agriculture for the purpose of bovine tuberculosis control have died painful or miserable deaths from starvation or slow asphyxiation, during which period the public have been led to believe that this was a humane method of destruction; and what are the full facts about the discovery of this massive cruelty inflicted upon an otherwise protected species of wildlife.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I will not read it, because when I put it down in July I was a little highly charged emotionally. I have calmed down a bit since, but if I were re-drafting it now I would direct rather more attention to the future than to the miseries of the past. Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned about badgers. I have them at my home in Surrey, I have studied them for years, and they are supporters in my crest of arms, so I feel very close to badgers indeed.
On the events in July, when gassing was suspended, I not only felt compassion for the way we are treating our badgers, but I felt angry at the way in which we had
296
misplaced our trust in cyanide gassing as a humane method of destroying badgers. Probably we are to blame for this. We did not know enough and apparently the experts appeared not to know enough. Nor did they get to know enough about this gassing business. The reason may be that no one can seriously have thought beforehand about using a method of miscellaneous pest control as the means for carrying out a systematic and prolonged extermination of the popular badger—an extermination carried out with the authority and through the agency of the state. I believe that to be the root of the matter.
The implications of cyanide gassing being used on badgers, with their extensive underground galleries and the problem of the intensity of the gas for destruction purposes being in doubt and variable according to the terrain and conditions of the operation—all these matters seemed to have escaped the attention of those who were responsible.
I call it extermination because that is what it is. It is not a slaughter policy in the sense that I understand it. Slaughter as a form of disease control in domestic animals does not lead to the extinction of the species as the slaughter of wildlife may well do. The cry in the West country where these operations are most numerous is, "Where will it stop?" I read in the Western Daily News of 24th February this year a statement attributed to Mr. Roger Muirhead, a Ministry of Agriculture veterinary officer in Gloucestershire, which was:
"As far as I am concerned, the only solution to the serious problem of TB in cattle is to wipe out badgers, but unfortunately it would not he politic to do so".
According to the newspaper report, he went on to say:
"I really would like to see strong healthy badgers around who do not have TB. But that just will not happen".
This, I fear, is the way we are likely to be going because I do not think that there is any comfort in what is happening at the present time. Already the control areas comprise of the highest concentration of these animals in the country. Indeed, the density of the badger population in the West and in Cornwall is believed to be partly responsible for the extensive spread of tubercular infection among them. We have to ask ourselves whether the present policy, however it is carried out and whatever the method adopted, can achieve its purpose. Is the threat to the badger becoming greater than the threat to the cattle? There seem to be some grounds for believing that it is.
I do not need to remind the house of the tragic story of the badger and how, in 1973, we felt very gratified when Parliament passed a measure of protection for the badger which had suffered from persecution and abominable cruelties throughout the centuries. This interesting animal has emerged from the dark ages in its evolution to being one of the most popular of our animals in wildlife today. It has gone from vicious prejudice and cruel pursuit to being the Christmas card animal of the year. But now its popularity is turning to peril, not only peril for the badger but, I believe, a degree of peril for the Government themselves because feelings on this matter run very high indeed.
When we passed the first legislation in 1973 we thought we had ended the cruelties of badger baiting, badger digging, sending the Jack Russells down the

297
setts in order to test their virility and capacity for warfare, and all the abominations of the past. But that was rudely shaken when a couple of years later the discovery was made almost accidentally of the relationship between bovine tuberculosis in cattle and a similar infection in badgers. Then we had further legislation to give the Minister the power to issue licences for the killing of badgers which were found to he, or suspected of being, carriers of the infection of bovine TB.
This, for the sake of keeping everyone's emotions down, is called badger control, but it is badger destruction. The means of enforcement of badger control has been accompanied by the right to enter and the right to enforced entry on to land and premises for the destruction of badgers. To obstruct the men from the Ministry is an offence. To hide an animal or to conceal its whereabouts or habitat are offences under the 1975 legislation. These powers alone have given rise to scenes of acute distress and resentment and of emotional outbursts in the West country. In all the designated areas many people are in a constant state of apprehension because they never know when they are to get a warning from the men from the Ministry that they are coming on the land in the exercise of their powers of badger control. The newspapers are full of it.
This area is pretty clearly defined at the moment. It is a line north to south in the South-West country from Chipping Campden, through Swindon and Salisbury, to Bournemouth. That is the line. I believe that Dorset, where there was an outbreak at Purbeck, is now clear.
I shall confine myself to the method of destruction and not argue the question of whether this is the way in which to deal with this very serious problem. The present Minister inherited the problem. When he arrived at the Ministry it was not long before he decided to suspend the destruction of badgers until the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, had undertaken a thorough investigation or stocktaking of the position arrived at in 1979–80. I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has found it possible to be with us this evening because his contribution on this problem is of a distinguished character. He has probably put more thought into this matter than any other person in the country. Not everyone has agreed with his conclusions, but no one can question the thoroughness with which he has done the job. I thought that the Minister acted promptly and rightly when he came into office. It is very nice to see the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his customary role as Minister of Agriculture and no longer acting as the shadow of the Secretary of State for Employment.
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman produced his report in 1980, and paragraph 113 of that report recommended investigation into the use of hydrogen cyanide gas. In that respect Lord Zuckerman's doubts renewed those which had been expressed a little earlier by the RSPCA in a document which they had published on this subject, and it was thought that there was a case for further investigation of the method of destruction. The doubts were about the lethal levels of gas needed throughout the set to kill quickly and humanely.
After the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, produced his report and recommended that the badger control measures should be resumed quickly, gassing was
298
resumed while investigation was made on the recommendation in paragaph 113 of Lord Zuckerman's report. The results became available last June, when the chemical defence establishment produced its report. The Minister straightaway suspended gassing on humane grounds. In his press statement of 1st July, the Minister said:
"The results, however, do imply that there must be doubt whether the badgers in a gassed sett die quickly and, therefore, whether they die humanely".
He continued:
"We shall continue control and experimental operations by trapping in those areas where trapping is already in use".
he also added:
"It is necessary to consider urgently what alternative methods are available which can provide an effective and humane means of controlling TB in badgers".
That I am sure must mean that there may be other ways of controlling it than by wholesale destruction. Indeed, it is on the situation as it is now that I think the Minister will wish to inform the House, and it is certainly the matter upon which we all want to hear what he has to say.
The experimental trapping which is now going on may involve the use of snares and we know how horrible snares can be, especially with badgers. No one who has seen a badger in a snare can feel at all satisfied with that method of trapping badgers. It seems to me that we are all facing a situation which is every bit as worrying as in past years. New outbreaks of bovine TB among cattle in control areas show little sign of slackening and as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, emphasises in his report:
"The spread of the disease among badgers to other parts of the country could have serious consequences, not only to cattle but to the survival of the badger in our country".
Those were the words with which the noble Lord concluded his report in 1980. With that as a possible danger, I suggest that the Minister should now regard this problem as one of major ecological importance to the country as a whole. It is now a national problem: The plight of the last and shyest of this type of mammal in our wildlife, and although it is one which is elusive and rarely seen by many people, it is nevertheless in a position of strong affection among the public. I sincerely hope that all avenues of research will be diligently explored.
I conclude by saying that above all, the state, as executioner of whatever species, must satisfy the public as to need and keep clear of the taint of cruelty in its methods, It is on the outlook for the future that I ask the noble Minister kindly to inform the House.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for putting down this Unstarred Question. I trust that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take note of the various points raised by the noble Lord, as I for one have a certain amount of sympathy for what he has said.
I have no interest to declare, such as being a member of the National Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals or the Anti-Blood Sports League. On the contrary, I am a keen sportsman, especially from the point of view of shooting. It is my intention to be extremely brief and I have no wish to get into an argument with, or to criticise, the Ministry of Agricul-

299
ture on their methods in the control of badgers where there is the slightest risk of bovine tuberculosis in cattle, and where there is a danger of it being passed on to human beings. However, where I am concerned is in the example set by the Ministry in the control of these unfortunate animals.
I had the privilege and pleasure of owning a small 20 acre wood less than 25 miles from London, in which there was a colony—if that is the right word—of badgers. It gave me great pleasure to know that they were there and if and when I had the time, I would make the effort to observe their environment. That was not easy, due to their nocturnal and burrowing habits. During the 15 years that I was in possession of this wood, I had to fight against continuous requests from neighbouring farmers and gamekeepers to allow them to gas the badger burrows.
My refusal to allow this to happen was no less relaxed by the passing of the 1973 Act, making the badger a protected species other than by control through the Ministry of Agriculture, as was referred to by the noble Lord in his speech. In fact, the absence of any evidence of bovine tuberculosis in the area and, therefore, the presence of representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture made the position even worse. It was very difficult to convince the farmer that there was no danger to his cattle, and the gamekeeper that the badgers were not responsible for the loss of some of his pheasants. It became obvious that their minds had been instilled by generations of superstition that the badger was a carnivorous, diseased monster that should be put down at all costs. After all, it was a little over a century ago that badger-baiting was a favourite sport in this country.
In conclusion, I would ask my noble friend when he comes to answer the debate, to make every effort to alleviate past misunderstandings in respect of this otherwise harmless and sometimes useful animal, before it is too late.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, there are two or three points that I should like to make in this debate. The first—and I say this because we must be fair to the people from whom I took evidence in the course of my inquiry—is that no one pretended to knowledge which he did not have. When it came to the question of cyanide as a means of getting rid of infected setts or setts which were suspected of being infected, I specifically asked the RSPCA representative about this matter, as I made clear in the report. I addressed the question to him and made quite sure that it was recorded as a matter of fact in the report. The RSPCA man knew no better way of dealing with the problem.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, used the word "extermination". I really do think that it is unfortunate that we talk in terms of extermination. I know something about animal behaviour and animal numbers, and I should imagine that one of the most difficult animals ever to suffer extermination at human hands will be the badger. It is perfectly true that the densest populations are probably in the suspected areas where it is clear that transmission of the tubercle bacillus occurs between badger and cattle. I do not know which came first and, as I mentioned in my report, I think that is irrelevant. There is a direct link there and we have to deal with it
300
and establish the nature of the link as well as one can establish a point of that sort with the kind of information that we have at our disposal. If, as I believe, it is a statutory duty of Government to see that tuberculosis does not spread in our dairy cattle or in any of our cattle, obviously, any link must be dealt with, and the badger is a link.
It so happens that in today's edition of the New Scientist—and I was totally unaware of this until about an hour ago when I picked up my copy—there is an article by Dr. Barrow, lately working at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, on tuberculosis. It has the headline "Must badgers be destroyed?"
I shall not burden your Lordships with all that he says, but there are one or two points which he makes which I think are worth reading out. First, he quite correctly says that we are still ignorant of the ways in which the tubercle bacillus passes between badger and cattle.
Secondly, he says:
"This, however, does not detract from the fact that badgers do harbour"—
and I would not have put it quite this way—
"a considerable reservoir of
the particular bacillus concerned. Then he says—and this does not give me any pleasure—that he would not expect the slaughter of infected badgers to be effective always. He goes on to say something which I am afraid will cause a certain measure of distress to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. He says:
"we are left with an inevitable conclusion; if we want to control TB we must do so by controlling badger population … It follows that eradication of TB from badgers can be achieved only by eradicating badgers. Any other notion is a pipedream".
That is the problem which I am afraid the Government face. It is a problem which causes me just as much distress as it does the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. However, I am also conscious of the fact that my sympathies go out to those Government scientists who, in carrying out their duties to the people of this country in seeing that tuberculosis is suppressed, now have this difficult task of finding more acceptable ways and more effective ways both of diagnosing the presence of tuberculosis in badgers and then of dealing with the problem in such a way that the tubercle bacillus does not go on spreading from badger to badger, from badger to cattle, back to badger, and then out of the affected area.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I believe that one should pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Houghton for his continued vigilance with regard to the wellbeing of animals. Although he and many members of societies concerned with animal welfare often hit the headlines with their claims of alleged cruelty to animals—indeed, they are not always allegations, for they say that there has been cruelty to animals—I think your Lordships will recognise that they are not the only ones who care. We all share concern, some working behind the scenes as, indeed, has the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in order to solve the problems.
The subject, of course, is an emotive one and in our anxiety to ensure the wellbeing of animals as far as possible we must do what we can to get the facts. I am sure that we are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, for being with us tonight and for his

301
brief but telling contribution on this sad matter. It is, of course, easy for us to be selective in deciding what experts to believe and it is easy for us to reach some conclusion, for there is sure to be an expert somewhere who will prove what we say. But those who exercise power in Government, and, indeed, many others, have some very difficult decisions to make. This is a matter which does not concern only this Government but which concerned the previous Government as well.
How does a Minister with responsibility react when he is told that it is not only suspected but that there is real cause to believe that there is TB in some badgers which can spread to cattle, and when he is told that in one area—say, Dorset—several hundred cows can he affected and may have to be slaughtered? My noble friend says quite rightly that he is concerned about the way in which badgers are destroyed. There are two points to answer here. First, is the badger a real source of TB? Is he a carrier not only to cattle but to other clean badgers, and if it is necessary, to use nicer language, to put badgers to sleep, what is the best way to do it?
These are the problems which have been facing those in Government and, indeed, advisers for a very long time. I do not think it helps my noble friend's case for him to revive memories of badger baiting, badger digging and so on as though those who had to take responsibility in this very sad situation were enjoying the process. He must know that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, and many others have since at least 1975 been actively involved in finding the best way to tackle this problem. If a Minister is told in 1975, or whenever it may be, that several hundred cattle are at risk, dare he say, "Until we can find a way of killing badgers humanely and be absolutely certain of it"—which is something that few can certify beyond all doubt—"we must not do anything about it"?
I would not ask my noble friend if he cares only for badgers which have TB and does not care about the clean badgers who could get TB from the small number which have it. I would not like to ask him whether he has no concern for the suffering of hundreds of cows which may be affected by the disease.
If one talks about the effect of TB, then human beings are, of course, among those who can be affected, and most species of mammals and birds are susceptible to tuberculosis. I quote from the MAFF handbook of 1978:
"Amongst farm animals, cattle and swine are most frequently affected; horses and goats occasionally and sheep rarely.
"Symptoms. The disease is often of a chronic nature and objective symptoms are not seen. When the disease is advanced or becomes acute in a particular organ more definite symptoms are observed.
"The lungs are a common site of disease in cattle. When the lungs are involved the animal may cough and, in advanced case, show signs of respiratory distress. An affected quarter of the udder becomes progressively harder. The milk appears normal except in very acute cases or after the disease is long established; in these cases it may be a straw coloured fluid.
"The existence of disease may be confirmed by the demonstration of the organism in sputum, milk or discharge from the uterus. For routine diagnosis it is necessary to use a tuberculin test".
That is the fate for cows which get the disease from badgers or, indeed from any other source, but there has been real reason to believe that the badger has been responsible for cattle suffering in a number of areas in the country, though thankfully the areas are not widespread.
302
Successive Ministers have had to deal with the problem which concerns not only badgers but cows as well, and I do not think there is any doubt, after what the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has written or indeed said, that there is a strong link. The limited operation in the South-West, the most affected area, has been restricted to less than 4 per cent. of the land area, so there are not wide areas of land where badgers have been slaughtered. Clearly the Minister has been wise to seek evidence by collecting and examining badger carcases from other areas in order to restrict contamination where it exists. There is no doubt about the problem of infection.
I was rather interested in a letter published in December last in the Daily Telegraph from the chairman of the Dorset County Branch of the National Farmers' Union, who said then—and it is still true, I am afraid—that there is much misunderstanding as to the extent of, and the need for, the gassing of badgers. It is not suggested that he said that any badgers should be destroyed where healthy cattle are living alongside healthy badgers. He reminds us that in a period of seven years no fewer than 700 infected cattle had to be slaughtered. When the area of about 500 acres was cleared of badgers the infection ceased immediately. Following a series of clear tests the farm was given a clean bill of health by the Ministry of Agriculture. He says:
"Now restocking of the empty setts with badgers is taking place with the blessing of the farmer and the careful monitoring of the Ministry of Agriculture, which throughout has shown great consideration not only for the health of livestock but for the welfare of the wildlife".
I notice from replies to questions that something like £1½ million has been paid out in compensation. That money paid out represents a large number of cattle who have suffered in much the way that I have quoted tonight, and suffered a great deal. If my noble friend had been in charge of the situation would he have said, "Well, I recognise that something should be done, but until we are sure as to how we can get rid of these infected badgers with no suffering whatsoever the thing must be left"? I do not know what would have happened to our herds in that situation.
It has not been just a matter for the Minister of the day to decide what action he shall take, because he has had a lot of expert advice in addition to that of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, and I think it would be helpful if I just put on record the reply to my noble friend on a Question in your Lordships' House on 14th July of this year, at column 452, about the composition of the Advisory Panel. I shall not mention names but it is important to know what organisations they represent. The composition of the Advisory Panel on Badgers and Tuberculosis includes members of the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association, the RSPCA, which I think is an important point, the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society, the Mammal Society, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, and expert on the diseases of wildlife, an eminent authority on badgers, a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Nature Conservancy Council, a general medical practitioner and expert on badgers, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, and a microbiologist from Middlesex Hospital. That is a formidable gather-

303
ing of experts and people representing all interests; nature as well as conservation, as well as animal welfare. We are indebted to them and indeed others who have given advice on this matter. They have met on five occasions since January 1981, the last time being on 1st July this year.
I do not think I need say anymore about this because Lord Zuckerman's contribution is one which I am sure will be accepted by all Members of the House. We are grateful to my noble friend for having raised this, and I hardly need to assure him that we all share the concern about this matter. In Government problems come along on which one hopes on occasion you would not have to take a decision. During the whole period under review, from Governments of both parties, we have been seeking all the advice we can to check on methods as to whether they are humane and to see whether there are alternative methods which might be even more humane. I think the Minister was right to suspend the present procedure until he has more assurance. I hope, as I am sure we all do, that something will come along soon which everyone can accept.
We would be wrong to be selective about this and say that we ought only to be concerned about the badgers who have TB and pay little regard to those who can get TB—the clean badgers, and there are many more of them, and also of course our dairy herds. My noble friend has rightly raised this matter, of which the gassing of badgers is only a small part. The other larger part concerns the many more clean badgers and the massive number of cattle who are threatened. We welcome this opportunity to enlighten the House and indeed the country about what steps are being taken, because we all share the dilemma and concern of the general public that something shall be done as soon as possible to make sure that the risk of contamination from some badgers does not spread the suffering to much wider areas.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, before my noble friend rises to reply, may I say that something has recently been said about the areas concerned. Like the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I am not an agriculturist but I am devoted to wildlife and to the prevention of cruelty to animals. The only case of bovine tuberculosis of which I have heard recently in our neighbourhood was in cattle imported from Ireland. I should like to ask my noble friend whether there is any limit in terms of region, or latitude, and whether badgers in Scotland are just as likely to be infected as are badgers in southern and warmer areas?
8.38 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for having asked this Question. It gives me an opportunity to explain the position as it is, and it is an important Question. The noble Lord said that he had put this Question down in July and it was fairly emotionally charged, and if he had rewritten it he would have used more modest words. I am bound to say that he had three months in which to rewrite his Question, and if he did not rewrite it I am bound to answer the Question which was put on the Order Paper.
304
In that Question he refers to the,
"thousands of badgers gassed since 1975 under the requirements of the Ministry of Agriculture".
He refers to the,
"massive cruelty inflicted upon an otherwise protected species of wildlife."
These are strong words, and I accept that the noble Lord would modify them. But those are the words he used, and the words of the Question that one has to answer. I take them very seriously. Everyone knows Lord Houghton's intense interest in the protection of animals, and he is not alone in this. I want to see animals protected, and I have no doubt that every other noble Lord does too. Whatever the critics may say, the Ministry of Agriculture sets great store on the preservation of wildlife.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. I did not think that my noble friend Lord Lindsey and Abingdon's description of badger baiting which was done only 100 years ago was particularly helpful. We have moved on since then, and people's opinions have changed a great deal; and if we are to talk about conservation, or anything like that, people's opinions have changed monumentally over the last seven years. Although my noble friend said that some people consider that badgers are diseased animals and should be put down at all costs, I do not think that is a fact. Certainly it is not the experience I have had. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is entirely right to say that the badger is liked and that the gassing of badgers is bad for Government. Indeed, I would not take any exception with him over that. Of course people do not like it. People have disliked it and, as he rightly said, they have demonstrated against it.
My officials at the Ministry of Agriculture do not like doing it either. The gassing of badgers does cause revulsion. It goes without saying that the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, under the instructions of my right honourable friend the Minister—and, indeed, of his predecessors who belonged to the party of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston—did not undertake these operations without very good reason, and I shall take this opportunity to tell your Lordships exactly why badger control was, and remains, necessary; and I found the speech of Lord Bishopston particularly helpful when he said it was a difficult problem for any Minister. Any Minister can act only on the advice he has, and when one is talking about diseases, whether of cattle or human beings, he can act only on scientific advice, and it must be the best advice. He cannot act on his own opinions, however strongly he may feel, or on his own sentiments, because once one starts going down that road on matters of disease, one really loses credibility. My right honourable friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston and his right honourable friend before him, acted, I believe, on the best advice they had.
In the 1930s, and even 30 years ago, tuberculosis was still a serious problem in this country, with 50,000 new cases in human beings every year. A substantial proportion of those cases arose from the tuberculosis organism which infects cattle. In the 1930s nearly one in three cattle were infected. Nowadays, tuberculosis is no longer the fearful scourge it was. It is uncommon in human beings, and in cattle only one animal in every 5,000 is now found to have any infection—as I say,

305
compared with one in three in the 1930s—and those one in 5,000 we soon wipe out.
Fifty years ago we began a voluntary programme to eradicate this disease from cattle. Thirty years ago the eradication from cattle was made compulsory by law. In 1960, we were able to declare ourselves virtually free of bovine TB. That was a great achievement. Now, we regularly test the adult population of over 5 million cattle and any reactor animal is slaughtered as soon as it is detected. That means that few, if any, cattle get beyond an early stage of the disease. This is the only safe method and it is used by all developed countries. We should he failing in our obligations, both domestic and international, were we to do otherwise.
Nevertheless, despite that, there are still sporadic outbreaks, as with any other disease which has been removed. But it is no longer endemic. With few exceptions, these sporadic outbreaks have been confined to some parts of the South West. There, there is 10 times as much bovine TB as in the rest of the country—one reactor in 500 instead of one in 5,000—and while that is still very small, it is far too big. Tuberculosis could still be transmitted through milk to those who live and work on farms there. What is more, this higher level of infection could soon spread to neighbouring herds and to other parts of the country, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred.
It is a fact that badgers can, and do, harbour bovine tuberculosis and their connection with the disease is inescapable. Ministry scientists did not just jump to the conclusion that badgers were the culprit after finding just one carcase with TB. They examined many diseased badger carcases and studied the way in which the disease developed and where it occurred before reaching a conclusion. Indeed, there was criticism at the time that they were far too cautious about a conclusion which had long been obvious to many paople.
So the evidence accumulated. There is a very strong geographical correlation between outbreaks of the disease in cattle and the presence of diseased badgers, and I must tell my noble friend Lord Ferrier that, so far as I know, there is not an association between TB of badgers in Scotland and TB of cattle in Scotland. Badgers, when diseased, can excrete vast quantities of TB organisms, particularly in urine and pus, from bites or wounds, and so they can contaminate pastures. Cattle and badgers share the same pastures and the possibility of cross-infection is obvious.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, insinuated that possibly badgers get tuberculosis from cattle, a criticism I have frequently heard. However, the possibility that cattle could spread the disease to the badger or other cattle is considered to be extremely small, as cattle are regularly tested for the disease and reactors to the test and contacts are removed and slaughtered. The regularity of testing is such that in almost all cases the disease is discovered before it has developed to an infective stage, and any cattle sold prior to a test which reveals infection in the herd are immediately traced to their destination, check tested and, if necessary, slaughtered. So I really think that the possibility, so often put, that cattle give the disease to badgers is in fact not so.
306
I am bound to say that I was not altogether impressed with the connection between outbreaks of tuberculosis in badgers and TB in cattle until I went to the South West and saw the detailed field work, and at that level the connection is remarkably apparent. I believe that most impartial people who study the evidence would be convinced. And in the face of such evidence, no Government could afford to run the risk of not dealing with what is clearly a reservoir of a potential killer disease. It was decided that in order to neutralise the wildlife reservoir of the disease, infected badger social groups and their contacts should be removed, only in those areas where there was an undoubted connection. Of course, it may be that in some cases badgers have been destroyed when, in the full knowledge which we should like to have but which we do not have and which we did not have, that might not have been necessary. But when the eradication of serious disease is involved, we must act quickly and sometimes harshly. So, if it was necessary to destroy badgers in those limited areas, one asks: what should be the method?
Before deciding to use gassing as a means of badger control, the then Government undertook extensive and thorough consultations with a number of bodies: the Nature Conservancy Council, the Mammal Society, the Council for Nature, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and people eminent for their work in badgers. There was unanimous agreement among those consulted—and they were people who were, by nature, expected to want to protect badgers—that gassing was undoubtedly the most humane method of killing badgers. That was exactly the advice contained in the Scott-Henderson Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals issued in June 1951. All the evidence was that gassing was the most humane method of destruction. We have always tried to operate on the smallest possible scale where badgers have to be destroyed.
My noble friend Lord Lindsey and Abingdon said Ministry officials in the field had shown themselves not open to conviction about the role of badgers and bovine TB. All I would tell him is that in every investigation on each outbreak of the disease we have examined every other possible source of infection before even considering the possibility of badger-bourne infection.
I would remind your Lordships that the total of gassing operations has not been large. A map showing the total extent of the operations has been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House, and it shows that only about 4 per cent. of the land area in the Ministry's South-West region has been covered by these operations, and this is only three-quarters of 1 per cent. of all the land in England alone—not Great Britain; just England.
So I really do not think that it is right for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to say that this is an exercise that will exterminate the badgers. It really is not. The noble Lord described the Government as being the executioner of the species. I realise how strongly he feels, but, with the greatest of respect to him, I must say that such phraseology does not measure up to the facts. The operations have been carried out in only a very limited area, and only in those places where the badgers themselves have tuberculosis, or are suspected of having it.

307
I am bound to tell your Lordships that, despite the evidence about the involvement of badgers with the disease, despite the advice that was given about the humaneness of gassing, and despite the Government's statutory duty to eradicate tuberculosis from cattle, vociferous criticism still came from certain quarters.
When my right honourable friend the Minister came into office he decided to have the whole subject re-examined, because he wanted to make sure that the policy was right. He wanted a very eminent person to do this. So he appointed the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, whose presence tonight and whose contribution to the debate was very substantial and, if I may say so with all humility, very important. The noble Lord is president of the Zoological Society of London, he was president of the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society, and he is a very enminent person in this field. My right honourable friend asked him to carry out an independent review of the whole question. While that was being done, my right honourable friend stopped the gassing of new setts and in so doing permitted badgers which possibly had the disease to continue to spread it. The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, concluded that the evidence involving the badger was overwhelming and that the only policy was to destroy badgers where they were known to be infected or in contact with infection. So gassing was resumed.
In the course of his inquiry, the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, paid particular attention to the question of the humaneness of gassing. He discussed the issues specifically with the Consultative Panel on Badgers and Tuberculosis, and it gave him the advice that there was no more humane or efficient method of badger control than gassing. Of whom does the panel consist? It consists of representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers' Union, and the Country Landowners' Association, as well as four individuals who are eminent in the fields of badger and wildlife disease studies. That is not exactly the village darts team, but rather a very eminent and respected body of people.
Their advice was that there was no more humane or efficient method of badger control than gassing. Nevertheless despite that assurance, the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, penetrated further. He decided to recommend yet a further check, and he advised that further inquiries should be carried out; in particular, inquiry into what concentration of gas in the air of the sett would be needed to kill the badgers both quickly and humanely. The necessary work was therefore commissioned to be done by the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down, and its report has been placed in the Library of the House. In passing I would mention that the Chemical Defence Establishment based its work mainly on ferrets and involved only a very few badgers. Even in this crucial work every effort was made to avoid killing badgers, as scientific advice was to the effect that ferrets would give a very good
308
indication of what might happen in badgers. But of course the ironical part is that ferrets had to die in order to find out the information to protect the badgers.
The results from the experiments suggest that, if badgers are to be killed in one minute, then 2,000 parts per million of gas is needed in the air of the sett, and that the corresponding figure for five minutes is 882 parts per million, and for 25 minutes it is 194 parts per million.
I am hound to tell your Lordships that those results were unexpected, and they were unexpected in what was then the present state of informed opinion, which was based on investigations over a number of years into the toxicity of hydrogen cyanide to a very wide variety of animals. The results indicate that the response to cyanide of the badger is different from that of other animals. The reasons for the difference are not understood. However the results imply that there must be doubt as to whether all the badgers in a gassed sett die quickly, and therefore whether they die humanely. That is because the levels of gas in a sett are in general lower than the new experiments show to he necessary.
I must emphasise that the results do not suggest that thousands of badgers have died painful, miserable deaths from starvation or from asphyxiation. That is the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and he is perfectly entitled to it. What the results do is to cast doubt on what had been thought about the speed of death and the after-effects for those badgers which do not die. My right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Wales decided that they could not afford to be doubtful in such a matter, and accordingly they suspended gassing as a means of badger control on 26th June this year.
Of course a new method of control has to be substituted for gassing, and the Ministry has resorted to live trapping. The decision was taken by my right honourable friend on the unanimous advice of the consultative panel. It agreed that it was necessary for control measures to continue, and it was satisfied that live trapping was a practicable and humane method of control. Live trapping also has the advantage that carcasses become available for scientific investigation, and the panel has urged that every effort should be employed to use this material to advance scientific knowledge of the subject—and this we are doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked whether the use of snares would be a possibility. We are discussing with the consultative panel on badgers the question of how best to operate live trapping, and we shall discuss with the panel the use of snares. On top of all of that a very wide variety of interested organisations have been invited to give their views on methods of controlling tuberculosis in badgers. The new main method of control will be reappraised once this advice has been received and has been considered. Our methods of control will be kept under continuous appraisal.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is worried about gassing, and he is worried that gassing has been wrong—a policy that has been continued not just by the present Government, but by our predecessors, who of course came from the party opposite. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I make no apology for what we have done. We have acted, as did

309
my right honourable friend's predecessors, to protect human health and to protect animal health. We acted in the best of faith with the information which was available to us. As can happen in any aspect of life, further research has shown up unexpected facts which have cast doubt on the basis for our actions, and even contradicted our assumptions and our knowledge. That is what research often does, and that is the purpose of further research. We can only try once more to find the best method of control in the light of the knowledge which is available to us.
I know that this is a matter of great concern, and I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that apart from anything which the Government may do on research, the Consultative Panel on Badgers and Tuberculosis has endorsed the Ministry's major research programme. On certain aspects of the research close liaison has been established with the Middlesex Hospital in London; the Department of Pure and Applied Biology; the Imperial College, London; the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down; the Universities of Reading, Exeter and Surrey; and the National Environment Research Council, through its Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. So there is quite a lot going on for the badger.
I would conclude with the penetrating observations of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in his report—for which, if I may, I would add my personal and modest word of thanks and appreciation, because it was a remarkable report and easily readable. He said this:
"I am confident that the Ministy's policy does not constitute a threat to the survival of the species in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the very high prevalence of tuberculosis in the badgers of the South West seems to me to be a far greater threat, for if the disease were to take hold in badgers in other areas of the country, there is no saying what the consequences would be, not only so far as the transmission of tuberculosis to cattle is concerned but also as they relate to the survival of the badger in our country".
Then, in his recommendations the noble Lord concluded—and I quote his words:
"the spread of tuberculosis among badgers now implies a major hazard in their survival".
Tuberculosis is bad for humans, it is bad for cattle, and it is had for badgers themselves. It is our intention to continue to eliminate this disease in the most humane and reasonable manner that is known.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him one question? I should just like to reiterate that I—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I think he is in fact out of order because he has spoken once already, and the convention is that that is sufficient for all noble Lords.

London Transport (General Powers) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past nine o'clock.

  MR. STEVEN RAYMOND: RELEASE DATE
  MR. STEVEN RAYMOND: RELEASE DATE
  MANCHESTER PRISON: FIRES
  MANCHESTER PRISON: FIRES
  USSR: PEACE PROPOSALS
  USSR: PEACE PROPOSALS
  UK CITIZENS IN CYPRUS: COMPENSATION FOR TURKISH INVASION
  UK CITIZENS IN CYPRUS: COMPENSATION FOR TURKISH INVASION
  AIRLINE LICENCES: APPEALS
  AIRLINE LICENCES: APPEALS
  EEC POVERTY PROGRAMME
  EEC POVERTY PROGRAMME
  WINES: SALES BY THE GLASS
  WINES: SALES BY THE GLASS
  BUILDING SOCIETY LAW
  BUILDING SOCIETY LAW
  REVENUE COMMISSIONERS
  REVENUE COMMISSIONERS
  EDUCATION ACT 1981: IMPLEMENTATION
  EDUCATION ACT 1981: IMPLEMENTATION
  FARM CAPITAL GRANTS: INSPECTIONS
  FARM CAPITAL GRANTS: INSPECTIONS
  HEYSHAM/N. IRELAND FERRY SERVICE
  HEYSHAM/N. IRELAND FERRY SERVICE
  WATER AUTHORITIES: CHAIRMEN'S REMUNERATION AND BASIS OF APPOINTMENT
  WATER AUTHORITIES: CHAIRMEN'S REMUNERATION AND BASIS OF APPOINTMENT
  WATER AUTHORITY OFFICIALS' REMUNERATION
  WATER AUTHORITY OFFICIALS' REMUNERATION