Sitting of 23 February 1984

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
GINNS AND GUTTERIDGE, LEICESTER (CREMATORIUM) BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered upon Thursday 15 March.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
To be further considered upon Thursday 1 March.
TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 1 March.
BARCLAYS BANK BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Wednesday 29 February at Seven o'clock.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)
LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 1 March.
ULLAPOOL HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Northern Ireland Office
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans for reorganising the Northern Ireland Office; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): No, Sir. The Northern Ireland Office is properly organised to administer the present constitutional
    958
    arrangements, but I am always willing to consider the size and structure of the office if widely acceptable proposals for devolution could be found.
    Mr. Molyneaux: As the Northern Ireland Office is, in a sense, a microcosm of the national Government, is there not a strong case for having available continuity of advice from senior civil servants; advice which can be obtained only from people who have long experience in Northern Irleland affairs?
    Mr. Prior: There is much in what the right hon. Gentleman says. Such advice is available through the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and through members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service who are members of the Northern Ireland Office, so that point can be met.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how the Northern Ireland Office acts in London when the Foreign Secretary of the Republic gets in touch with his ambassador here and wants roads not to be blocked in Northern Ireland, and one official of the Northern Ireland Office sees the ambassador and eventually gets the Army pulled out from blocking those roads?
    Mr. Prior: That is not a correct account of what happened. What happens is that the ambassador endeavours to see a senior official at the Northern Ireland Office if a Minister is not available. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers a Minister was not available, but the views of the ambassador, representing his Government, were immediately relayed to a Minister, who then took the appropriate action.
    Mr. Flannery: Does anyone seriously think that the reorganisation of the Northern Ireland Office will in any way solve the problem in Northern Ireland? Is it not a far more massive problem than that, and one with which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will not come to terms because he fears a solution in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: In fairness, I do not believe that either the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) or the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) thought that this was a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. I believe that only by working through the Assembly can the people of Northern Ireland progress towards a solution of their problems, which will not be possible by making statements in the House.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has overwhelming support from the Conservative Benches and in the country for the difficult job that he does with such tact and patience? In the light of the previous question, will he take this opportunity to obtain from the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) a repudiation of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) and others who share them?
    Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I leave it to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) to make her own remarks about that matter, but I must say that they were extraordinary, inept and unhelpful.
    Miss Maynard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was misrepresentation and that in one newspaper at least there was an untrue statement? I repeat what I said

    959
    before. I am not in favour of violence, here or anywhere else. I have never been, and am not now, a supporter of the IRA or any other warring group in that unhappy country.
    Mr. Prior: In that case, I hope that the hon. Lady will go one step further and say that she is not in favour of terrorism and that she does not believe that the IRA are freedom fighters.
    Miss Maynard: I am not in favour of terrorism, and I am not in favour of it on either side.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Lady to say that.

    Nuclear Energy
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his plans for the provision of nuclear energy in the Province for the foreseeable future.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): None, Sir.
    Mr. Farr: Will my hon. Friend consider the matter again? As many countries in Europe which are not that much bigger than Northern Ireland produce a sizeable proportion of their energy supply by nuclear means, and as by the turn of the century countries such as Finland, Norway, and other Scandinavian countries will have a nuclear capacity of over 20 per cent., is not the Government's policy for the Province wrong?
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend raised the matter in Committee, and I have reconsidered it because of the respect that I bear him. The total maximum load for Northern Ireland in 1982–83 was only about 1200 MW, and as nuclear power plants come in sizes from 500 MW upwards it is clearly out of the question at the moment to consider such a power station there.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a cheaper way to allow Northern Ireland to benefit from nuclear-generated electricity would be to construct a North channel electricity inter-connector?
    Mr. Butler: That is always an option, but an even cheaper way would be to exploit the lignite reserves which we have now established exist.
    Mr. Concannon: Will the hon. Gentleman say a few words about the Kilroot power station and his intentions? Are we any further towards making that coal-fired?
    Mr. Butler: I have a number of options before me as a result of consultants' investigations, and I have the Northern Ireland Electricity Services report as well. There are clear signs that conversion to solid fuel—probably coal—would be advantageous. I cannot say any more than that at present.

    Aircraft Industry
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the future of the aircraft industry in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Butler: There are two companies in Northern Ireland which are involved in aircraft manufacture. They
    960
    are Short Brothers Ltd., which is publicly owned, and Lear Fan Ltd., in which the Government have a small shareholding. Shorts, which is the largest manufacturing employer in Northern Ireland, is continuing to develop its business in aerostructures, missiles and aircraft, and has good expectations of expanding its business profitably. The Lear Fan aircraft is at the leading edge of technology and its prospects depend on its attaining airworthiness certification.
    Mr. Dubs: Do the Government intend to privatise Shorts?
    Mr. Butler: We have no immediate intention so to do, but there is no reason why, given certain safeguards, Shorts should not be returned to the private sector.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government intend to privatise Shorts there would be no shortage of buyers? Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work force and management of Short Brothers Ltd. which has led the field in increased productivity and has a large number of contracts with overseas manufacturers? In particular, will he pay tribute to the leadership of Sir Philip Foreman, who has done so well in increasing productivity?
    Mr. Butler: I echo what my hon. Friend says about the performance of the management and work force. Before privatisation, Shorts must demonstrate a record of profitability. It has just broken into operating profit, and I hope that it will now go further.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will the Minister join me in denouncing the serious act of wanton destruction in Armagh city in the early hours of Monday morning, which put the jobs of 200 people in my constituency at serious risk? Will he give an assurance that he will do everything in his power to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that this has anything to do with the aircraft industry.
    Mr. Butler: It is possible that Bairnswear was producing knitwear for the employees of those firms. This is an important matter and I join the hon. Gentleman in denouncing what occurred. Those who aspire to serve the interests of Ireland do total damage to it by destroying jobs for people in Armagh and creating a worse image of the Province.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: As one who travels on a Shorts 330 some weekends to my constituency — [HON. MEMBERS: "A private one?"] Yes, a private airline—may I add my tribute to the work done by Shorts? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Defence Department of the United States is giving the Sherpa a fair crack of the whip in the competition for that aeroplane, which the United States Government require for their armed forces?
    Mr. Butler: I hope that the airline which my hon. Friend flies will soon be buying 360s. The answer to his question is yes, we believe that the case has been made thoroughly and it is being reviewed now both by the United States air force and by the United States Administration. Naturally we hope it will succeed, because it will mean an expansion of Shorts business as well as 500 or 600 new, much-needed jobs.
    Mr. Archer: Is the hon. Gentlemn aware that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) will be viewed within the context of the whole

    961
    strategy of the Government of divesting the public in the next four years of any asset which shows itself to be profitable, irrespective of the interests of the work force, the local community or the general economy? If the voice is the voice of the hon. Gentleman, is the hand not the hand of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Butler: Having led in this House on the British Aerospace Bill, as it was then, I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is my hand and my policy, which I share with my right hon. Friend. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gets the story completely wrong. If and when privatisation were to come about, it would be to the advantage of the work force. I would hope, for instance, that they would be able to participate in the shareholding in the company, which they cannot do at the moment. Of course, it would be necessary, among other things, to have safeguards to ensure that the business remained in Northern Ireland.

    Assembly Recommendations
    Mr. Peter Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many recommendations of the Northern Ireland Assembly he has accepted fully or in part; and whether they have involved or will involve changes in statutory rules, Orders in Council or Executive action.
    Mr. Prior: Up to 31 January 1984 the Government had accepted, in full or in part, 138 recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Assembly arising out of the work of its departmental Committees. Acceptance of these recommendations has resulted, or will result, in changes to draft Orders in Council or statutory rules, or Executive action, including, in some cases, further discussion with the Assembly.
    Mr. Robinson: I am grateful for that information. Does the Secretary of State believe that that is a worthwhile role for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Will he in this House welcome the return to the Northern Ireland Assembly of four Members who had for some time been boycotting it? Does he believe that their return — or, indeed, the absence of the remainder of their colleagues—affects the future of that Assembly?
    Mr. Prior: I warmly welcome the work that the Assembly has done, which has been valuable, and if we could find any other way of making the work of the Assembly, even in phase 1, more effective than it is at present by the greater participation of Ministers, and so on, we should be only to happy to do so. I shall, of course, not be satisfied until everybody elected to the Assembly is attending it. I am afraid that that may still be some way off, but in the meanwhile we must go on with the Assembly as it is, although it cannot continue indefinitely unless people take part.
    Mr. William Ross: We are grateful to the Secretary of State for the figures that he has given. Does he understand that those figures will be read with great interest in Northern Ireland? Will he increase that interest in Northern Ireland by detailing in the Official Report the number of recommendations which have been put to him which he has not accepted and has decided not to implement?
    Mr. Prior: I believe that 78 recommendations have not been accepted. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is
    962
    now taking an interest in the Assembly. The Government believe — this is generally recognised — that it is far easier to bring down institutions than it is to create them. Nothing has been put forward for the future of Northern Ireland which in any way comes near to the success of the Assembly, even as it is operating now.
    Mr. Porter: I am glad to hear that the Assembly has done some useful work. Is not now the time to have another look at the possibility of administrative devolution, which could perhaps add to the Assembly's work?
    Mr. Prior: As I have said on many occasions, we are prepared to look at anything put forward, but it must match the criteria that are acceptable to both sides of the community. The Assembly is the right place for those aspects to be discussed. I hope that everyone will take part in discussions in the Assembly on how it can progress. The House could then look at the proposals put forward.
    Mr. John David Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware that most people in Northern Ireland wish to see the Assembly not only retained but given real powers of devolution?
    Mr. Prior: I recognise that, and I am the first to want to see that happen. Having been on the receiving end of representations from hon. Members for a number of years, I long for Northern Ireland to have more say in its affairs. I equally recognise that that can happen only when the people of Northern Ireland are prepared to accept those powers in a spirit of co-operation.
    Mr. Canavan: Are the absentee Members of that toy town Assembly still entitled to draw their wages and expenses? How much is that stupid exercise costing the taxpayer?
    Mr. Prior: I do not regard the Assembly as a stupid exercise. I hope that, from now on, the hon. Gentleman will give a little credit where it is due to the people who are playing a full part in the Assembly. I cannot give him the figures of those who have drawn their salaries but are not attending the Assembly. I recognise that many of them are doing constituency work and carrying out constituency functions. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a question on that subject, I shall answer him.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it ill-becomes the hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) to say in the House that the Assembly should be supported and that the Northern Ireland people want: to support it, when he occupies an office in that Assembly as the Vice-Chairman of a Committee, does not attend, but continues to draw a salary for an office which he does not even attempt to fulfil?
    Mr. Prior: I am trying to get the hon. Gentleman back into the Assembly, not to keep him out.

    Roads (Gritting and Salting)
    Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will accede to the request of the Newry and Mourne district council that district councils be given responsibility for gritting and salting of roads in conditions of frost and snow.
    The Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): No such request has been received.
    Mr. Powell: Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that it would be entirely practical and efficient for such a service to be administered by those who live in the locality, who know where the needs most urgently arise and are in the best position to be aware of public anxiety and, if necessary, to allay it?
    Mr. Patten: There are some practical difficulties in the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. I am not aware of any general desire among district councils to have that function transferred to them. If the organisation representative of district councils comes forward with that proposal, we shall give it the serious attention which it will doubtless deserve.
    Rev. William McCrea: Will the Under-Secretary of State assure the House that if such powers were given to local district councils in Northern Ireland appropriate finance would be made available to them, so that there would not be another financial fiasco, such as we had with the dogs order, with the burden being put on district rates and the money coming from local people's pockets?
    Mr. Patten: Any such change would, of course, have financial implications, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

    Magilligan Prison
    Mr. William Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he has taken and what further advice he has given to staff of the prison service to prevent firearms, ammunition and explosives being smuggled into Her Majesty's prison, Magilligan.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The governor of Her Majesty's prison Magilligan has, under the direction of the Northern Ireland Office, carried out a thorough review of security and procedures at all levels within the prison. Special attention has been paid to search methods and the general supervision of inmates by staff, and revised arrangements have been introduced for controlling and supervising visitors.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that he told me on 10 November 1983 that all that was humanly possible was being done to ensure that no illicit material was getting into the prison? Shortly thereafter a firearm was found, and since then there has been an explosion, which was clearly designed to kill. Against that background, why should the people in the area believe that the present measures are any more successful than those that have been employed in the past? What assurance can the Minister give the local people? Is he making available to the prison officers at Magilligan prison copies of the Hennessy report and, possibly, the report of the debate in the House on that report?
    Mr. Scott: I said I would ensure that all that was humanly possible would be done at Magilligan prison. I have always made it clear that no guarantee can be given for any prison that there will be no smuggling of contraband articles. Smuggling takes place in prisons in Britain and in Northern Ireland, but all that is humanly possible will be done.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Would it not be a good idea for a number of the prison officers to have a restricted length
    964
    of service at Magilligan prison — for example, three months' service, followed by three months off? In that way, they could continue to be alert all the time.
    Mr. Scott: With the greatest possible respect, I think that prison officers should spend sufficient time in any prison, but not an excessive time, to be able to gain experience of the inmates and the conditions within the prison.
    Mr. Maginnis: Has the regimes division of the Northern Ireland prison department advised the Minister to accord to Loyalist prisoners who have recently stopped their protest the same return of remission as he accorded to Republican prisoners who came off hunger strikes?
    Mr. Scott: I was pleased to see the statement on behalf of Loyalist prisoners that they have ceased their protest. If that turns out to be the position, we shall for the first time since 1976 be without a protest in Northern Ireland's prisons. We shall judge the behaviour of the prisoners concerned. If they turn out to be fully conforming prisoners, the return of remission will be considered.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister not in a position to confirm that the protest has ended?
    Mr. Scott: I have seen statements, but whether prisoners are on protest is judged by behaviour rather than statements.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What standards of judgment were excercised for conforming Republican prisoners?
    Mr. Scott: Conforming prisoners are those who are willing to take directions from the governor on accommodation and work.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Minister explain why body-scanning techniques cannot be introduced in the Northern Ireland prison system, including Magillan prison, to prevent the unnecessary use of strip-searching techniques, which are highly undesirable? Is there any truth in the suggestion that scanning techniques cannot be introduced because far more prison staff would be required to implement them? If that is true, does the Minister accept that that is an entirely unacceptable reason?
    Mr. Scott: That is untrue. Strip searching is used in prisons throughout the United Kingdom and is thought to be necessary in all our prisons. There is continuous review of the technical facilities, which might one day obviate the necessity for strip searching, which must be unpleasant for prisoners and prison officers alike.

    Security
    Rev. Ian Paisleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security of the border.
    Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 26 January, two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, one soldier and six civilians have died as a result of incidents connected with the security situation in Northern Ireland. As always, the police and Army commanders continue to pay particular regard to the security of the border areas and I am convinced that the positive and

    965
    flexible tactics that they employ in this region are the best way to thwart terrorist crime. In the pursuit of border security, I continue to attach importance to the closest co-operation with the security authorities in the Republic.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that my right-thinking constituents in Dunloy would like me to pay tribute to a gallant sergeant of the British Army who was killed while giving protection to law-abiding citizens of the Dunloy area? We hope that his colleague will speedily recover from the injuries that he received. Will the right hon. Gentleman also take it from me that my constituents are delighted that the right men were brought under the fire power of the British Army, especially when one thinks of the list of murders and attacks that were carried out by those who used the weapons that were recovered? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the security forces the thanks of my constituents for the action that they took?
    Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that everyone in Northern Ireland and in the House will pay tribute, as the hon. Gentleman has done, to the work of the security forces, and recognise the difficulties that all those connected with the security forces have to contend with in Northern Ireland. Although we do not always see eye to eye about the best methods of securing security, we are all doing our best to overcome the very serious problem.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend try to overcome the objections in the South to direct links between the armies on the two sides of the border? Secondly, has not the time come to set up a security commission involving the authorities on both sides to review all aspects of border security? After many years, the situation remains very unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation remains very unsatisfactory, and I am interested that he should make that suggestion about greater cooperation. I am convinced that if we are to overcome the problems of terrorism we must consider them in the context of the island of Ireland as a whole.
    Mr. Beggs: In view of the murderous attack by the IRA in Dunloy, will the Secretary of State assure us that additional personnel will be drafted into north Antrim to ensure that we do not see the developments there that have taken place in County Armagh?
    Mr. Prior: Those are matters for the security forces to assess for themselves. I do not believe that additional personnel are necessarily required, but if the GOC or the Chief Constable believe that it is necessary, numbers will be increased.
    Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a bomb was exploded under a car belonging to a prison officer in my constituency in the early hours of this morning. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this follows two other occasions when cars belonging to two prison officers were destroyed by fire two weeks ago? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Northern Ireland Office discusses the protection of prison officers with the Prison Officers' Association?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. We have had a number of incidents recently in which the cars or homes of prison officers have been attacked in one way or another. That
    966
    demonstrates some of the difficulties under which the prison service operates in Northern Ireland. We are doing all that we can to prevent such incidents. The attacks are thought to have been by Loyalists, not by Provisionals. They show the difficulty of trying to get on top of the problem.
    Mr. Archer: I recognise the real problems confronting those responsible for law enforcement, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is deep and widespread disquiet in both communities that, in the course of some recent supergrass trials, innocent people have been at risk as well as the guilty? That makes difficulties for those within the communities who urge that redress for grievances should be sought by lawful and constitutional means.
    When George Baker's report be available, and when will the House have an opportunity to debate these matters?
    Mr. Prior: I am sorry to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that. There is a right of appeal. The judges have acted with enormous care in assessing the cases that have come before them. I do not think that anything should be said that will in any way make it more difficult to convict terrorists. I hope that the House will remain firm in supporting the necessity of using supergrasses in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the country. where there is reasonable cause for doing so. The Baker report should be available within four or five weeks at the most.

    Pig Industry
    Mr. Nicholsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he proposes to implement to alleviate the problems facing the Northern Ireland pig industry.
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from pig producers regarding the cost of feed in the Province and the effect this is having on production.
    Mr. Butler: The problems of the pig production sector were raised with my noble Friend the Earl of Mansfield by officials of the Ulster Farmers Union on 10 February. In this financial year, as in each of the two previous financial years, the Government allocated just over £1 million to the industry under the special temporary assistance for intensive livestock industries arrangements. It is the Government's intention to continue payment of this aid. Northern Ireland firms are also making use of the European Community scheme of aids to private storage of pigmeat, which was introduced on 16 January 1984.
    Mr. Nicholson: I welcome the Minister's reply. Does he accept that after the serious decline in the number of pigs—there are now about half as many as there were 10 years ago—and as the industry plays an important role in Northern Ireland in providing employment on farms and in ancillary industries, he should give serious thought to advancing proposals to help alleviate the problem Northern Ireland faces as a peripheral area, with the result that high import costs mean that pig production is loss-making?
    Mr. Butler: There is no doubt that the pig producing and processing industries are important to the Province. There has been a loss of jobs in that sector. The industry

    967
    has been relatively stable for eight or nine years, but present circumstances are intensely grave. I am glad that there has recently been an improvement in prices, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, grain prices have also increased. The problem derives from over-supply. Until that is sorted out, I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope for pig farmers.
    Mr. McQuarrie: My hon. Friend will be aware that the loss to the Province of 50,000 tonnes of German intervention breadmeat last year — which amount was quickly taken up by the producers in 1983—has caused the industry serious problems, because the increase in pig prices has increased the price of feed by £50 to £60 a tonne since August 1983. As the pig industry is vital to the Province for home consumption and export, will my hon. Friend take positive action to secure cheaper feed prices for the pig industry, as any further decline in production in that industry will have grave consequences for the future of the economy and employment in the Province?
    Mr. Butler: The intervention grain benefited the industry and the intensive sector last year. I know that my noble Friend is doing all that he can to get a repeat of that if it is possible.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that the pig producers of Northern Ireland are at a disadvantage because of a slush fund that was established by the Government of the Republic to help produce to be sent to third countries? Will he consider setting up such a fund to assist the Pig Marketing Board in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Butler: I can see no hope of doing more than we are doing to help this sector.

    Lear Fan Project
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Lear Fan project.
    Mr. Butler: Lear Fan remains a high-risk project, but it also offers the potential for high rewards in terms of the development of a new technology and the generation of jobs in Northern Ireland. At the present time management effort is being concentrated on obtaining airworthiness certification.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend accept that as well as being high-risk and having a high profit potential, the Lear Fan project is also high technology in that it breaks completely new ground in its all-composite construction and use of a single gearbox with two turbo-prop engines? That is bound to make certification a lengthy and costly business. What is my hon. Friend's view of the other commercial prospects for wider use of that high technology?
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is a high technology aircraft. As a result, certification is taking longer than we had expected. The use of composite materials is not a new concept. I am glad to say that Shorts has been exploiting such technology for some time in making aerostructure parts. The company will be examining whether the materials have other uses.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Minister assure us that the delay in getting airworthiness authorisation and certification is not due to delaying tactics, to allow American-based companies to come in first?
    Mr. Butler: I can deny that absolutely. I am fully persuaded that the management is doing all that it can to achieve certification. As I have said, such a project involving new technology is inevitably delayed by slippage in the programme.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that many right hon. and hon. Members are interested in the project because of the high technology involved in the aircraft design? Will the Department make it possible for interested Members to contact the project managers direct?
    Mr. Butler: We are always pleased for right hon. and hon. Members to visit Northern Ireland. The project is important, involving substantial sums of public money. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members would be welcome. Nevertheless, the managers have a job to do and I should not want them to be too distracted from it.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Minister take this opportunity to give a clear assurance that the Government are fully satisfied that they are getting all the information that they need, especially of a technical and financial nature, to enable them to judge the future prospects of the company as well as the aircraft?
    Mr. Butler: Yes. The financial and technical monitoring exercises that have been carried out are satisfactory. We are getting all the information that we need.

    Constitution (Government Policy)
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the future of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is considering any new constitutional proposals for the future of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Prior: The Government remain of the view that if the people of Northern Ireland are to have a greater say in their own affairs, participation and discussion in the Assembly is the best way forward. It is in the interest of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to make the most of the opportunity that the Assembly offers.
    Mr. Parry: Does the Secretary of State agree that there should be a positive gesture to the minority parties in Northern Ireland to enable them to take part in the democratic processes of the Province?
    Mr. Prior: Such positive gestures must come from the people of Northern Ireland themselves. Democracy can come about only through the Assembly. That is why the Assembly provides a framework in which all the parties of Northern Ireland, both majority and minority, can try to find accommodation.
    Mr. Maclennan: In answer to an earlier question on the future of the Assembly the Secretary of State said that it could not continue indefinitely without the support of the two major constitutional parties in the North. How long can it continue?
    Mr. Prior: Not very long unless the constitutional parties take part. That is why I hope they will do so.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that unless some political reorganisation takes place the Assembly is clearly a failure, because the minority community regards itself as oppressed—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) cannot find a seat on the Front Bench below the Gangway he should go elsewhere.
    Mr. Flannery: I do not know what hon. Members are laughing at. This is a serious subject.
    The minority community will not enter the Assembly because they regard it as an opponent and a place where majority Unionist policy is carried on. The minority do not regard any kind of democracy as useful. Does the Secretary of State realise that 100 years from now our successors will still be debating security unless some kind of political reorganisation takes place in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman could help quite a bit—
    Mr. Flannery: The Minister will have to shout. I cannot hear him.
    Mr. Prior: —if he can convince the SDLP that the Northern Ireland Act 1982 provides the conditions that it needs to take part in the Assembly. As he well knows, there will be no progress towards devolved Government without the consent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in debates at the University of Cork and at University College Dublin, I successfully defeated a motion in favour of a united Ireland? Does he agree that thinking people in the Republic are coming rapidly to the view that the best basis for good relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic is recognition of the border and recognition of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: No, I shall not take points of order until afterwards.
    Mr. Flannery: It is on this issue. [Interruption].
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to sit down. I will take points of order immediately after Prime Minister's Question Time.
    Mr. Flannery: It is about what has just occurred.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I would take the point of order afterwards.
    Mr. Flannery: It will be lost by that time.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down. We have now reached Prime Minister's Question Time.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I would take points of order afterwards.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: My supplementary question has not been answered.
    Mr. Speaker: Has the answer not been given?
    Mr. Flannery: It is disgraceful. We were not heard because of Tory Members.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Flannery: My question was not heard. It is your duty to defend me.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must calm down. He has asked his question. I will take his point of order afterwards.
    Mr. Flannery: You should defend Back Benchers.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better not say that again.
    Mr. Prior: I hope that more and more people will come to realise the truth of what my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has said.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Stan Thorneasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Council of Civil Service Unions about GCHQ.
    Mr. Thorne: Has the Prime Minister yet had time to consider the report of Coopers and Lybrand, which reveals that the abolition of the metropolitan councils will produce no net saving but a possible increase in cost of £60 million per year? Will she comment on that?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen the outline of the report. Coopers and Lybrand have identified scope for significant savings. The extent to which those savings are realised will depend on how vigorously they are pursued by the boroughs and districts. It is to be hoped that they will actually consider the interests of the ratepayers.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend have time in the course of her busy day to consider the plight of the British lorry drivers in France, and will she make a direct personal intervention with President Mitterrand in her best Palmerstonian manner?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was in Paris this morning and made vigorous representations to the French Government about the plight of our lorry drivers. I should like to report to my hon. Friend that our consular staff in the area worst affected have been increased by people going down there from Paris. Money is being loaned to lorry drivers so that they can purchase the things that they need. Most of them wish to stay with their lorries. We have had requests for repatriation from one group and are urgently considering what can be done about then[. In general, however, the drivers wish to stay with their lorries and our consular staff are doing everything possible to see that they are properly looked after.

    Chesterfield
    Mr. Heddleasked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Chesterfield.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend recall the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition on Monday in Chesterfield, in which he called for the immediate abandonment of Britain's nuclear defences? [Interruption.] Does she also recall that on the same day one of Mr. Benn's even closer parliamentary friends said that the IRA were not terrorists? Does she agree that the moderate majority in Chesterfield would rather be governed by a party dedicated to peace through strength, and to outlawing Irish terrorism, than by the sweet nature of Russia?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the speech to which my hon. Friend referred. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition's comments were thoroughly irresponsible and even further to the Left than the Labour manifesto in the general election. The Government's policy on defence is the only sure and effective defence for Britain and the only guarantee of peace with freedom and justice.
    Mr. John David Taylor: Will the Prime Minister assure the people of Chesterfield that the people of Northern Ireland consider those responsible for the murder of a British Army sergeant two days ago to be terrorists and not freedom fighters?
    The Prime Minister: I warmly endorse what the hon. Gentleman said and thank him for it.

    Engagements
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the Prime Minister recall that she and her party won a handsome majority at the general election based on record unemployment? [Interruption.] Is she aware that she is reported to believe that unemployment is no longer an election issue and, therefore, that she has no incentive to reflate the economy before the next general election? Is she further aware that hon. Members now know from her statements and those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government intend no intervention, especially in manufacturing? Is she prepared to allow her cynicism to condemn millions of British people to a future of no work and no hope?
    The Prime Minister: The British electorate had a better appreciation of the causes of unemployment than the hon. Gentleman. One of the reasons for their vote was that they believed that the Conservative party was the right party to bring back more jobs and greater prosperity to all British people. The hon. Gentleman should note that real personal disposable income in Britain is now higher than it was at any time under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister will meet the Civil Service unions about the vexed matter of GCHQ today. Is she aware that the whole House wants an amicable, just
    972
    and enduring solution to those problems, and accepts that it is possible to achieve an outcome that maintains civil rights and guarantees seacurity at GCHQ, because the union members at GCHQ and elsewhere are firmly and irrevocably pledged to both civil liberties and to security?
    The Prime Minister: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. I must tell him that the Government's decision, announced on 25 January, remains the only effective guarantee of our objectives, which I believe are widely shared.
    Mr. Kinnock: But the Prime Minister is seeing those unions today. If she is stubborn over that view, what is the point of a further meeting? Should she not be entirely preoccupied with the values of democracy and with the interests of national security, clearing her mind of any desires to defend what was initially an ill-advised and thoroughly impetuous decision which cannot enhance security and will not enhance democracy?
    The Prime Minister: It was well-advised and well considered. It followed well-established lines of treating agencies whose principal function is security and intelligence as being different from others. I believe that it was the right decision. The majority of people in GCHQ have accepted it, and the majority increases day by day.
    Mr. Kinnock: None of that explains either the long delay or the utterly incompetent way in which the Government are trying to deal with it. Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister is not dealing with issues of democracy, liberty, efficiency or security, but with issues of personal vanity?
    The Prime Minister: I note how lightly the right hon. Gentleman chooses to treat issues of national security.
    Sir Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that there is great uncertainty in British agriculture, especially because of the Community, but also because of the so-called inquiry into the privileges of British agriculture? Will she explain the position and express her confidence in an industry which has served Britain well, both consumer and producer?
    The Prime Minister: The Government are determined to reduce the surpluses that are produced under the common agricultural policy. The reason for that is well understood by all farmers in the Community, although we all recognise that it will cause painful adjustments. However, people realise that it must come about. The Government also believe that people realise the need for support for British agriculture—support that is offered by every Western industrialised country to its agricultural services. They recognise the need for that support and they recognise, as do the Government, the need for a healthy agriculture industry.
    When all that has been said, it is natural that every Government should examine the amount of public support given to any industry, and keep that carefully monitored and scrutinised in the ordinary way of public expenditure. I should make it clear, because there have been reports to the contrary, that, as was said in the White Paper, we do not propose to reopen the question of rating agricultural land and buildings.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Prime Minister recognise that yesterday's events at Ellington colliery in my constituency caused deep concern to many of my constituents,

    973
    including large numbers of miners, who share the deep sense of frustration of miners in other parts of the Nurthumberland coalfield about pit closures, but who do not consider violence or disorder to be any answer? Does she especially deplore the comments of the area union president, who, unlike the local lodge officials, had no regrets about the incident, when what happened was that a badly organised protest was allowed by the area to get out of hand?
    The Prime Minister: I join the hon. Gentleman in totally condemning the incident in which Mr. MacGregor was knocked to the ground yesterday. It was a disgraceful incident, which most miners will condemn. I share the hon. Gentleman's revulsion that it was not universally condemned, and I am sad that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) chose not to condemn it in his selection of questions today.
    Mr. Onslow: When my right hon. Friend meets the GCHQ unions this afternoon will she bear in mind that most hon. Members, and most people in the country, take the view that it is the Government's responsibility to see that the requirements of national security are satisfied, not those of the trade unions, and not those of the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a very heavy responsibility, and the way in which we have chosen to discharge it, I am convinced, is the right one.
    Mr. Ryman: With respect to the Prime Minister's answer to a supplementary question a few minutes ago about the incident in Northumberland yesterday, could the Prime Minister reconsider her complacent attitude towards jobs, and appreciate that, as a result of the ferocious campaign by the National Coal Board, dozens of pits in the north-east are threatened with redundancies and closure, and her Secretary of State for Energy and the chairman of the National Coal Board have flatly refused to listen to representations on behalf of the men in that industry?
    The Prime Minister: This Government's record on putting investment into the coal industry is outstanding. It exceeds the "Plan for Coal". The "Plan for Coal" had three parts—good investment in good pits, raising productivity and closing old pits. [Interruption.] The Government have more than honoured the promise to put investment into the coal industry, and Mr. MacGregor has been particularly active in securing investment for Asfordby. That demonstrates this Government's and Mr. MacGregor's faith in the future of the coal industry.
    Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is becoming increasingly difficult to ask a proper question in the House—as has been evidenced by the last two seconds or so — because the sheer hooliganism and noise — [Interruption.] — as again evidenced, is organised deliberately to prevent the Labour side of the House from putting questions. On this occasion, when I sought to ask a question, the situation, which I had not noticed at the time, was not connected with the question, but with the intervention of SDP members on the Front Bench below the Gangway who were forcing long-experienced Members out of their places, when there was plenty of room for them to join the Liberal party, to which they belong.
    Mr. Speaker: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about his inability to hear the answer to a question. I found it difficult, too. I think that the problem arose from the incident which the hon. Gentleman pointed out, but I must say to the House that there is no prescriptive right to a seat in the House unless the hon. Member concerned is present for Prayers. I think that was really the cause of the trouble today.
    Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of one of her replies towards the end of Question Time the Prime Minister gave the impression that she would like to have told me what question to raise during the questions that I was putting to her. That would be an extraordinary step. But, may I say, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the reason why it was inappropriate to raise the matter that the Prime Minister suggested is that, within minutes of knowing of the incident in Northumberland yesterday, I spoke to Mr. MacGregor's office to inquire about his welfare, because I shared the concern of everybody in those circumstances. I spoke to Mr. MacGregor in a personal conversation this morning. I have checked details of the incident with the Northumberland police and I conclude that, deeply regrettable though the incident was, both the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister are simply trying to make mischief out of a regrettable incident. It is not worthy of such use by officers and senior members of the Cabinet.
    Dr. Owen rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have an extension of Question Time. A point of order must be one upon which I can rule.
    Dr. Owen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is an intolerable abuse of points of order that the Leader of the Opposition—
    Mr. Skinner: Sit down. This is boring.
    Dr. Owen: You are going to get it. —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I be allowed to hear the point of order?
    Dr. Owen: Is it in order that the Leader of the Opposition should be allowed to make a statement on an incident about which the Leader of the House refused to make a statement yesterday and on which the Minister of State later wrote a letter to me which did not contain any of the words in the statement which the Home Secretary made at 11.30 pm and which the Prime Minister made at Question Time? We have had no opportunity to raise the issue. — [Interruption.] Such abuse of the House has been tolerated for the last eight months. It is getting to the stage where we will not accept this behaviour. [Interruption.] I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to respect the views not just of minorities, but of a substantial body of opinion in the country. I must ask—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman come to his point of order? These are questions on which I cannot rule. They are not matters for me. Two wrongs do not make a right.
    Dr. Owen: You, Mr. Speaker, allowed the Leader of the Opposition to make his statement. I am asking you whether you should have allowed that statement or whether you should have interrupted it as you would have done if any other right hon. or hon. Member had made

    975
    such a statement—[Interruption.] The House has rights and we have rights and they are being abused day after day.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. — [Interruption.] A broadly similar point was made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. Had I anticipated what the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was going to say, perhaps I should not have allowed it. We should not have an extension of Question Time through points of order.
    Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, one of your functions is to preserve and protect the veracity of the business and statements in the House. [Interruption.] Today and in previous statements the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have repeatedly stated that the only areas of suppression of trade union activity—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now perpetrating what I said was not in order. I am not responsible for statements made from the Front Bench or for the veracity of any answers.

Early-Day Motions
3.40 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mine is a point of order, Mr. Speaker, not the outpourings of a spoilt child from Devonport. I am sorry to have to raise a point of order, because it is seldom that I have ever done so, but I have been trying to table an early-day motion—this is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker —drawing attention to the extent of unemployment on Merseyside. In it, I wanted to list the number of redundancies and factory closures that have taken place over the past two years. I have been refused leave to table the motion because, I am told, it is too long. It is not my fault that it is too long. I have not been responsible for the length of the list of closures and redundancies. I call upon you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the rights of Back Benchers and allow me to illustrate the unemployment levels and the number of redundancies and closures on Merseyside by being able to table my early-day motion.
Mr. Speaker: I can answer that point simply. The hon. Gentleman sought to table a long motion, which was brought to me. I disallowed it because it was over 700 words long and contained a long extract from a newspaper article. In a previous ruling, as I am sure the hon. Member will know, because he studies Hansard, I ruled that private Members' motions on Fridays should not exceed an average of 250 words. Therefore I ruled that his long motion, which contained that long extract, was not in order, and I have already been in touch with the hon. Member about it.
Mr. Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: There is nothing further to say. I have told the hon. Gentleman why I disallowed the motion.

GCHQ (Parliamentary Lobby)
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that many people are protesting about the Government's action at GCHQ. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that one of my constituents who is employed by the Customs and Excise in Liverpool has been prevented from taking part in the lobby as a result of the decision by a Minister in the Treasury to cancel the leave that he required for that purpose. Are you able to protect the rights of our people who wish to lobby their representatives in Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: I ruled on this the other day. I told the hon. Gentleman that access to the Central Lobby today would be the same as on any other day. I am not responsible for whether leave has been cancelled. That is not a matter for me.

Business of the House
3.43 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on changes in conditions of service in Government Communications Headquarters on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The first report from the Select Committee on Employment, in Session 1983–84, House of Commons Paper No. 238, will be relevant.
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 29 FEBRUARY — Consideration of a timetable motion on the Rates Bill.
Motions on European Community Documents R/113/77 and R1134/78 on contracts negotiated away from business premises, and on 11003/83 on food aid.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 1 MARCH—Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 2 MARCH—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY 5 MARCH—Opposition Day (11th Allotted Day): Subject for debate to be announced.
[European Community debates on 29 February.
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee;

Doorstep Selling

HC 159-xl (1979–80) para. 1

HC 78-viii (1983–84) para. 3

Food Aid

HC 78-xi (1983–84) para. 8]

Mr. Kinnock: Although the Select Committee's report on GCHQ is relevant to the debate on Monday, we shall nevertheless, pursuant to the right hon. Gentleman's previous undertakings, take up the question of the Government's prohibition of a willing witness to give evidence to that Select Committee? We shall take up the matter in a separate debate on a future occasion.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his announcement about the debate on Welsh affairs that is to take place on Tuesday. However, in view of the numerous problems in the English regions, will he reconstitute the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs — which has been in disuse for several years—under Standing Order No. 77?
On the guillotine motion to be debated next Wednesday, I accept that from time to time all Governments have occasion to resort to this procedure, but will the right hon. Gentleman accept that on this occasion it is particularly objectionable —indeed, outrageous—because the Government refused to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, as requested from several quarters, and because the Committee stage of the Bill has been running for only four weeks—a short time for such substantial and important legislation? Moreover, the Government have rejected the offer that was made by the Opposition for arrangements through the usual channels.
980
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the timetable next week will be more than usually generous in the time that it allows?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he can give time to debate the ninth report of the Public Accounts Committee, which involved the activity—or inactivity—of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), when he was the Minister with responsibility for Scottish education? The report concerns the loss of £5 million to the taxpayer as a result of the grossly underpriced sale of Hamilton college of further education. The matter is naturally one that deserves the thorough and speedy attention of the House. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that an opportunity will be quickly afforded to debate it?
Mr. Biffen: I note, of course, the point that the Leader of the Opposition makes about Monday's debate and the question of witnesses appearing before a Select Committee. Secondly, I note his request that we should consider the possibility of having a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs under the general requirements of Standing Order No. 77. The House has had experience of that, and doubtless it will wish to reconsider the matter before making a judgment. Perhaps we can consider the matter further through the usual channels.
I note all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, with the conviction and oratory that I expect, about the guillotine motion. Although I am easily reduced to contrition, I have managed to resist the temptation on this occasion. There are sound arguments to be deployed, and doubtless they will be deployed next Wednesday, on the timetable motion. I am ambivalent only in one respect. I realise that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) is poised to snatch the crown from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) as an expert in these matters, and I fear that the premature closing perhaps of the debate will defer that happening until some future occasion.
In answer to what the right hon. Gentleman said about debating reports of the Public Accounts Committee, may I point out that a number of reports are outstanding. I should like to consider the matter to see how best we can proceed. Of course, I take account of the point the right hon. Gentleman made about the desirability of having the subject of the Hamilton college of further education included in the reports that will be debated.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Can my right hon. Friend say when we can expect to debate this year's public expenditure White Paper? Will it be before the Budget?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, it will.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary the urgency of a debate in this House on the situation in the Gulf so that we may not find ourselves committed to warlike operations with the House not having had an opportunity to consider the matter in advance?
Mr. Biffen: I recognise the force of what the right hon. Gentleman says and I shall make those representations.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister of State, Department of

981
Transport, announced recently the laying of an order to increase speed limits for lorries and coaches that would come into force in two months? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are concerned about that? As I have already advised the Patronage Secretary that I cannot support it and that I hope effectively to plot against it, will my right hon. Friend say when we are likely to debate it?
Mr. Biffen: The Patronage Secretary is here and will have noted everything that my hon. Friend has said. I, too, shall take it into account.
Mr. John Cartwright: If the Government are convinced of the correctness of their case on GCHQ, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why Monday's debate will be on the Adjournment and not on a positive Government motion? Is that yet another example of a cosy arrangement between the usual channels to prevent the House from voting on the major principles involved?
Mr. Biffen: It certainly is not. Any hon. Member with a shred of a sense of history will realise that the motion for the Adjournment has been the occasion of some of the most important debates and decisions of the House.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some Conservative Members would welcome a Government motion that would enable us to give an affirmative vote in the House to the good sense of the Prime Minister's policies on GCHQ?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but I should like to feel that he could none the less confer that support within the terms of the motion that has been selected.
Mrs. Renée Short: When will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity to debate the Government's policy on science and technology? It has been debated in the other place, it affects every Government Department and it is of enormous importance. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that time will be found for a debate as soon as possible?
Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge at once the importance of the hon. Lady's point, but no time can be found next week, and none will be available before the debate on the Budget. However, I shall ever bear in mind the hon. Lady's point.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Further to the earlier request for a debate on the deteriorating situation in the Gulf, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some hon. Members are anxious, not for the reasons expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but because of allegations in the press that British companies, and perhaps the Government, may be resupplying the Iranian armed forces with spare parts and military equipment? Is he aware that the matter needs to be debated as soon as possible?
Mr. Biffen: I note that there is a variety of factors, some of which coincide and some of which conflict with the proposition of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but there is the common denominator that it is an important subject; and we hope that there will be a foreign affairs debate reasonably soon.
Mr. George Robertson: I welcome the studied comments of the Leader of the House on the Public
982
Accounts Committee's report on Hamilton college of education. May I emphasise the urgent need for a statement and a debate on that subject? The report clearly criticises the competence of a Minister who is now in charge of a major area of public and business finance. Therefore, as that Minister is using press briefings and television to answer some, but not the major, criticisms in that report, surely it should be discussed in the House.
Mr. Biffen: The report of the Public Accounts Committee is received, there is then a period before which Government comment is made, and thereafter a debate takes place. I am conscious of the general desire of the House that this should proceed as expeditiously as possible, against the background that a number of other reports will be outstanding. I must conclude, however, by saying that I repudiate entirely the remarks made against my hon. Friend.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has never been a better time to consider the reform of our parliamentay procedures so that we achieve better use of parliamentary time'.' May I draw his attention to an article in the current edition of The Parliamentarian on this subject — not by President Mugabe — discussing the time-tabling of Bills, Prime Minister's Question Time and the limitation of speeches? Will he ask the Select Committee on Procedure seriously to consider the matter?
Mr. Biffen: I will look sympathetically at the point which my hon. Friend raises. I suspect that the Select Committee on Procedure, once established, would need no prompting from me to engage in such reading.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on whether, when she was discussing the contract to build a university in Oman with her civil servants, she made it clear to them that if Cementation was to win the contract she would have an indirect pecuniary interest in that contract through her son being retained at a fee by Cementation International Ltd.? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend is required to declare that interest to civil servants according to the recommendation in the report of 1974 of the Select Committee on Members' Interests? Will he ensure that she makes that statement telling us what happened?
Mr. Biffen: I will refer the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: In view of some amazing statements made at the Chesterfield by-election, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would arrange for a debate on the strange statement made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) that the IRA were not terrorists?
Mr. Biffen: The tasks that I have are formidable enough without having to recognise the existence of the Chesterfield by-election. I have tried to proceed as though it were not happening. I suspect that I am the only Member of this House who does not appear to be going there, and I am happy to continue in that state of ignorance.
Mr. David Alton: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider early day motion 509, which deals with Liverpool city council's rates and budget for 1984?

983
[That this House notes reports in the national press detailing the Government's alleged intended response in the event of the militant-controlled Liverpool city council failing to bring in a legal rate; condemns those councillors who have irresponsibly plunged the city into this crisis; notes that those councillors contested the last municipal elections on a bonus manifesto which made promises that could only be achieved by a crippling 200 per cent. rate increase; believes that their actions can only jeopardise commercial and domestic ratepayers' interests, and that the ensuing publicity has already acted as a disincentive to potential industrialists and employers and has sapped confidence in the city; and therefore urges the city council's Labour leaders to rethink this kamikaze strategy.]
In view of the way in which the city would be plunged into extraordinary chaos if that went ahead, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the issue should be the subject of an early debate in the House?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He, too, will have seen at my left elbow the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, I am sure, will also have noted his remarks.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Reverting to requests that have been made for a debate on the Gulf and the suggestion that it be a rather wider debate than that, may I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of his comment that there might be a foreign affairs debate soon, to accept that so much has been and is going on in the middle east that we should not be content with one of those global-ranging foreign affairs debates? In other words, does he agree that there is sufficient to warrant a debate not only on the Gulf but on the middle east generally?
Mr. Biffen: I am sufficient of an optimist to be happy to extend the thought of the possibility in principle of a debate on foreign affairs, and sufficient of a pessimist to know that there cannot be a series of such debates.
Mr. Tom Cox: The Leader of the House will be aware of the deep concern that is shared by many hon. Members about the tragic events in Cyprus following the UDI by the Denktash regime last November. When will the House have an opportunity either to debate Cyprus or have a major statement by a senior Minister on the present position in Cyprus and the Government's attitude to it?
Mr. Biffen: I am afraid that no provision has been made for such a debate next week. I should have thought, particularly given the hon. Member's strong constituency interest in the matter, that he might wish to pursue the issue through private Member's time.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the large number of hon. Members who have signed early day motion 161 on the loan guarantee scheme? Will he also take note of the widespread public interest in the future of that scheme and consider whether we can have time to debate that and the financing of small businesses in general?
[That this House congratulates the Government on the success of the pilot loan guarantee scheme, and welcomes the important contribution this has made to the financing of 12,231 new and expanding small businesses; calls on the Government to develop and make this successful
984
scheme permanent, by abolishing the Government's 3 per cent. premium, and by extending the upper limit for loans from £75,000 to £250,000 so that medium-sized businesses, too, can have access to such loan capital for expansion.]
Mr. Biffen: I admire the pertinacity with which this subject is raised week after week. I am saddened that my original suggestion—that it should be contained within the Committee stage of the Finance Bill—has not found instant acceptance.
Mr. John Maxton: I welcome the statement which the Leader of the House made about the ninth PAC report. Is he aware that there will be some anger that he is linking it with other outstanding PAC reports, as this is one of the most damaging that the PAC has produced for many years? Is he aware that there will be considerable anger in Scotland that an issue as controversial as this is not to be debated in the House as quickly as possible? Is he aware also that the Secretary of State for Scotland gave approval to the sale and the sums of money received? Should not the Secretary of State for Scotland come to the Dispatch Box as soon as possible next week to make a statement?
Mr. Biffen: I shall not be drawn into an argument about the merits of the case ahead of the publication of the Government's response. I must stand by my earlier replies.
Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. Friend clarify what he meant when he said that we cannot have a series of foreign affairs debates? Is it not a long time since we had a foreign affairs debate? Does my right hon. Friend think that we have enough such debates? Should not we have more of them?
Mr. Biffen: Perhaps afterwards I can have a word with my right hon. Friend to explain at length what cannot be condensed into a few words. If we have a debate on the middle east, it must be of sufficient geographic conception to cover most of the difficult areas. I cannot offer a debate on the Lebanon, to be followed by a debate on the Hormuz straits, to be followed by a debate on Latin America.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the combined effects of the disgracefully high level of unemployment and the reduction in the strength of Her Majesty's factory inspectorate because of Government cuts have caused a growth in the exploitation of workers through sweated labour in areas such as Leicester? May we have a debate on this awful phenomenon which is worrying greatly many cities, including Leicester?
Mr. Biffen: I shall refer the hon. and learned Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: As the White Paper relating to the Representation of the People Acts has been published for some weeks and hon. Members have had the opportunity to study its conclusions, will it be convenient in the next week or two to have the debate that my right hon. Friend has promised the House?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot go beyond what I said on the last occasion that my hon. Friend pressed me on this point. A debate certainly will take place.
Mr. Tony Blair: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that on Monday the Foreign Secretary, when speaking in the GCHQ debate, will refer to the serious position that has arisen at the department for national savings in Durham city, where many of my constituents work? They were told that if they wanted to take holiday leave today to come to see me, they could not have it, and that if they wanted holiday leave for any other purpose, they could have it. They were told that they could see me not as trade unionists but "on a personal and private" basis. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Foreign Secretary deals with this affront to parliamentary democracy?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw that point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that this is the fourth occasion in two months that I have taken the opportunity to ask him whether he could bring to the House the responsible Minister to make a statement on the dumping of nuclear waste in the northeast of England? If we cannot have a statement from the Minister, may we have a statement about a statement?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been listening attentively to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that there will be a happy consequence.
Mr. Harry Cowans: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a shame that at this early stage of a major constitutional change he must descend to the level of introducing a guillotine motion when the Opposition's views are shared by his right hon. and hon. Friends? Is it not a tragedy that the party that is supposed to stand up for freedom descends to this level to prevent freedom of speech and the case being argued? Does the right hon. Gentleman hold his position because he has such a weak case he is frightened that, without the use of the guillotine, the weakness of his case will be exposed?
Mr. Biffen: People with qualities of guilt and shame are never made Leaders of the House.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: This week the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the noble Lord Gray, said that a decision by the Scottish Office was imminent on the level of support to be given to tenant farmers and land owners in the Scottish Highlands for damage to their property during the adverse weather in the new year. Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister of State the fact that many hon. Members would be delighted if a Scottish Office Minister were to make that statement in the House so that questions could be asked?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly do that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In Monday's debate on GCHQ, will the Minister responsible for making the statement on behalf of the Government say whether this is the thin end of the wedge for other trade unionists in, say, the higher echelons of British Telecom and whether their trade union rights will be whittled away? Are the Government thinking about other areas wherein they will offer £1,000 for trade union membership? Will the Leader of the House answer the question put to me in Chesterfield to the effect that there is a strong rumour that Mark Thatcher has refused £1,000 to leave the family?
Mr. Biffen: I believe that the House hopes that on Monday the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, so that he can make his pithy remarks at greater length.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: As the Government have been responsible for poaching about £120 million from the Liverpool city council, and. in view of the abortive nature of the meeting between the council and the Secretary of State for the Environment, does the Leader of the House believe that there is an urgent need to debate the issue so that the House may be made fully aware of the effects of that action and the 10 years of mismanagement by the Liberal party which placed Liverpool city council in that position?
Mr. Biffen: I note the point, to which the hon. Gentleman returns. There is no provision for such a debate next week, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is in the Chamber and will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the Leader of the House use his not inconsiderable powers over the time of the House and his influence on his colleagues to secure support for the passage of the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968 (Amendment) Bill, which amends my Act? Will he bear in mind the kind words last week for pensioners uttered by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, with responsibility for the disabled, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), and the fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment, in a previous incarnation, gave Conservative support to my proposal?
Mr. Biffen: I would not wish to be thought to be forthcoming, but I shall look at that point.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: In view of the uncertainty hanging over the agriculture industry, will my right hon. Friend consider providing an opportunity for an early debate on it so that the House may reflect on the extraordinary achievement of one of our most successful industries?
Mr. Biffen: No provision has been made for such a debate in the immediate future. Such is the nature of the European Community that I believe that through its agencies the subject will enthrall the House from time to time.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I refer to the point raised earlier about the conduct of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher). Is the Leader of the House aware that this is not the first time that that Minister has been found to be incompetent in dealing with matters affecting Scottish colleges of education? This time it is much worse than incompetence, because the sale of Hamilton college is one of the most irresponsible pieces of public asset stripping that any Committee of the House has uncovered. If the Under-Secretary of State refuses to do the decent thing and resign, will the Leader of the House report him to the Prime Minister so that she can sack him, because he is clearly unfit to hold ministerial office?
Mr. Biffen: It is nice to know in which water we are swimming. I repudiate entirely the hon. Gentleman's personal and offensive remarks against my hon. Friend. Clearly the House will wish to have a Government

987
comment on the Public Accounts Committee report on Hamilton college and, understandably, look for a debate thereafter.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the Leader of the House agree that the procedural vandalism and rubbishing of the House of Commons that is now taking place by means of catcalls from either side of the Chamber, sheer noise and the burying of serious debate in the Chamber is the result—
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Of radio.
Mr. Atkinson: No, not of radio, but of the way in which the Government are using their more than 200 built-in majority to ride roughshod over opinion throughout the country? In my constituency, for example, 55 per cent. of economically active people under the age of 20 years are unable to find work. In the London borough of Haringey, a wealthy borough, 40 per cent. of those under 20 years of age are unemployed and unable to work—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now taking business questions and the hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
Mr. Atkinson: Indeed. I welcome the debate on Welsh affairs next week, for it will provide a means of ventilating serious opinion in Wales, but there is a need for the Government to recognise what they are doing to Parliament. You, too, Mr. Speaker, must look with dismay at what is happening in this place. This is about the worst Parliament that I can recollect in 20 years. There is no level of debate and the answers from Ministers amount to purility. This will drive the British people to bring down the Government physically. That is what will happen if the Government continue to ignore the warnings which come from those who are trying to make serious observations on behalf of their constituents who are unable to work.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question and not advance an argument. The House is taking business questions.
Mr. Biffen: I believe that this House of Commons, no less than its predecessors and, I suspect, no less than its successors, will have the capacity to discriminate between the serious and the less than serious. If occasionally it acts as if it were on the terraces, that is no more and no less than what it has been doing for generations. I do not believe that this Parliament is any worse than its predecessors in that respect and, in my view, it is part of its vitality that we would lose, and lose to our disadvantage.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Leader of the House will be aware that yesterday I raised a point of order about an instruction that I understood had been issued by Treasury Ministers preventing, or attempting to prevent, civil servants from coming to the Lobby today in protest about the union ban at GCHQ. I now have a circular that is headed B 13/84 under the title "Management In confidence". I understand that it has been circulated by one of the Departments of State—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is business questions. There is important business to follow, including a statement by the Minister for Overseas Development. The hon.
988
Gentleman must ask a question and not make the speech which he might have the opportunity of making on Monday if he is able to catch my eye.
Mr. Banks: I should like to catch your eye on Monday, Mr. Speaker, but I shall be in Chesterfield.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot make his speech now.
Mr. Banks: Even with your eye, Mr. speaker, I doubt whether you could expect to see as far as Chesterfield.
Will the Leader of the House impress upon Treasury Ministers that instructions to Civil Service Departments that civil servants will be prevented from attending the Lobby today, and perhaps prevented from hearing the debate on Monday, are in breach of the rights of Members to have access to their constituents and of constituents to have access to their Members? Will the right hon. Gentleman please ask his ministerial colleagues to withdraw circular B13/84?
Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly take up that issue with Treasury Ministers.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did those in the right hon. Gentleman's office tell him that I hoped to raise the question of early day motion 517, which has been signed by a former Home Secretary, former Defence Ministers and by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who know most about the issue?
[That this House calls attention to the fact that contrary to the Prime Minister's reply on 21st February, Official Report, column 695, Her Majesty's Government have never explained the discrepancy between the statement in paragraph 110 of the Falklands Campaign: the Lessons, Cmnd. 8758, that the Conqueror detected the General Belgrano on 2nd May 1982, and the statement of the Commander of the Conqueror made in the book, 'Our Falklands War: the men of the Task Force tell THEIR story', by Geoffrey Underwood, introduced by Major-General Sir Jeremy Moore, K.C.B., O.B.E., M.C., that he sighted the Belgrano visually early in the afternoon of 1st May and followed the Belgrano for over 30 hours; and calls upon the Prime Minister either to make a statement to the House explaining this disparity, or to appoint a judge of the Appeal Court to determine whether her statement or that of the submarine commander tells the truth.]
The motion relates to the conflicting statements on the sinking of the Belgrano. Albeit that the right hon. Gentleman says that he does not are the quality of shame—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The wish to make statements seems to be contagious. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about business next week.
Mr. Dalyell: My question is related to the early day motion. Has the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to ascertain whether it was the submarine commander or the Prime Minster who deceived us?
Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman in informing me that he would raise this matter. Clearly no provision has been made for a debate next week on the early day motion. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Allan Roberts: To take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on the future of democracy in Great Britain? We are now facing major attacks on the democratic right to join a free trade union. The guillotining of the Rates Bill next week is a major attack on the democratic rights of local electors. Will he confirm that even now the Government are attacking the freedom of the media? Is there any truth in the rumour that he is supporting the Government Whips in putting pressure on Back Bench Conservative Members who have complained to the BBC because of threats of re-selection by their constituency Conservative parties because they were not included in the "Panorama" programme on Right-wing infiltration into the Conservative party?
Mr. Biffen: As I listened to the hon. Gentleman, it seemed that he had a good all-purpose speech which he should be able to use on several occasions next week.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House arrange as soon as possible a full day's debate on transport in Government time? Since 1979 time has been given to transport matters only on Supply days. Surely the complex and urgent problems of transport are the responsibility of the Government as well as of the Opposition.
Mr. Biffen: I am sorry, but I must reply that there is no provision for such a debate next week. I cannot hold out very much hope of an early debate. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Given the unsatisfactory and inadequate replies to my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the fact that the GCHQ debate on Monday will take place on the 150th anniversary of the Tolpuddle martyrs and the Prime Minister's crazy notion that democracy is defended by suppressing it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask the question"] I am asking the question. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that certain Ministers are responsible for having instructed heads of Departments within the Civil Service to refuse the right to take annual leave to trade unionists who wished to come to the House today or next Tuesday.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on Monday to explain why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are justified in saying that the Government's action stops at GCHQ? Does he accept that those who work in the national savings department and a number of other departments in London and elsewhere have been told that they will not be able to take part of their annual leave, or to make flexi-time arrangements, to attend the House today or on Tuesday next week? Will he ensure that the Ministers responsible answer these questions on Monday?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think that I can helpfully add to what I have already said to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I shall draw the remarks of the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friends who will be taking part in Monday's debate.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order
4.18 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order, which is to be debated on Thursday of next week.
On the last occasion when an Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order was debated Members asked me for an earlier indication than on the day itself of what matters would be in order to be discussed. It might be helpful if I were to say now that since next Thursday's order contains a Vote on Account, all the matters for which Northern Ireland Departments are responsible will be in order. The principal excluded subjects are police and security. For the future, I suggest that Members who wish to obtain advice on the scope of these orders may care to consult the Clerk of Supply in the Public Bill Office.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it in order at this stage, Mr. Speaker, to make a private statement?
Mr. Speaker: No. A point of order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I take up the question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Does not privilege arise when a member of the public, by the threat of discipline, is prevented from taking industrial action to see his Member of Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the rule about that very well. If it is his view that a matter of privilege is involved, he should write to me about it.

Crown Agents
4.19 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): Mr. Speaker, with permission I should like to make a statement on the future of the Crown Agents.
Last summer the Government of Brunei terminated their contract with the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations for the management of their investments. This resulted in significant loss of income to the Crown Agents, amounting to up to £4 million in a full year, so that action became necessary to enable them to meet their financial duties under the Crown Agents Act 1979.
The board of Crown Agents accordingly submitted to the Government proposals for the reorganisation and improvement of the efficiency of the business, designed to enable them to achieve financial viability not later than 1986. Those proposals included the reduction of staff from about 1,200 to under 900, changes in terms of service to enable them to provide services competitively, and the sale of their principal offices at 4, Millbank, which would make possible the reduction of the commencing capital debt from its current level of £19·8 million to £9 million.
The Government have taken the opportunity to undertake a thorough review of the future of the Crown Agents and the need for their continued existence in their present form. In undertaking this, we have had regard to the Government's policy of reducing the size of the public sector, to the services which the Crown Agents provide for developing countries, and to their value to Britain's own interests.
On the basis of this review I expect Crown Agents to be fully profitable by not later than 1986.
After very careful consideration of this and other factors and of the representations made to me, the Government have decided broadly to endorse the proposals of the board of Crown Agents for their reorganisation with a view to their privatisation in due course. The timing and method of privatisation will be settled later. Pending the necessary legislation, the board will set in train appropriate measures of internal reorganisation in order to facilitate privatisation.
To facilitate the financing of this reorganisation, it is the Government's intention to waive in full under section 17(4) of the Crown Agents Act 1979 the interest due on the commencing capital debt in 1984, and to seek parliamentary approval under section 17(10) for any waiver necessary in 1985 and 1986.
I believe that this decision will enable the Crown Agents, under their vigorous chairman, Mr. Peter Graham, to continue to serve successfully both Britain and the developing world.
Mr. George Robertson: Ministers of the present Government have in the past rightly complimented the Crown Agents on their invaluable role. It would therefore be disgraceful if the ideological paws of the Treasury were to be allowed to wipe out our huge gains from their work with Third-world countries. They have made valiant efforts to reach their present level of efficiency and growth, and it would be indefensible if those achievements were in any way compromised or destroyed. This announcement, therefore, is welcome
992
inasmuch as, and only inasmuch as, it accepts the Crown Agents' reorganisation plan and the rescheduling—to coin a phrase—of the immediate debt problems of the Crown Agents. The threat of unnecessary and damaging privatisation is, however, still to hang over the heads of the Crown Agents. Privatisation would make no sense at all, and it would enormously damage the viability and independence of the Crown Agents if they still faced the threat of privatisation in the indefinite future. As long as the uncertainty and indecision continue, so long will we continue to rob the Crown Agents of the talent which they have been losing during the period of uncertainty which they have suffered since last September.
I have four questions to ask the Minister. First, what consultations have the Government had with the client countries of the Crown Agents? It is the views and the confidence of those countries which determine the continuing value of the Crown Agents to our country and economy.
Secondly, what consultations have there been with the staff of the Crown Agents? For a substantial period there has been uncertainty about the Minister's intentions in relation to the Crown Agents. Members of staff have almost daily seen newspaper reports predicting dreadful prospects for the organisation in which they work. The burden of work has been considerable since the staff cuts were made, and the staff now face further cuts. Are the staff likely to be happy with the future arrangements for the organisation? Thirdly, what is the position of the pensions office in East Kilbride? The Minister made no mention of this in his statement, but in today's Financial Times there is an authoritative article which managed with considerable skill to predict the bulk of the Minister's statement. It states that the pensions department in East Kilbride will be
"subsumed within a Whitehall department."
Will the Minister say whether that is true? The pensions department accounts for almost £1 million of the Crown Agents' profits. What are the implications of this reduction in profit capacity for the 1986 target date set by the right hon. Gentleman for the Crown Agents to become profitable?
Finally, the Minister mentioned the possibility of selling 4, Millbank as part of the process of reducing the debt of the Crown Agents. What studies have been made of the London property market which suggest that, in the interests of the public, this would be the best time to sell a valuable property?
Mr. Raison: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his somewhat limited welcome of our decision not to close down the Crown Agents. On the question of privatisation, our first aim is to carry through the reorganisation effectively. When that has been done we shall consider ways of privatising parts, and probably the whole, of the Crown Agents. We believe that that will be useful and will increase the competitive capacity of the Crown Agents. I understand that the chairman is very happy with the future that we have suggested.
The hon. Gentleman's first question was about consultations with the client countries. We have not had formal consultations with client countries, but we have had many discussions with people in different parts of the world about the role of the Crown Agents. I acknowledge the respect in which they are held.

993
I have seen representatives of the Crown Agents trade unions, both in London and in East Kilbride. I should be happy to meet them again to discuss the implications of our decision for their future. At present we have no plans to subsume the pensions office in East Kilbride within the Government machine. On the other hand, when privatisation comes about, we shall have to consider what is the best way of handling the pensions operation.
The Crown Agents have considered the sale of 4, Millbank. They believe that they could make a substantial sum from that sale. They believe that it is right to sell the property, and I endorse that belief.
Sir Bernard Braine: Whatever the final decision on this matter, does not the interim statement that we have heard leave the Crown Agents and their clients —over 100 countries and 4,000 exporting companies are involved—in a state of doubt and uncertainty? Can that be in the national interest? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are 4,000 British companies—many quite small — which depend in large measure on the Crown Agents for their exports? Has any study been made of the benefits which would accrue to the Crown Agents from privatisation, compared with the undoubted risk that business will go to our competitors overseas?
Mr. Raison: I accept the value of the Crown Agents to British industry. That is one of the reasons why we have decided to accept the proposals for reorganisation rather than go for closure. However, as we move on towards privatisation it will be possible to look at the whole picture in such a way as to ensure that the important interests which my hon. Friend mentions can be maintained.
Mr. Guy Barnett: How can the Minister describe his statement as a thorough review when he has not troubled to have formal consultations with 100 or more Government principals who use the Crown Agents and regard them as a disinterested service who work on their behalf? Is it not wrong for him to come to the House and make a statement of this type without having consulted those who rely on the Crown Agents for their services?
With regard to what the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said, does the Minister realise that threats of privatisation will put an end to the disinterested service which the Crown Agents now provide, and might well destroy them? Does he recognise the vital importance of the Crown Agents being regarded as the servants of the 100 Governments and the several hundred organisations overseas which use their services? They will not continue to use those services unless they remain a public agency, and will not use them if they are subject to the possibility of privatisation.
Mr. Raison: In the past few days we have given very careful consideration to the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. No one can say that we have treated the matter lightly. We have thought about those factors, but it is for the Government to make a decision, and that is what we have done. The way in which we have made the decision will enable us to move forward the prospects of getting the reorganisation implemented — that is important — and then to consider the best way in which to progress to privatisation without throwing away the advantages which I recognise are presented by the existence of the Crown Agents.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he carries the House with him in his
994
congratulations to the chairman of the Crown Agents, Mr. Peter Graham? Is he further aware that he carries the majority of the House with him in his decision not to close the Crown Agents down, as they have rendered excellent service to Britain and countries overseas? With regard to privatisation, surely the question is whether the Crown Agents, when privatised, can continue to render those services. I can see no logical reason why that should not be so.
Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is right about privatisation. It is possible to achieve privatisation, while securing the benefits which the Crown Agents undoubtedly give Britain.
Mr. Bruce Milian: Although I fully support the criticism about the unnecessary dogmatism concerning privatisation, may I return to the specific point about the pensions branch at East Kilbride, as what the Minister has said threatens it? May I remind the Minister that the transfer to East Kilbride was to make up the numbers of what had been a much reduced Civil Service dispersal to Scotland? Will he assure me either that the branch will stay there or, if there is a reduction in numbers, there will be additional Civil Service dispersal to make up the numbers which were originally promised?
Mr. Raison: We have no plans at present to change the work which is carried out at East Kilbride on the pensions side. It is possible that, as and when we progress towards privatisation, there will be a change in the status of the work done there. However, it is extremely likely that a substantial part of the work that is done for the Overseas Development Administration will remain in the public sector. There should therefore not be unnecessary alarm in East Kilbride.
Mr. Bowen Wells: I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on what I believe to be a balanced decision. We are to retain the services of the Crown Agents, their expertise, contacts and the confidence of overseas Governments in taking procurements through them. This will also preserve the interests of the companies which have benefited from procurement through them. In their independence, they will provide a more efficient service to their clients in Britain and overseas. Will the privatised Crown Agents continue to enjoy the preferred status which they enjoy on procurement through the Overseas Development Administration?
Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about our plans. I am sure that experience will prove him right. It would be a mistake to think that the Crown Agents have preferred status in all respects. Only about 20 per cent. of the goods procured under British bilateral aid comes through them; the rest comes through the private sector. They work closely with the aid programme. That is as it should be, but there is plenty of scope for private contractors to compete.
Mr. David Alton: Does the Minister agree that many people outside the House perceive his statement as a poisoned chalice which contains praise for the Crown Agents and the seeds of their destruction? Does he agree that if, as he says, the Crown Agents are to be profitable by 1986, they might just as well stay as they are, as the Government's decision is purely dogmatic and has been made for doctrinaire reasons?
Mr. Raison: I do not believe that my statement will be seen as a poisoned chalice. I believe that it will be seen widely as a sensible development plan for the future which is capable of making the best use of the skills and resources embodied in the Crown Agents.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Crown Agents and their customers have changed since my grandfather was one of them? Does he agree also that what is important for the Crown Agents' customers is that the independence of the customers should be matched by the independence of the Crown Agents and their service should be justified by competitiveness?
Mr. Raison: I agree. We bear those factors in mind, and will continue to bear them in mind as we approach privatisation.
Mr. Tom Clarke (Monldands, West): Is the Minister aware that he has not made one progressive statement from the Dispatch Box since taking over the Ministry for Overseas Development? Is he further aware that, however today's statement is dressed up, it will cause great anxiety to the civil servants involved and to the developing countries, many of which have been served by the Crown Agents for 150 years? They have been served extremely well and will find the statement inexplicable. Does he accept that there is no way in which privatisation will lead to the type of objectivity and neutrality for which the Crown Agents have been greatly praised?
Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman's and my ideas of progressive statements are probably very different. I believe that my statement is progressive. It outlines a sensible and potentially viable future for the Crown Agents. It is a way in which to strengthen what they already have in the immediate future. It will enable the Crown Agents to operate competitively and effectively.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: With regard to the announcement of a timetable leading to privatisation, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now abundant evidence that, having incurred record losses on own dealings account, having had £3·5 billion out of their £4·5 billion worth of investment funds which they manage transferred to American competitors, and now having been refused the right to tender to one of their major clients, privatisation is long overdue and that the Crown Agents have for some time let the Crown down? No private company could spend two years incurring such losses. Why should the taxpayer have to do so?
Mr. Raison: There have been difficulties in Brunei. The difficulty reported in today's newspapers is due to a misunderstanding. I hope that it can be resolved. I have no doubt that our decision to reorganise with a view to privatisation is right, and I hope that it can be brought about before too long. We are anxious to ensure that the real assets, skills and abilities of the Crown Agents are not wasted. We believe that our plan is the best way in which to make good use of them.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not the history of the Crown Agents a great deal of unsung good and the occasional, albeit much publicised, fiasco? In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), the Minister used the phrase, "very careful consideration". Is that not an abuse of the English language? How can one talk about careful consideration when none of the 100 principals, either Third world developing Governments or
996
universities in the Third world, and none of the 300 organisations with which the Crown Agents deal, have been consulted? How can there have been careful consideration when those consultations have not, as I understand it, taken place formally?
Mr. Raison: It is no secret—the matter has been in the open since last September—that the future of the Crown Agents is under discussion. Those who have wished to make representations to the Government have done so in no uncertain manner, and there has been nothing secret about the operation. Anyone with a point to make has made it and we have listened carefully. We have taken much trouble over the decision, made up our minds and come up with the right answer.
Mr. Nigel Forman: I am relieved to hear that the Crown Agents are to continue, albeit in a slightly different form, and I endorse the points made from both sides of the House about the importance of safeguarding the position of overseas pensioners. Will my right hon. Friend clarify two matters which are not clear to me? First, he spoke about achieving profitability by 1986. Does that presuppose that that will happen before privatisation? Secondly, he referred to writing off debts and interest. Will that be found from the contingency reserve or from other parts of the departmental budget, which I consider is already too low?
Mr. Raison: With regard to my hon. Friend's question about profitability by 1986, we hope to achieve profitability before privatisation takes place. Writing off debt will not affect the departmental budget.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the fact that the Crown Agents are known not to be profit-oriented, and therefore impartial, is one of their most valuable assets? Is not the Minister risking dissipating that asset by his proposals? He says that we should wait and hear what people say, but it is surely irresponsible not to consult when the people concerned are busy with many other matters. To make a proper assessment, the hon. Gentleman has an obligation to ask questions. Finally if the Minister goes ahead with the decision in principle, will he first offer the Crown Agents for sale to its principals overseas?
Mr. Raison: I do not believe, nor does the Crown Agents board, that it is satisfactory for such an organisation to operate unprofitably. It is also contrary to the conditions of the governing Act of Parliament. I believe that the board will endorse and welcome the decision, but it is for the board to speak for itself.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that it ill becomes the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) to talk about privatisation of the Crown Agents, when he was engaged with Slater Walker in global activities similar to those that might be undertaken by the privatised Crown Agents? As a result, Slater Walker had to be rescued by the taxpayer after a few years of activity. The taxpayer bailed out that company when the Labour Government were in office.
Why is a price not available now if the business is capable of being privatised? In a pure entrepreneurial world, why is it not possible to privatise the Crown Agents without writing off their debts for 1984 to 1986? There is always a price for a commodity. Will the Minister ensure that those who privatise Hamilton teacher training college

997
will not be allowed near the Crown Agents, in view of what has happened there? Finally, will the Minister bear in mind that the Crown Agents privatised themselves in the early 1970s, or at least played at privatisation? When they played at speculating they privatised from within, not by Government edict, and finished up being bailed out by the taxpayer at a cost of more than £100 million. Why do we need to privatise them again?
Mr. Raison: The remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) were wholly and typically irrelevant.
The Crown Agents are not being privatised immediately, because they received a considerable blow last year from the withdrawal of the handling of the Brunei investments. The Government and the Crown Agents rightly felt that it was right to take time to reorganise the agents' operations, to allow them to recover their equilibrium and to plan for the future. That process is under way.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the history of the Crown Agents have little or no bearing on what we are discussing now.

Crown Agents
  BILL PRESENTED
    HEREDITARY PEERAGES
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton, supported by Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Gordon Brown, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Tom Torney, Mr. Jack Straw, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, presented a Bill to end the practice of the creation of hereditary peerages; to make provision for the ending of existing peerages on the demise of the present incumbent; and to end the custom whereby retired Prime Ministers and other senior government and parliamentary office-holders are offered peerages: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 March and to be printed [Bill 109.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, if the Pensions Commutation Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that as soon as the proceedings on any Money Resolution come to by the House in relation to the Bill have been concluded this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Orders of the Day

  Pensions Commutation Bill
  Order for Second Reading read
  4.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of this minor measure is to modernise the arrangements, established by the Pensions Commutation Act 1871 and the Pensions Commutation Act 1882, for commuting certain pensions into lump sum payments. Dissolving the pensions commutation board is expected to lead to a reduction in the administrative costs of providing the commutation service with the benefit going to the individual pensioners concerned.
  The board was originally established by act of Parliament in 1869. It is composed entirely of officials, the chairman being the director of the national investment and loans office in his capacity as comptroller-general of the national debt office. Other members are appointed from the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and Social Security, and the Treasury.
  The right to apply to the Pensions Commutation Board for commutation of part of a pension is conferred by various Acts of Parliament. At present, almost all applications come from retired officers of the armed forces, although certain civilians in receipt of pensions awarded for abolition of office before 1972 are also entitled to apply. The board is dealing with more than 1,000 applications a year, involving lump sum payments totalling about £20 million a year.
  When the board was established, commutation decisions were more difficult, and potentially more controversial than they are now. That, no doubt, was why elaborate control procedures were established. However, in recent years, when we have had a mass of published information about the likely effects on life expectancy of various medical conditions, much of the work of the board has become routine. Commutation decisions are taken in accordance with tables drawn up by the Government Actuary. Most applicants receive the full amount, unless medical evidence dictates otherwise.
  In recent years the board has become something of a historical curiosity. It is insulated from the main pensions commutation work of the Ministry of Defence. The national investment and loans office, with which it is associated, has no other pension or commutation functions. Nevertheless, the board has to meet every six weeks or so. As a result of changes in pension arrangements for the armed forces, introduced in 1978, the board's work will eventually come to an end, but there is expected to be a substantial body of work each year, until the end of the century and beyond.
  The main effect of the Bill will be to dissolve the pensions commutation board and, in effect, pass the responsibility to the Secretary of State for Defence. The commutation work on officers' pensions will be done, like normal departmental business, by the division of the Ministry of Defence that deals with other pensions matters.
  The Bill is confined entirely to changing administrative procedures. It does not affect in any way the rights of any

  999
  person who is eligible to be a potential applicant, nor does it affect the amount of money that he or she is likely to receive.
  Applicants for commutation are charged a fee which is related to the costs of providing the service. By making the changes proposed in the Bill, we can reduce the administrative costs, and that will be of benefit to applicants.
  The Officers' Pension Society has been consulted and has raised no objection.
  Under the provisions of the 1871 Act, commutation awards are paid out of funds administered at present by the National Investment and Loans Office and are reimbursed by annuity payments from the Votes upon which the respective pensions were charged. To change these provisions could affect the way in which the defence budget is at present controlled and the Bill therefore leaves them in place. However, it also provides for the financing of the awards direct from Votes and for the early discharge of annuities, thus giving greater flexibility.
  The Bill also provides for the continuing in force of the existing regulations concerned with fees and the commutation tables.
  This is a very modest measure, but it will secure a worthwhile reduction in costs and an improvement in efficiency. I commend it to the House.
  4.49 pm
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: The Opposition accept that the board has become an anachronism, having been set up in Victorian times when decisions about life expectancy were far more difficult to make. We are interested to note that the Government have now acquired a great deal more expertise in assessing life expectancy and we may wish to consult them from time to time about how it is done.
  I have been in touch with the Officers' Pension Society, which welcomes the measure. It believes that the process will be speeded up and that applications to medical boards may be handled with more understanding than previously.
  I have just one question. Perhaps the Minister will say something about the age limits now applying to applicants. I understand that one applicant applied on his 89th birthday, claiming that he needed the money to help him to "break in" his third wife, whatever that may mean. Presumably applications of that kind will be ruled out in future.
  The Opposition do not wish to oppose or criticise the Bill in any way.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: I wish to make two brief points. I share the view of both sides on the necessity for the Bill. I wish to comment on it only because it seems a shame that in seeking to modernise a system set up in 1871 the Bill modernises only the structure rather than the work carried out within it. The processes by which retired officers apply for commutation of pensions will remain firmly rooted in the 1870s and will bear no comparison with the processes by which similar commutations are effected under normal commercial and private occupational pension schemes. I raise these points not to put the officers concerned in a privileged position,
  1000
  but to suggest that their situation should be no better and no worse than that of people in other occupations who apply for commutation.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State said that under the Bill, as under the system set up in 1871, an officer might be charged a fee for the work done in calculating and certifying the amount of commutation to which he was entitled. Does any member of an occupational pension scheme expect to pay such a fee, often before knowing how much he will receive and before deciding whether he wishes to go ahead with commutation? That is certainly not the practice of insurance companies and it seems a shame that it should continue in relation to retired officers' pensions.
  My second point relates to the amount of the commutation. As the House will be aware, this is laid down in a table produced from time to time, the latest being in the Pensions Commutation (Amendment) Regulations 1983. The table makes certain assumptions which were valid then but may not be valid now. Nevertheless, the regulations continue to apply. When they were made, it was assumed that the interest rate to be taken into account was 11 per cent. That would not be the case today, but the regulations are still in force. Similar assumptions were made about future pensions increases which would apply to pensioners under the existing Act. I do not know whether the same assumptions would be made today.
  In the real world outside, anyone applying for commutation of all or part of a pension receives a rate based on conditions at the date of application, not on tables which may be a year or more out of date. I wish to suggest an alternative system. It may work to the detriment or the benefit of the officers concerned, but it will certainly work in favour of reality. Rather than relying on tables that the Government may update from time to time, for the specific and limited case the applicant should be able to apply to the Government Actuary for a certificate of the commutable value of his pension on that date. That system operates very well in commercial pension schemes and is certainly far more flexible than the system carried over from the 1871 Act.
  Finally, like everyone else, I welcome the Bill in the limited terms in which it has been introduced, but I should have hoped that the opportunity would be taken to bring the whole scheme rather than merely its administration out of the 1870s.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Hayhoe: I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) for the welcome that she gave to the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) for the general welcome that he has given to the Bill. I shall try to answer the various questions raised.
  I understand that there is no age limit as such, but that the tables stop at age 89, so the individual to whom the hon. Member for Thurrock referred would be chancing his luck. Nevertheless, I hope that he found the money that he received helpful for the purpose that he had in mind. If anyone over the age of 89 applied for commutation, we should of course consult the Government Actuary, but I understand that it is extremely unlikely that much money would be involved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West rightly said that we had not taken the opportunity of this

  1001
  modest measure to make wider changes. I thought that I had made it clear that we saw advantage in making this very small but useful change in administration as the reduction in fees would benefit the applicants. Fees are charged only if the award is accepted. The person can ask for commutation and be told the amount that has been determined. He or she can then decide whether to accept it and pay the fee. The fees are payable under the old legislation, and no change has been made in that respect, save to ensure that they are less likely to rise in future than they would under the old arrangements.
  My hon. Friend is right to state that the commutation tables remain in force for a limited period and are changed from time to time. It is probably in the interests of administrative efficiency to avoid the need for separate calculations to be made for each individual request for commutation. I understand that in future the process will be exactly the same for officers and other ranks. I hope that that, too, will commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
  Further proceedings postponed pursuant to order this day.

  Pensions Commutation Bill

    PENSIONS COMMUTATION BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pensions Commutation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) amounts awarded as commutations under the Pensions Commutation Act 1871; and

    (b) amounts paid under the Act so resulting in respect of the discharge of any liability to pay an annuity under section 8 of the said Act of 1871. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

    PENSIONS COMMUTATION BILL
    Bill immediately considered in Committee,. reported, without amendment.
    Bill read the Third time and passed.

  Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: The House will be aware that the Bill was the subject, if not of controversy, certainly of some debate in the Second Reading Committee and at a further stage, initiated by Opposition Members. I shall refer to part II and to the ascertainment of limitation tonnage in clause 12. The Minister will remember from the debates on those two previous occasions that the question that exercised Opposition Members was the vexed problem of tonnage limitation and the historical reason why the damage caused to a structure by a ship is covered in a certain way for insurance purposes. That insurance system for ships bears little resemblance to vehicle insurance, to which hon. Members may be more accustomed, as it is based on tonnage. The result has been that for many years shipowners have, through their insurers, paid for only a small proportion of the damage caused by their ships.
  This matter is especially topical at present because, wearing another hat, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport has some responsibility for the future of our railway system. He will be as aware as I am that the problem of adequate finance for our railway system has exercised both Conservative and Labour Governments and is, of necessity, controversial at present.
  The limitation of liability under clause 12 has proved to be extremely expensive for British Rail and an application to close a stretch of railway line running from Gilberdyke junction to a point near to Doncaster is now before the Department of Transport. The proposal to close that railway line arises as a direct result of damage caused to a bridge at Goole by passing ships striking it.
  Because of clause 12, British Rail has failed consistently over the years to receive adequate compensation for damage caused to the bridge, and it now says that it will cost approximately £2 million to repair the bridge. Because British Rail says that it cannot afford £2 million and there is no other source of funding for the project, it has initiated the closure procedure for that stretch of railway line.
  Clause 12 will also have an impact on the railway system further north. The alternative route to Hull by rail, if one does not use the line that is to be closed, is via Selby. With your knowledge of that part of the world, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that the railway line from Selby to Hull passes over a swing bridge at Selby. Clause 12 will cause difficulties for British Rail, because the bridge has been struck by passing ships on a number of occasions. After those accidents it has not always been easy to trace the shipowners concerned, and even when they have been traced it has been impossible for British Rail to receive adequate compensation for damage caused to its bridges because of the ascertainment of limitation tonnage in clause 12.
  We tried in the Second Reading Committee and at a further stage to persuade the Minister that that was the case. We hoped, because those matters were grouped under the umbrella of his Department, that he would

  1003
  consider with sympathy the need for adequate repair of one or possibly both bridges. We went so far as to suggest that he might be able to find the funds to replace completely the damaged bridge at Goole so that the railway line closure proposal could be withdrawn.
  Understandably, the Minister referred us continually to clause 12 and said that it was not a matter for the Department of Transport to fund those needs from its sources, but for British Rail to trace the owners of the offending ships and to proceed accordingly against them under clause 12. However, regardless of the amount of damage that each ship causes to such a structure, because of the wording of clause 12 the compensation available is extremely limited and has rarely, if ever, covered the cost of the damage caused by the blow from the passing ship.
  Opposition Members understand the Minister's dilemma. It is difficult to see how, under the Bill, sufficient funds could be found to cover the problem. It is unjust that a publicly owned industry which provides a service should be forced to withdraw that service because of the tonnage limitation clause.
  The Minister will know that, coincidentally, today is the closing date for objections to be sent to the Transport Users Consultative Committee about the proposed closure of that line. I hope that in considering the recommendations of the TUCC the Minister will insist on a public inquiry into the future of the line, so that the Bill can be brought to the attention of whoever conducts the inquiry, and I hope that it will be pointed out to him that clause 12 has caused considerable financial problems for British Rail. Unless another method of financing is found, this line, and perhaps the one from Selby to Hull, will be closed. Any railway line that crosses a navigable river runs the risk of being damaged, the line may eventually be closed, and the people of that area will be deprived of a service.
  We are aware that the Department is in difficulty on this matter, since British Rail has promised to keep open the line between Selby and York now that the east coast mainline has been diverted because of the new Selby coalfield. British Rail pledged in the mid-1970s, in agreement with the National Coal Board, that when funding was provided for the Selby diversion, a shuttle service would continue to be provided between Selby and York. However, the continuation of the shuttle service is likely to be prejudiced by clause 12. Having decided to keep open the line—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. While the hon. Gentleman has been speaking I have read and re-read clause 12, and it is difficult to find any reference to those railway lines. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to relate his remarks a little more closely to the Bill.
  Mr. Snape: I am grateful for your tolerance thus far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The difficulty has always been, under our procedures, to debate such matters at all. It is a strange paradox that when a publicly owned industry, which is directly responsible to the Department of Transport—a Minister from that Department is replying to this debate—has a problem, one cannot talk about the problem until a solution to it is found under the umbrella of the Department of Transport.
  1004
  The Minister will be aware of the depth of feeling in that part of the country about this matter. It would be wrong if shipowners could close this railway line simply because they have not paid adequate compensation to British Rail after their ships have caused the damage. I hope that the Minister can stay within the rules of procedure and find an adequate way of replying to my remarks. According to the Conservative Member of the European Parliament for Humberside, application has been made to the regional development fund for alternative financing so that the bridge can remain open. The House would be grateful if the Minister would agree to reconsider the problem.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) suggested that it might be possible for me to speak until 7 o'clock this evening, but I assure the House that on no account will I do so. I shall be brief.
  I welcome the ingenuity of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, (Mr. Snape) in managing to get in a reference to British Rail in a debate on clause 12 of part II—entitled "Limitation tonnage"—which relates to the extension of British possessions overseas. The hon. Gentleman got away with it. I assure him that I do not intend to sail quite so close to the wind.
  Mr. Snape: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in the long speech that he promised us, but if he reads clause 12, he will see that it relates to no such thing.
  Mr. Colvin: I think that we are talking about different parts of the Bill. I am looking at clause 12 in page 9, but I stand corrected by the hon. Gentleman.
  This Bill is welcome and is largely non-controversial, as 'one would expect of a Bill that enjoyed wide support beforehand and that had a smooth passage in the other place. It has the support of the seafarers' trade unions, the General Council of British Shipping Ltd. and, most importantly, the Health and Safety Executive. The Bill provides for the service of prohibition and improvement notices to assist the enforcement of merchant shipping legislation. I accept that that is necessary today, with ships becoming larger and often carrying dangerous cargoes of chemicals, or noxious or explosive gases. The dangers to crews are obvious, but sometimes we forget that there are, equally, dangers to those people ashore. My constituency houses Fawley refinery, where tankers call regularly, and it also faces Southampton, where, equally, dangers could arise. Hon. Members will recollect the tragedy of the accidental blowing up of the Betelgeuse in Shannon, Ireland, in January 1978, with the loss of 50 lives, and no one wishes a disaster like that to occur in the United Kingdom.
  Unfortunately, this legislation comes at a time when the shipping industry worldwide is very depressed, and British tonnage is at a low and declining level. There have been several discussions about the analysis of our fleet, which is largely one of definition. Most people would wish more shipping to be registered under the United Kingdom flag. To encourage more shipowners to do so, it will be necessary to remove some of the more petty rules and regulations and perhaps to simplify those specifications for ships which are unnecessarily stringent, such as the width

  1005
  of hatchways, the tolerances of metals, and the carrying of first-aid kits, and which merely put off the registration of ships under the British flag.
  It is appropriate to pay tribute to my hon. Friend's predecessor at another Department, Mr. Iain Sproat, one of whose parliamentary campaigns in his last year of office was the removal of regulations to facilitate registration in Britain. We often hear quoted the example that it would have cost £750,000 to alter a ship so that it could be registered in Britain. The work would have taken six months, and the cost, in terms of cash and time, meant that it was not worth while for the foreign owner to register in Britain. We want a climate to encourage people to register in Britain, and thereby increase British flag tonnage. Perhaps when my hon. Friend replies he can assure us that nothing in this legislation will hinder registration in Britain.
  Unfortunately, at present Britain is one of the least attractive countries in which to register ships. If we are to maintain our position as a leading, though declining, maritime nation, it is essential that it becomes more attractive, and we must maintain our position from an economic and military defence point of view. There are far too many Russian ships in British waters today. They can hold us to ransom not only militarily but commercially, so it is of vital national interest to increase the British flag.
  I have three questions to ask the Minister. Part II of the Bill refers to the limitation tonnage, which is highly technical. The reasons for part II of the Bill are to bring us into line with our competitors overseas. That is important, but it is also vital that we are in line internationally on enforcement. As the House knows, there are plenty of cowboys around the world who are prepared to bend the rules—countries that may be not so enthusiastic about enforcement when it does not suit them. The House will no doubt like to draw a comparison with what would happen if British lorry drivers in this country were to behave as French lorry drivers are currently behaving in France. I suspect that they would all be in gaol by this time. I hope that the United Kingdom will not be out of line with its international competitors, and I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend on the question of enforcement.
  My second question concerns the inspectorate, as set out in clause 7. I should like to know who the inspectors will be, from where they are likely to be recruited and what training they could expect to be given before becoming fully qualified.
  My third question relates to compensation for prohibition notices served wrongly. I should like to know what happens in other countries. Can our shipowners expect the same treatment in other ports of call if they are inspected and wrongly detained? Can they expect to be paid compensation in the same way as shipowners in this country will be paid compensation for wrongful detention?
  I hope that the Bill will have the same speedy and safe passage that we wish to those who go down to the sea in ships whom it is our duty to protect.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and I share constituencies which border on to the Solent. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the measure, I hope that it will lead to greater safety in our waters, because we have had more
  1006
  than our fair share of problems in both the Solent and the English Channel in recent years. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the parlous state of our Merchant Navy. I accept that it is imperative not to do anything to make life more difficult for the merchant fleet and those who own our ships who are greatly in need of any help that can be given. As a member of the Maritime League, I hope to play some small part in trying to revive the fortunes of our Merchant Navy to which the country owes so much and to which it will owe so much in future. If it is not there to step in and help the country, as it did during the Falklands crisis, God help the country.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) on his great speech in defence of the Goole and Gilberdyke railway. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will win his battle. If I remember rightly, the bridge was closed completely at one time, and British Rail spent a considerable amount of money getting it back into operation. The Bill clearly makes inadequate provision for such compensation. I hope that, even at this late hour, saner counsels will prevail, and that that line will remain open.
  I want to ask the Minister one question about the arbitrator. If this matter was dealt with in Committee, I aplogise for raising it again. Is there any way in which the arbitrator can invite assessors to help him in dealing with complicated and specialised subjects? I am aware of the preference of the National Union of Seamen for an industrial tribunal. The other union concerned has suggested the possibility of bringing in assessors. That suggestion appears sensible, although I accept that the arbitrator will be chosen to meet the requirements of the qualifications set out in page 5 of the Bill.
  The General Council of British Shipping is satisfied with the contents of the Bill, but warns that compensation could be considerable in the event of a ship being delayed by a prohibition notice that was decided by an arbitrator to be unreasonable. It is hoped that such incidents will not occur, for the reasons I gave at the beginning of my speech. I recognise the current problems of those involved in the merchant fleet. I hope that the Bill, which is sensible and well-intentioned, will not exacerbate those problems.
  5.26 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): On Third Reading, a number of interesting points have been raised. It may be for the convenience of the House if I set them within the context of the Bill.
  Part I of the Bill will improve the enforcement of merchant shipping legislation through the service of improvement and prohibition notices similar to those which may be served under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and other legislation.
  An improvement notice can be served where an inspector is of the opinion that a person is contravening, has contravened or might contravene any of the relevant statutory provisions. The notice will require the contraventions to be remedied by a specific date, and can indicate the appropriate remedy.
  A prohibition notice can be served on a person in charge of activities aboard ship related to one of the statutory provisions where the inspector is of the opinion that the activity, if carried out or continued, may involve a risk of serious personal injury, or serious pollution of navigable waters. I know that a number of hon. Members are

  1007
  concerned about pollution of navigable waters. A prohibition notice directs that the activities should cease, or not be carried out. It may include advice on ways to avoid the risk.
  Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiation between the inspector and the person on whom the notice is served before it takes effect are required to be referred to an appropriate qualified arbitrator. The arbitrator can confirm, amend or withdraw the notice. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) referred to the role of the arbitrator, and I shall return to the specific point that he raised.
  An arbitrator is empowered to award compensation for the wrongful issue of a prohibition notice where the risk of injury or pollution would arise only if the ship went to sea, and where the effect of the direction in the notice was to prevent the departure of the ship, unless certain specified matters or contraventions were remedied.
  It might be helpful if I were to say a little more about part II of the Bill. The House would not want me to enter into all the technicalities, but it may be helpful if I explain that part II of the Bill has a very limited objective. It deals with a technical problem that has arisen as a result of the entry into force last year of the new tonnage regulations, based on the 1969 tonnage measurement convention, and is necessary so that the United Kingdom may continue to comply with its existing international obligations under two international conventions to which it is party. That is important if the victims of maritime incidents are to receive full compensation under the existing regime. I shall respond later to what hon. Members said about changes in the regime.
  In Committee I said that the United Kingdom had pressed other states in the International Maritime Organisation to ratify the 1976 limitation convention as soon as possible so that the higher limitation amounts that the convention provides may come into force in the near future. I shall explain later when that may be.
  The new limitation amounts are set out in the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. When the four Nordic countries have ratified, as they are expected to do next month, only one further ratification will be required. The convention will then come into force. The 12-state criteria are the basis for international entry. Several other states are working on legislation. I hope that the entry into force conditions will be met this year.
  More generally, the United Kingdom has been pressing in the International Maritime Organisation, the headquarters of which are in London, for more realistic limitation amounts when international conventions are revised and for them to be kept in line with inflation. The Government believe that that is the right approach, given the international character of shipping. That was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). It is important that progress on maritime law should continue to be made through international agreement rather than by unilateral action which could lead to general confusion and not be helpful to British shipping interests, or to others.
  The Bahamas, France, Japan, Liberia, Spain, North Yemen and the United Kingdom have ratified or acceded to the 1976 convention. The United Kingdom implementing legislation for the 1976 limitation convention is contained in sections 17 to 19 and schedules 4 and 5 to the
  1008
  Merchant Shipping Act 1979. The expected ratification by the four Nordic countries will mean that we are only one ratification away from the convention coming into force.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) mentioned the Goole bridge today, as he did in Committee. He asked about the implication of liability limitations on that swing bridge. The bridge has been damaged by ships colliding with it on a number of occasions. It has been said that British Rail's failure to get adequate compensation from shipowners to meet the cost of repairs and strengthening is a factor in the British Railways Board's decision to propose the withdrawal of the passenger service between Goole and Gilberdyke. The closure proposal is going through the statutory procedures. About 1,500 objections have been made to the Transport Users Consultative Council, which plans a public meeting to consider them and representations from elsewhere. Today was the closing date for the receipt of objections. I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has registered his objection with the TUCC, but he has certainly registered it in the House and in Committee.
  The final decision whether to allow the closure is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He and I will take into account any relevant factors. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of the decision, it is inappropriate for me to say more about it, but I can help the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East further in a number of ways.
  Mention has been made of the EEC grant towards possible bridge repairs. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently asking about the possibility of such a grant. By chance, my right hon. Friend wrote back yesterday, and explained that grants from the European development fund are designed to help to correct regional economic imbalances. They are normally only available for new work, though renewal schemes may qualify where there is a significant amount of technological improvement or where they make for more efficient operation.
  I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman believes that it is possible to prove that a significant technological advance could be involved. In the normal way, such a grant would apply to the modernisation of railway signalling and moving technologically from old-fashioned signalling. Such a technological advance might succeed in attracting grant. I am not familiar with the case, but I doubt whether the bridge could be the subject of technological advance.
  Mr. Snape: I am a recent traveller on the line. Old-fashioned semaphore signalling is used, so perhaps there is reason for a grant. Would it not be a technological advance to do what British Rail would like to do and replace the bridge, at a cost of £2 million, by one that is not liable to be damaged by passing ships? Would not that be covered by clause 12?
  Mr. Mitchell: With respect, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East is in error in assuming that British Rail would like to replace the bridge. The hon. Gentleman may have other information, but I understand that British Rail has not made an investment proposal to replace the bridge. It would prefer to deal with the problem in a different way. It is not right for me to go further into the question of the appropriateness of its application for closure, but it is not

  1009
  true that British Rail proposes a £2 million investment in the bridge or that I have prevented it from doing so. Its judgment is that that is not the way to proceed. Seeking EEC aid, therefore, presents difficulty.
  In Committee, I said that the United Kingdom had been pressing other states in the International Maritime Organisation to ratify the 1976 limitation convention. The limitation amounts to which the hon. Gentleman referred are set out in the Merchant Shipping act 1979 which was introduced by the previous Labour Government. Therefore, I do not feel he is on strong ground in suggesting that it is inadequate.
  Mr. Snape: We shall not get far if we start running back through history and looking at which political party introduced which Act. Does not limited liability for ships go back to an Act of Parliament of 1894? I am sure that that was not introduced by a Labour Government. I am complaining about the principle that the compensation payable as a result of damage depends on the tonnage of the ship that caused the damage. That, in 1984, is somewhat illogical. I hope that the Minister will agree that, regardless of who has done what in the past, liability should be looked at in the future.
  Mr. Mitchell: I do not have a closed mind on that. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have to move within the terms of the international agreement. In the light of what he said, we shall consider whether in future discussions in the committee of the IMO we should consider further lifting the figure. A considerable lift will come when the new convention has been ratified by 12 states and thus brought into operation.
  Under the existing regulations, compensation would be limited to about £48 per tonne of the vessel. At Goole that would mean that on a 1,000-tonne vessel—I understand that the maximum size of vessels coming up the river would be between 1,000 and 2,000 tonnes—there would now be a limitation of £48,000. When the IMO convention comes into force, that figure will go up by three or four times, so the amount of compensation will become considerable. The compensation for a small vessel of 500 tonnes, which at the moment would be about £25,000, after ratification would become about £120,000.
  I am not claiming that the new limits are wholly adequate, that I stand on that and that is the end. However, they represent a significant step forward and we should take account of that. That bridge has been struck 19 times since 1974, and on 10 occasions it was more than superficially damaged. Clearly, if the new convention were in operation and the new amounts of money were forthcoming on vessels of the size about which we have talked, the funds to repair the bridge would be substantial were the Bill to be enacted. I hope that the Bill will be agreed to later this evening.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, whose constituency marches beside mine, mentioned the complexity of regulations on transfer to the United Kingdom flag. I was delighted to hear the warm tribute that he paid to my predecessor, Mr. Iain Sproat, who clearly identified the need to help British shipping to become competitive. That is a view from which I do not dissent. My hon. friend referred to the need to bring to the minimum the cost of transfer to the United Kingdom flag. We have recently agreed with the Norwegians a harmonisation of the terms upon which transfer from one
  1010
  flag to the other can take place, and which will make it considerably easier and less costly to transfer to the United Kingdom flag.
  My hon. Friend sought the assurance that the Bill would not prevent that transfer, and I give him that assurance. He also referred to it being unattractive to transfer to the United Kingdom flag. However, some 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom flag is foreign owned. It is a flag of convenience to many other countries. It is attractive to nationals in deciding where and under whose flag to operate their fleets. The disadvantages of United Kingdom flags are not quite as many or as large as my hon. Friend feared. There are substantial tax advantages in free depreciation, which has an effect on the numbers who decide to operate under the United Kingdom flag. but that does not take away from the substance of the points made by my hon. Friend about the need to keep the regulations to the minimum. I agree with that, and it is something on which my Department keeps a watchful eye.
  My hon. Friend also raised the problem of enforcement and referred to some of the substandard vessels that are to be seen around. United Kingdom operators are having to operate in the depths of the recession. There is substantial overcapacity in shipping, partly because of the recession, partly because of the use of larger vessels and more of them, and partly because of the strictly non-commercial shipbuilding practices encouraged in other countries. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to ensure that other countries are not able to trade in substandard vessels, so creating, on top of what is already tough competition, unfair competition.
  It is with that in mind that we have been re-examining our arrangements for the state control of inspection of vessels in United Kingdom ports. We are identifying more clearly than we have done before the vessels about whose history we know little, so that the deployment of our manpower and services on looking at vessels that need to have inspections to see that they are up to standard is more closely directed to those which have not been seen recently or those which, if they have been seen recently, have something wrong with them. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that we are making useful moves in port state control, about which he has asked, to ensure that substandard tonnage is not unfairly competing with our own.
  My hon. Friend asked me whether the Bill will apply to other countries in the United Kingdom. Yes, it will. There is no difference, and they will be treated alike. That is within the limitation of international law, which binds us all in this respect.
  Mr. Colvin: My question was also directed towards finding out about other countries with similar legislation such as that proposed in the Bill. For instance, if a British shipowner has his ship inspected in a foreign port and is wrongly detained, could he, under the present legislation overseas, expect compensation following arbitration? That is one of the provisions in this measure. However, will our shipowners get the same treatment when they call at overseas ports?
  Mr. Mitchell: No, I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are, of course, constrained by what we can get consensus and international agreement on. Vessels in our ports, under whatever flag, are treated alike.
  I was asked about the protection of the safety or health of seafarers on foreign flag ships. In this respect, ILO

  1011
  convention 147 permits coastal states to protect the safety and health of seafarers on foreign flag vessels, and a prohibition notice could be issued in the event of serious personal injury. I hope that that further assurance will be acceptable to my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight, with considerable versatility, having been on his feet in the House last night on the subject of aircraft noise, asked whether an arbitrator could bring in an assessor if he wished to do so. He can do that. It is a matter for his judgment. He is the person best qualified to know whether there are factors beyond his ken and whether he should therefore arm himself with additional advice.
  I think that I have covered all the matters that have been raised. On the basis of what I have said, and in view of the reassurance that I have given in this brief debate, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Wine Production
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am still a fairly new Member, and I am not entirely familiar with the procedures of the House, but when we have a busy Session ahead of us, and when we on the Liberal-Social Democratic Alliance Benches have a restricted amount of time available in which to discuss matters of policy under the Supply day debates allocated to Members on these Benches, is it not in order, if the business of the day collapses and the Government are not in control of their own destinies to the extent that we reach the Adjournment debate at 5.52 pm, for the Leader of the House to explain to us why his business has collapsed and why we are adopting this unique procedure? It is certainly new to me.
  Mr. John Golding: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For once, I shall not be critical of the Government. The business has collapsed because Members are not here to speak on the subject. I do not believe that the Adjournment debate and the one that will follow are matters of no importance. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) would do better to take seriously the subject of the first Adjournment, and also the subject of the second Adjournment. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will tell him to take the business of the House seriously for once.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), because he has helped me to help the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). It is not entirely unknown for the business of the House to finish early. When it does, it is possible for hon. Members to put in for further Adjournment debates. In fact, that has already happened. We are now on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very difficult for young new Members of the House—[Interruption.] I defer to the greater experience of hon. Members around me, but is it not right that the Leader of the House should come here and explain exactly what is happening? The Standing Orders of the House are not clear.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman started by raising a serious point of procedure, which I tried to explain to him. He is now getting into a political argument, and we are now cutting into the time of the Adjournment, which has started.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have before me "Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice". I do not expect new young Members to have read this book within the space of a fortnight, but the election took place on 9 June. Now we have the appalling spectacle of the Liberal candidate in Chesterfield, who is not prepared to debate with the candidates there—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it is time that we got on to the Adjournment debate. For the third time—[interruption]—for the third time, I call Mr. Anthony Steen.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely Back-Bench Members have some rights, and it is time they were protected. Everybody knows what has been going on between the two Front Benches. They have been trying to ensure that the Adjournment debate took place at 5.55 pm and the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has rushed here from somewhere outside the House to take it on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will not get into political arguments. I was asked a perfectly reasonable question, which I have tried to answer. We are now on the Adjournment, which has been moved, and I call the hon. Member who has the Adjournment. We have private business to consider at seven o'clock. There is already a second Adjournment debate, which has been applied for and accepted by Mr. Speaker. If there is time, we shall come on to that. If there is further time, and further Adjournment debates are put in for and accepted by Mr. Speaker's Office, we shall be able to take them. However, it is not in order to argue these points at the present moment.
  Mr. Golding: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you not realise that this is the alliance "Discredit the Speaker and the Chair Day"?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Steen.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I want to correct the suggestion that I have been brought in from anywhere. As the House knows, I virtually live in this place, day and night. It was merely a side step that brought me into the Chamber, and I am glad that I am so well prepared to cope with this debate at a much earlier hour than we originally expected.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my hon. Friend give way, although I accept that he has only just started his speech?
  Mr. Steen: Yes.
  Mr. Colvin: I accept what my hon. Friend has just said about taking a side step into the Chamber. It is significant that 50 per cent. of the Members on the Liberal-Social Democratic alliance Benches have just taken a side step out of the Chamber.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall debate English wine.
  Mr. Colvin: This is an important matter. It is not something frivolous. Is it not true that there is no such thing as English claret? Is it not, therefore, an appropriate moment for members of the alliance to leave the Chamber, write speeches, and come back and take a constructive part in this debate?
  Mr. Steen: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. This is an important debate about a serious matter, and I shall be glad to touch on the problem of English claret in the course of my speech. If my hon. Friend is here, he will hear what I say, but if he is not he can read later what I say.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Steen: I shall not give way, because I have hardly started.
  May I say, first, that the Queen drinks English wine. Mr. Speaker serves it, the House of Commons stocks it and the Lord Mayor's banquet was flush with it this year. Thousands of people throughout the world enjoy English wine. Hon. Members will be amazed to learn that this year 2 million bottles of it will be produced. I speak, of course, about English wine produced from fresh grapes grown here on English soil.
  In order to let hon. Members settle down, it might be as well at the outset to give the House an opportunity to realise what we are debating by drawing attention to the House of Commons' Members' wine list. Nos. 74 and 85 boast nine bottles of English wine. We must give credit to the far-sightedness and wisdom of the Catering Department, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), whose wines come from Adgestone, which, as you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is in the Isle of Wight—
  Mr. Golding rose—
  Mr. Steen: May I finish the argument? Then I shall gladly give way.
  There is a wine from the Hascombe vineyard in Surrey; the Wootton vineyard in Somerset which is managed by Major Gillespie, the chairman of the English Vineyards Association; Lamberhurst Priory, which is master-minded by Kenneth McAlpine, the secretary of the English Vineyards Association; and a range of other wines — Staple St. James; Three Choirs, a famous wine; and a wine from the Biddenden vineyard and the Carr Taylor vineyard.
  Mr. Golding rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Steen: Having just run through the wine list, may I say, Mr. Speaker, how delighted I am to see you in the Chair because all hon. Members know how much you enjoy a glass of English wine.
  Mr. Golding: Is this not blatant advertising of the most unacceptable kind? The hon. Gentleman has listed all the vineyards and named their proprietors. He has called Mr. Speaker in aid of the production and sale of alcohol. Is that not disgraceful?
  Mr. Steen: It is not disgraceful, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is a robust and fervent supporter of this English beverage, and I know of his great enthusiasm for this alcoholic drink.
  Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman realises that my remarks were intended to reduce the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, not to increase them.
  Mr. Steen: I am sure that the House will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  The House of Commons Members' wine list boasts a fair cross-section of English wines across the country and it has a range of vintages. If that is compared with the other wines on the list— French red or white, Yugoslavian and Italian wines — English wine has a distinct advantage. I congratulate the Catering Committee and its Chairman on their foresight and wisdom.
  The debate is about English wine produced from fresh grapes grown in English soil. It is as well to remember that

  1015
  vineyards have existed in Britain for over 2,000 years. The grape is one of the oldest agricultural products. The Romans grew a fine grape many thousands of years ago. In the past three years there has been a massive development in the production of English wine. The House will be interested to know that in the past three years there has been a fourfold increase in production. In 1981–82 only half a million bottles of English white wine were produced. In 1982–83 1 million bottles were produced and this year it is expected that 2 million bottles will be produced. It is worth noting that primarily white wine is produced in Britain, although later I shall talk about an enterprising young man from my constituency who is going in for the production of red wine. That should be an interesting development.
  The debate is about the important problems facing English vineyards. It is as well at the outset to distinguish English wine from British wine, which is an entirely different product. British wine is imported into Britain as a concentrate, must, or syrup. It is imported from the EC —Italy, Greece and France—and is often the worst end of their wine, and from the South American countries Argentina and Chile. The only thing that is British about British wine is the water that dilutes the syrup and the people who put it in the bottle. It is as well for the House to understand that there is this distinction between English wine that comes from fresh grapes and British wine that comes from must, concentrate or syrup.
  Mr. Golding rose—
  Mr. Steen: I shall give way in a moment. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in this subject.
  For the record, may I give the Shorter Oxford Dictionary's definition of "syrup"? It says that it is
  "a thick sweet liquid; especially one consisting of a concentrated solution of sugar in water."
  It describes "must" as
  "a new wine, grape juice before fermentation is complete."
  It defines "concentrate" as
  "raising the strength of liquid by removing water".
  We should have those definitions in mind when we consider what we are importing.
  Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman is contrasting English wine with British wine but in what category are Welsh and Cornish wines, and Scottish wines produced from grapes grown over the northern remit of the vine in Britain? The hon. Gentleman talks about British wine being a concentrate diluted by British water. Does that mean only English water or does that mean British water?
  Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, although I am surprised that he should speak of Scottish wine. I should have thought that the House would have realised that the bulk of the vineyards in Britain are in the east and south-east; frosts can destroy vines within moments. No serious farmer in Scotland would readily embark on creating a vineyard. In Wales, on the other hand, there are two vineyards, though I cannot tell the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) what sort of liquid they produce.
  As an honorary adviser to the English Vineyards Association, I must say that I have tasted a great number of wines and that some of them have been barely drinkable. I would not wish to comment on Welsh wines,
  1016
  but I have a note about a Welsh vineyard called Croffta —one might think that the name was more suited to Scotland — which is made not far from Cardiff and, according to my map, is situated in the mountains.
  The map gives the details of vineyards in the United Kingdom and shows another Welsh vineyard called Werndêg, not far from the Prescelly mountains. I am not sure whether there is any relevance in that or in the fact that on the map the vineyard is marked over a prehistoric monument. However, that may have no bearing on the quality of the wine.
  Mr. Golding: I thank the hon. Gentleman for including Wales. Is he aware that I am strongly advised that the poet Robert Burns wrote about Scottish wines? Is he further aware that Burns was more recent than the Romans?
  Mr. Steen: The House will have noted that point with interest. Robert Burns may have been using the word "wine" in the generic sense to include cider.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the vexed question of Welsh wine there can be a great deal of deception? I purchased a bottle of Welsh wine in a village in Pembrokeshire called Newport and, as one might have expected, the label was written in Welsh. When, to find out what I was going to drink, I had the label translated, I was informed that it said "Wines from different EEC countries." Does he agree that that is gross deception and does not help Welsh wine?
  Mr. Steen: I am grateful for that intervention from my hon. Friend, who is a next-door neighbour of mine, not just on this Bench but in Devon. Although we are taking our time to get warmed up in the debate and are enjoying the odd joke, my hon. Friend has stumbled, probably unwittingly, on an important point because he is talking about the total confusion in his mind and in the minds of many others.
  Mr. Nicholls: I had the words on the label translated.
  Mr. Steen: The confusion in his mind was that he was drinking Welsh wine. In fact, he was drinking wine must or syrup imported from Germany, Italy or Greece, diluted with Welsh water.
  Mr. Golding: Did not the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) say that he had the label translated before drinking the contents of the bottle?
  Mr. Steen: He nearly drank it. He believed that he would be drinking Welsh wine.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is taking his time over this because he has time to take; the mind boggles as to what he would have done if he had had only the traditional half hour for the Adjournment.
  Mr. Steen: I should not be giving way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend said earlier that must or concentrated grape juice was imported from various areas, and he mentioned Chile and Argentina. I wish to declare an interest, as the parliamentary adviser to the National Association of British Wine Producers—
  Mr. Golding: Now we know.
  Mr. Dykes: It is in the Register of Members' Interests.
  This is a noble profession and a noble industry. It provides much employment in Britain and represents 22

  1017
  per cent. of total non-spirit sales in this country. I checked with that association this morning and I am assured—the association's authority is all I have to go on—that, unless it is mistaken, no concentrated grape juice is currently imported from Argentina or Chile. I suggest, therefore, that my hon. Friend has thrown that in as an emotional element to try to curry favour with certain Labour Members for his case on the English wine industry.
  We all greatly admire the development of the English wine industry, wish it well in the future and hope to see a significant expansion. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it will always remain a fairly small industry, because of our climatic problems, and that it is not to be compared with British wines, in that they are generically two different kinds of drink?
  Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we be reminded whose Adjournment debate this is?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has given way a great deal. Perhaps we can now hear the debate.
  Mr. Steen: In view of that comment, Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from giving way further to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme because it is clear that his interventions are spoiling the flow of the argument.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) made several important points. It is important for the House to remember that British wine is easily confused in that it is produced by bringing concentrated must or syrup to this country. I have it on good advice that if Chilean or Argentine syrup is not now coming to Britain, it was; it may have been delayed because of events in that part of the world. That is what I have been advised and I have heard nothing to make me change my view.
  The problem with all the federations and associations is that not all vineyards and manufacturers are members of them. There may be bottlers getting syrup from South America, adding the water of the area and selling the resultant bottles of wine. I shall be coming to that shortly, and I was grateful for the helpful intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East.
  Mr. Dykes rose—
  Mr. Steen: I shall not give way again. I am sure that there will be ample opportunity for my hon. Friend to make his own speech.
  A big problem for English wine is the deliberate misrepresentation of bottle names by the British wine producers, and in that I include the design and wording of the labels. It is a clear case of deception and misrepresentation.
  Consider, for example, the British wine selling under the trade name "Rougemont Castle". That castle is in Exeter. My research team has been hard at work and has found that it is not a ruin but is used as a law court. The castle is featured on the label of British wine that is made in Exeter under that banner. There is a picture of Rougemont castle on the label with bunches of grapes around it. I have never seen law courts with bunches of grapes around them, and I have certainly never seen a castle so bedecked.
  Mr. Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to intervene?
  Mr. Steen: Shortly.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will permit us to hear the debate.
  Mr. Steen: What has an Exeter castle got to do with syrup imported from EEC countries or from the South Americas?
  Mr. Dykes: I am sorry to intervene again. My hon. Friend just said that he agrees with me that much is not coming from South America, but perhaps it was. He has now repeated that the wine is emanating from South America. Surely that is incorrect. On good authority, my evidence is that there are no imports of concentrated grape juice from South America, especially those two rather controversial countries. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to mislead the House and the public in his broadcast this morning on the BBC programme "Today" to which there is apparently no right of reply and no proper explanation can be made.
  I have checked this matter with the industry. The bottom of the labels of Rougemont Castle wine clearly state:
  "Wines made from imported grape juice"
  or words to that effect. Those labels do not mislead. All sorts of names for beverages, romantic or otherwise, do not mislead the public.
  Mr. Steen: I shall deal with that point shortly. I hope the House will bear with me, because I have been fair in allowing hon. Members from both sides of the House to intervene, which has disrupted my argument somewhat.
  My view is that there is gross misrepresentation on a wine label featuring a Norman castle, standing alone, with grapes on it. The immediate response of a person picking up a bottle whose label included a picture of a castle, grapes and the name Rougemont Castle would be that the wine was made or produced in Exeter or around that castle.
  Mr. Golding rose—
  Mr. Steen: I shall not give way. The label of one wine, Belgrove, gives the impression of a English stately home, and a horse and carriage are shown running in front. That is clearly aimed at giving the impression that the wine comes from an English country house. Why do that, unless one presumes that it is the stuff drunk by people living in English country houses or that it comes from the English country house? What has that to do with imported concentrate from Greece, Germany or France?
  Carrow Prior is bottled by the mustard people, Colmans, at Norwich. The label shows an attractive Elizabethan house—I have come armed with the label—and underneath "Carrow Prior" is written:
  "Carrow Prior was a Benedictine Foundation started in the 12th century at the Carrow, Norwich. Although only ruins of this medieval period remain, part of the present house dates from the early sixteenth century. Today, Carrow Priory is produced on the same site as this historic Norwich landmark."
  What have that information and the Elizabethan house to do with imported syrup from France or Germany?
  On the face of it, those labels are a misrepresentation. They are disturbing because they are put on bottles with the sole aim of misleading the public into thinking they are drinking something else. The conclusion, therefore. is that the pictures and the wording are designed to deceive. The manufacturers are attempting to misrepresent the area from which their product comes.
  The conclusion is reinforced — I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is in the

  1019
  Chamber—by the other brand names of British wines, which are less successful, such as Concord and Cabaret, because few people will buy wine with such names. I am told that those wines are less successful than wines such as Carrow Priory, which has a sense of antiquity about it, Rougemont Castel or Belgrove. Those labels are designed specifically to mislead the public.
  For four years I have repeatedly drawn this misrepresentation to the attention of successive Ministers responsible for consumer affairs and agriculture and the Office of Fair Trading. There has been a comparative lack of interest. The letters I have received are of considerable interest. One letter from a Minister makes it plain that he feels he cannot do more than take an interest. He cannot change the law or persuade British manufacturers to change their policies.
  In 1981 the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). He wrote a number of letters to the English Vineyards Association and raised these matters with various Ministers in other Departments, but to little avail. In 1983 the Minster for Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend who is now the Member for Reading East (Sir. G. Vaughan), took this matter up. His letter to me of 15 March 1983 said:
  "I promised to consult Peter Walker, Jock Bruce-Gardyne and Gordon Borrie on the points you raised at our meeting last December on behalf of the English Vineyards Association. You have already received a copy of Jock Bruce-Gardyne's letter on the duty rates on English wine.
  On the question of confusing labelling, it seems that following your meeting with Peter Walker in late 1981 it was suggested to the NABWP"—
  I imagine that that is the professional association in which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East mentioned his interest—
  "that the issue shall be put beyond reasonable doubt by the addition of further information on their labels to show that their product was made from imported materials. As you know the NABWP adopted this suggestion by requiring their members under the new Code of Practice to include on their labels the phrase 'made from imported grape juice' or an appropriate equivalent. I know that the EVA do not regard this as sufficient. But it is Peter Walker's view, and I am inclined to agree, that given an indication of this sort the risk of confusion between the two products is slight. However, Gordon Borrie"—
  of the Office of Fair Trading—
  "has proposed that there should be joint discussions between MAFF, the OFT and NABWP to further clarify the Codes labelling recommendations to ensure there is no question of misleading the public about the ingredients of British wine. As you know it is our aim to improve trading standards by the development of sensible voluntary codes of practice and with the help of Gordon Borrie's Office, I see no reason why a satisfactory solution should not be arrived at this way."
  But, as I said before, it is MAFF as the Department responsible for the implementation of the EEC Wine Regulations which is the lead Department on this.
  It is gratifying to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in her place and listening so attentively to the debate. It is clear that she will want to participate in due course and reply to the various issues that are raised.
  The English Vineyards Association does not believe that the wording on the labels negatives the pictures and the names of the wine except for the very sophisticated.
  The second problem is the failure of British wine manufacturers to state in large enough type, or perhaps at
  1020
  all on some labels, although I have not seen labels that do not bear the wording, that the content of the bottle comes from abroad in the form of syrup and concentrate and not from Britain.
  Conveniently, I have another label in my pocket. Part of it reads:
  "Produced from imported grape concentrate".
  That is fairly sound, but some labels state that the contents have been produced from imported grape juice. I believe that that is stated on the Marks and Spencer bottle, which bears a label which contains a pretty picture which suggests that the wine comes from somewhere such as the Cotswolds. Certain pictures and names are designed clearly to mislead unless the customer reads the fine print.
  It is the view of the English Vineyards Association that the voluntary agreement has not been properly honoured. It has done little to correct the impression that is derived from the name and the picture. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that she will put that right by advising British wine growers that the label must state the country of origin, as I believe the Marks and Spencer bottle does. It states that the wine comes from Germany, which is the right way to proceed. The label should state the country of origin clearly and the fact that the wine is made from concentrate, must or syrup. That information should be in print as bold as the wording that sets out the name of the vineyard.
  Carrow Prior is in massive letters, and that is followed by the information that it is medium dry British wine. Perhaps Labour Members can read that even though they are sitting on the other side of the Chamber. Under that information, and in small black type of the same size as that which is used to tell us that the product is produced by Colmans in Norwich, is the phrase:
  "Produced from imported grape concentrate."
  If you walked into an off licence, Mr. Speaker, which, with the greatest respect, I know you may not do, and saw the attractive label that is used for Carrow Prior wine and noted the Elizabethan—
  Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it permitted to bring exhibits into the Chamber? I always thought that it was not permissible to bring them into the Chamber to use them as the hon. Gentleman has done. I should like a ruling, Mr. Speaker, because there have been occasions when I would have wished to bring a telephone kiosk into the Chamber. We have our rules, and I understand that it was inadmissible to bring exhibits into the Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker: It is not permissible to bring dangerous exhibits into the Chamber. I do not think that the items which the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has brought with him can be described as dangerous.
  Mr. Steen: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was advised that it would be inappropriate to bring a collection of English and British wines into the Chamber with a few glasses. I was therefore constrained, even though it would have been a suitable hour to bring in a bottle and a glass. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber would have enjoyed tasting the difference between British wine that is produced from syrup, and the real stuff that is produced from fresh grapes. I did not think that it would be dangerous to do so, but I thought that it might have an effect on the quality of the debate.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that the lettering on the labels is as large and as

  1021
  prominent as it should be so that it can be read by ordinary men and women who are not necessarily as discerning or sophisticated as hon. Members may be. If that is done, they will be able to learn that the products that are retailing in supermarkets and off licences for about half the price of real English wine are wines which have been imported in the form of a syrup or must, diluted with English water, put into the botle and adorned with a fancy label. I am not criticising the products that have been produced from a concentrate or syrup. On the contrary, I know that many find it extremely tasty. For example, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is partial to British wine. I am not criticising him for enjoying that beverage.
  Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether it is in order to make such a suggestion. I am not disagreeing that British wines are excellent beverages, but it might be thought that I consume an excessive amount of them as opposed to other wines. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to give that impression.
  Mr. Speaker: Points of order must be matters on which I can rule. I could not possibly rule on the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I think that the happiest thing will be for the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) to get on with his speech.
  Mr. Steen: I am doing my best to do so, Mr. Speaker, but I am severely constrained by interventions, including one of guilt, perhaps, from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, who wants to ensure that none of his constituents feels that he is indulging in something which we all know he is not. The House will be grateful to British manufacturers for at least putting some note on the label. That was great progress, but I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is not sufficient. It is not clear enough and something better should be done so that the public can readily see what they are drinking and what they are not.
  I say that the print on the labels to which I have been referring is a fundamental misrepresentation. I know that hon. Members will have taken note of that and will wish to put matters right.
  Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order if it is a point of order. However, it is not fair to try to intervene in the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for South Hams by raising points of order.
  Mr. Dykes: I apologise for intervening yet again, Mr. Speaker, but I think that I have a genuine point of order. To say that something is a "fundamental misrepresentation" is to make a most serious charge. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain his reasons for doing so. To make such a charge is different from saying that the labelling should be better or that the printing should be clearer. The implication of my hon. Friend's charge is that there is deliberate intent to mislead the public. That is a serious accusation which is not borne out by the facts. All the labels have the importation subscriptions on the bottom.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a fair point, with which the hon. Member for South Hams can deal during his speech. He was not using the phrase "fundamental misrepresentation" while referring to another Member.
  Mr. Steen: As I have said, British manufacturers have taken the first step. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister
  1022
  will tell us that she will lean on them a little harder, and I hope, also, that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East will take note of what is said. The English Vineyards Association is upset that so little has been done and it feels that something better should be done.
  The third problem is perhaps the most serious one The Government give advantageous duty arrangements to imported concentrate. That is the result of a historical anomaly that is known as empire preference. That preference initially helped the Cypriot wine trade when Cyprus was part of the empire. Today it is not, but empire preference continues to be given. It is given to all concentrates and syrups that are imported, whether from South America or Europe. If there are French, German or Greek syrups which are surplus to requirements, those syrups can be imported — the same applies to concentrates — to Britain, and the EEC will give a subsidy to the bottler or importer. Empire preference is given to all imported concentrates.
  I wonder what South America has to do with the British empire. The Parliamentary Secretary may ask herself that, if must is still imported from South America. Why should imported concentrate pay less duty than the English counterpart? The duty on British imported must or concentrate is 42 per cent. less per bottle than on English wine. To add insult to injury, if the concentrate comes from an EEC country the bottler is eligible for yet another subsidy—for an EEC handout. That is discrimination in favour of foreign products. If the product comes from the EEC, there is double discrimination. There is empire preference — and why should Germany, France and Greece have empire preference? —and there is also the EEC subsidy. I wonder how the Minister will get out of that.
  The Parliamentary Secretary should start a process of harmonisation. She should put English wine on a par with British wine, in terms of duty. If we are to give preferential treatment through the EEC to European concentrate, will the Minister make sure that some similar support is given to our hard-pressed, unsupported English wine industry?
  Those who choose to import syrup from Germany or France and add water to it receive empire preference—that is an advantage of 42 per cent. in duty over the English counterpart—and the EEC subsidy for bottling it. That is clearly discrimination in favour of the British wine. I do not suggest for a moment that the British wine should lose. I say that the English wine should benefit from the same advantage.
  Mr. Colvin: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. He referred to harmonisation, and when we hear that word in an EEC context a red danger signal flashes. Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent ruling by the European Court suggesting greater harmonisation of the duty on beer and on wine? The suggestion is that, in the cause of greater equity, the duty on beer should be increased by 7p, or the duty on wine should fall by 24p. Will my hon. Friend undertake to join, today, the campaign for a reduction in the duty on wine? That would help his campaign, but would not in any way harm the beer drinker. Bearing in mind that just as he—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is almost making a speech.
  Mr. Colvin: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I may make one final point. My hon. Friend supports the manufacture of English wine. Let us not forget that beer is 100 per cent. British.
  Mr. Steen: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. He made an important point. It draws attention for the need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Budget which is soon to be unveiled to the House, to consider the question of duties on beers and wines. I am always happy to join a campaign, particularly if it will help the hard-pressed English wine industry.
  I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is not with us. Perhaps he has nipped out for a glass of English wine.
  The empire subsidy, in terms of syrup from Germany, is a contradiction in terms. My suggestion is that the Minister should give the same advantages to English wine growers. She should not increase the duty paid by British wine growers, but should attempt to bring down the duty paid on English wine. That must be the right approach.
  The Government have for some years been financing half a worker at the Long Ashton research station, where research is carried out into English wine and cider. On 8 February 1982 I tabled a series of questions about the Long Ashton research station. I put the questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who apparently is the Minister responsible. My concern was that the number of staff in the pomology division of the research station might be cut. I then represented the Wavertree district of Liverpool, where there are not many vineyards.
  I asked the Secretary of State what the present staff establishment was in various categories. I asked him
  "how many staff are currently employed in the food and beverage division … how many staff are currently employed in the pomology division … how many staff are currently employed in the ciderhouse section"
  and finally,
  "how many staff are currently employed in the home food science section"?
  The answer was interesting. It referred to
  "The staff establishment by categories at Long Ashton research station as at 1 December 1981 (excluding a small number of appointments sponsored by the private sector)".
  Apparently there are 149·5 members of staff in the scientifc section, 39·5 other non-industrials, 10 skilled craftsmen, 34·5 semi-skilled craftsmen, half an unskilled worker and 25·5 administrative staff. At that date the total complement was 258·5. There were 33 members of staff in the food and beverage division, 32 in the pomology division, 5·5 in the ciderhouse section and 7·5 in the home food science section.
  The Minister continued:
  "The function of the ciderhouse section is to provide practical advice on cider-processing techniques and equipment, and to produce cider for experimental purposes (the surplus being sold)."
  The crunch line was:
  "The future of the pomology division and the food and beverage division … is at present under consideration by the Agricultural Research Council, in consultation with interested bodies. Any decision which may be taken following those consultations, will be matters for the council, acting under the terms of their Royal Charter."—[Official Report, 8 February 1982; Vol. 17, c. 295–96.]
  At the time, as well as looking at apples, the pomology department was managing to take a little look at grapes. It was helping the English Vineyards Association with
  1024
  experimental grapes and the problems associated with them. That was an important task. Our climate gives the English vineyards a tough time.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House, and especially my right hon. and hon. Friends who have attended this important debate, that the Government have no plan to axe the pomology department or in any way to reduce the number of staff involved in experimental work in connection with English vineyards.
  Mr. Tim Renton: Can my right hon. Friend tell us where the dreadful word "pomology" comes from? I have never heard it before. There is a good old English word, "apple". Why should we use a word which appears to be a hybrid of the French word "pomme" and the Greek word "logos"? It is bad enough that Golden Delicious apples should be taking over our domestic market, but that the French language should take over the terms used in this place is a matter for great regret.
  Mr. Steen: I am not equipped to deal with the terminology of pomology. When my hon. Friend and I first came to the House we noticed that the menu in the Members' Dining Room was written in French. Many places write their menus in French in the belief that that improves the food. Perhaps the Long Ashton research station feels that the relevant department's work is put up market by calling it the pomology department. I cannot give my hon. Friend any more assistance.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: May I suggest one way in which the Government can help the English wine industry? They could follow my example. As a Minister in two Departments, I ensured that hospitality in my office involved only English wine. There was no French or German wine and no spirits. Perhaps my hon. Friend will commend that action to the Minister.
  Mr. Steen: I am most grateful for that illuminating information. We do not normally hear what goes on behind the closed cocktail doors of Ministers. Mr. Speaker is known to enjoy a glass of this beverage. The Queen also enjoys a glass at state banquets. It is highly popular. I should like more hon. Members to enjoy it.
  Mr. Golding rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not bring the tastes of Mr. Speaker or any other occupant of the Chair into the debate.
  Mr. Steen: That was just a throwaway line.
  Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may have been a throwaway line, but it has been thrown away at least 12 times during the debate. The hon. Gentleman should be rebuked for constantly bringing in the Chair in a blatant advertising campaign.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. We are rapidly approaching the hour when we shall move on to other business.
  Mr. Steen: I was not suggesting that Mr. Speaker did anything other than present the beverage to his guests. I would not wish for a moment to advertise that fact or to draw attention to it.
  I should like to draw attention to two interesting experiments in my constituency. Farmers in south Devon, who face all manner of pressures, are taking to experimentation with vines. I should like to draw attention

  1025
  to the Dittisham fruit farm which is called the Ditsome fruit farm by those who know how to pronounce it. It produces a fine sparkling white wine from the Capton vineyard. Even on the hills of south Devon around Dartmouth farmers have managed to produce for the second year a perfectly drinkable and likeable white wine. It is therefore possible to produce wine as far west as the west country where it is extremely wet.
  The second experiment in my constituency involves claret. One of my hon. Friends mentioned English claret. It was not a Social Democratic Member, none of whom is here. A most interesting experiment is being conducted at Beenleigh manor at Harbertonford near Totnes. Mr. Andrew Wilson-Gough wrote to me a letter dated 13 September 1983. He told me that he hopes to plant several acres with red grapes this year. That is most unusual. I shall watch the experiment with interest and I hope to taste the results. His anxiety when he wrote to me concerned the levels of duty. He has a substantial interest in cider but he may have thought twice about going into wine production because of what is regarded as discrimination against English wine.
  Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend has just made an important point. He will remember that claret was always the drink of the Scots and that port was the drink of the English. He will remember the famous poem which runs:
  "Tall and erect the Caledonian stood, Old was his claret and his mutton good. 'Drink this port', the English statesman cried, He drank the vile stuff and his spirit died."
  Claret, which is a French word like pomology, derives from the French words clair and et. There are many good vineyards in Sussex, some of which are in my constituency. The fact that claret is now being produced in my hon. Friend's constituency shows that the tradition of centuries that I have described is being changed. That is important.
  Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend is always of great interest when he intervenes, especially when he recites poetry. The House was pleased to hear his contribution. It is worth noting that there are some fine vineyards in Sussex, especially east Sussex. There is Horam manor, Little Pook hill, Brede and many others.
  Mr. Nicholls: Is my hon. Friend aware that good vineyards are to be found in my constituency, which neighbours his? The Whitstone vineyard in my
  1026
  constituency is excellent. Is my hon. Friend aware that his constituency has no monopoly of vineyards in the west country?
  Mr. Steen: I would not suggest for a moment that my constituency has a monopoly of vineyards. I should certainly like an invitation from my hon. Friend to visit the vineyards in his constituency.
  I should like to describe the absurd circumstances that face 200 English vineyards. As in France and Germany, English vineyards want to show off their produce. They run charabanc tours to vineyards. French, German, and Danish tourists pour in and want to enjoy a glass of wine after they have been shown round the vineyard. The vineyards want to help tourism and generate local employment. However, the man from the Treasury prevents even one glass of wine being offered to visitors unless the vineyard has applied for and been granted an on licence. In those circumstances, glasses of wine may be sold during public house hours. Should tourists be so unwise as to visit a vineyard out of licensing hours, they have to rest content with buying a bottle from the vineyard's off licence premises, assuming, that is, that the vineyard has applied for and been granted an off licence. Therefore, vineyards need a room or building for an on licence and a building or room for an off licence. That is not all. If the tourists miss the licensing hours, they cannot drink a glass of wine on the premises but must go to the off licence room, buy a bottle of wine and consume it off the premises. To do that, they have to go into the premises of a third person, who provides them with a corkscrew and glass, in order to taste the product of the premises of the vineyard owner.
  Tourists who wish to sample a bottle of wine in off licence hours have to buy it and take it off the premises. If tourists want to taste a glass of wine during public house hours, they can do so, but if they wish to taste a glass of wine out of public house hours they must buy an off licence bottle and go to a hut or room belonging to a neighbouring farmer, taking a corkscrew and a glass with them.
  Mr. Golding: How would the hon. Member define a bona fide tourist—
  It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

  Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have selected the Instruction, which may be discussed with the motion for Second Reading.
  7 pm
  Mr. Derek Conway: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It is my privilege to represent the beautiful medieval town of Shrewsbury, which is situated in my constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham. Some hon. Members may not know that Shrewsbury is situated within a loop of the river Severn. That is a rather difficult geographical position not uncommon to towns of such an age. Within that loop, 84 per cent. of the buildings are listed as being of historical and architectural interest. Shrewsbury is not only a historic and beautiful town, but suffers from many traffic problems, caused by its architecture. The town is listed among the 14 priority towns of special historic interest.
  The Bill has already been discussed in the other place. The need for the Bill is mainly set out in parts II and III. Part II deals with the erection of a car park and the need to build a bridge across the river Severn for access to it, which is opposed in principle. Part III covers proposals for the ancient 16th-century market square in the centre of the town, which are also being opposed, but for a less obvious reason.
  The town's traffic problems are apparent to any visitor, but especially to the people who live there. There are many advantages in living in such a beautiful area, but a disadvantage is that if one arrives at the eastern side of the town to go on a shopping expedition there is a car parking problem. It is recognised by most of the town's residents. There are effective car parks to the north-west and the south, but not to the east. That gap unquestionably needs to be filled and the Bill would allow that to be done.
  The history of the Bill, and the deliberations over the car park, have been long and tortuous. There have been public discussions for nine or ten years about the form of that car park and its location. Eventually, the borough council, with all-party support from the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties—the Conservative party is in control of the council—recognised the need to build a car park in that location. The council has the support of the Shropshire county council.
  It is evident from the Order Paper that the provision is opposed by Shrewsbury town football club. I understand why it should wish to oppose the Bill, as, unquestionably, its land will be affected. I do not blame the directors of Shrewsbury football club for defending their interests, but I believe that the wider interests of the Shropshire community should be taken into account. If the Bill eventually becomes a statute, the enclosures within the Bill will not prevent the successful continuation of the football club, of which we are all in favour. The club is of major importance to the town, and no one wishes to see its operation hindered. After careful scrutiny of the Bill, I do not believe that that would happen because of it.
  It must be placed on record that, while the Bill is being opposed by Shrewsbury town football club, and many hon.
  1028
  Members, the main cause of the objection has been the recently created practice ground. The football club and a property developer agreed to build a car park and supermarket on the practice ground, in a former incarnation of the car park proposals. I do not blame the club for investigating that proposal, but it casts doubt on the genuine need for a practice ground and the concern for sufficient coach parking space.
  The borough council recognises the need and concern for coach parking at the ground, and I shall deal with that matter later. Fairly recently, however, the football club was prepared to see that space go. The ground was regarded by the West Mercia police and the fire authorities as important for crowd control and to the way in which visitors to the Gay Meadow ground are dealt with. There is a slight dilemma in the opposition view, put forward by the football club.
  The Bill has been examined in detail in the other place. I am sure that many hon. Members will have taken the opportunity to study the thorough evidence put forward, which caused amendments to be tabled to the Bill as further safeguards to the interests of the football club.
  Hon. Members opposing the Bill's Second Reading say that the coach parking problem is of major importance. The Bill has already undergone scrutiny in Committee, and I hope that if it is given a Second Reading the Committee will consider it in detail. A Committee is the right place to hammer out the facts of the case.
  Experts from the borough council and the club disagree about the figures. I am in no position to arbitrate between those gentlemen and their professional interests. I would not discredit hon. Members, but I do not believe that many hon. Members in the Chamber are able to arbitrate between the conflicting interests of the engineers. It should be possible to get to the bottom of that question in Committee.
  It is important to consider the view of the West Mercia constabulary. Hon. Members who visited Shrewsbury, at the generous invitation of the football club, to inspect the practice ground and the effect of the changes in measurements on the arrangements for crowd control and coach parking were given a handwritten report by one of the directors present. It said that the police had visited the practice ground, where a coach was provided. Cones were not provided, although the area was marked out with tapes so that hon. Members could observe the manoeuvres of the coach in line with the council's proposal. It was suggested to hon. Members present that coach parking would be severely restricted.
  A letter was sent to hon Members who expressed interest in the matter by Chief Superintendent Burford of the West Mercia constabulary, who is the senior officer responsible for the Shrewsbury division. He went to Shrewsbury market with the chief inspector responsible for matches, and Sergeant Austen. The borough council, in accordance with detailed measurements, set out a series of cones and arranged for a bus to carry out manoeuvres in line with those measurements. That showed, to the satisfaction of Chief Superintendent Burford — he confirmed it in a letter of 20 February—that 35 coaches could be parked in that area. Hon. Members may wonder whether 35 coaches would be sufficient.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Chief Superintendent Burford was actually present when a coach was taken to

  1029
  the coach park and wrote a letter confirming that in his view only 18 and not 35 coaches could be accommodated? Hon. Members have now received another letter from the same superintendent saying that on the basis of another exercise in a market area, and not at the relevant site, he has reached further conclusions. That is extraordinary when, following the experiment at the club, he was convinced that with the large turning area only 18 coaches could be accommodated. I apologise for interrupting so early in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but it is an important point.
  Mr. Conway: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. He does not often get his facts wrong, but sadly on this occasion that is the case. The chief superintendent did not write a letter following the exercise at the Gay Meadow practice ground. That was a report written by one of the directors of the footbal club and photocopied and circulated on that day.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I have in my hand a letter dated 18 January 1984 to Mr. Williams of Shrewsbury Town football club signed by Chief Superintendent Burford. It states:
  "My estimation was in the order of eighteen coaches. This would be roughly half the number that it is usual to expect to park there at present."
  Does the hon. Gentleman now accept that that letter was written following Mr. Burford's inspection?
  Mr. Conway: I would not accuse the hon. Gentleman of misleading the House. If he has such a letter, I accept that. I have not seen the letter. The document that I saw distributed was handwritten by one of the directors. The letter that I have was circulated to opponents of the Bill as a matter of courtesy, but it seems that a similar courtesy has not been extended to me on this occasion.
  Mr. John Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman give the date of the letter from which he quoted? The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) gave the date of the letter that he quoted as 18 January.
  Mr. Conway: I believe that I mentioned the date in referring to the source. It was 20 February.
  Mr. Golding: Ah!
  Mr. Conway: We may argue about the mechanics of it. If nothing else, however, it proves that this matter needs to be sorted out in Committee so that the views of the police are fully known to hon. Members. In both the letter that I mentioned and the map attached, the latest communication from the West Mercia constabulary goes into considerable detail about the car parking facility. The second paragraph of the letter of 20 February states that is is possible to park 35 coaches in the area.
  One of the highest gates achieved at Gay Meadow in recent times was 11,000 for the recent Ipswich match. That is considerably more than the average gate enjoyed by the club, yet only 13 coaches were on the practice area during that major match. In recognising the need for a large coach parking capacity there, one must bear in mind that in recent times it has not proved necessary to use it to the maximum. Indeed, as I have said, the club previously intended to do away with the coach parking area altogether. The police, however, wish it to be retained for coach parking so that they may better control the fans.
  Much has been made of crowd safety, and it is right that hon. Members, especially the right hon. Member for
  1030
  Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), with his vast experience of these matters, should be concerned about crowd safety at Gay Meadow. I should add that it has a better reputation than most clubs in this respect arid the directors are to be congratulated on their interest and the progressive view that they have taken. At present, police use the coaches as a wall to help control the fans. The proposal to build a bridge would, on the early stages of the incline from the Gay Meadow practice ground, fulfil exactly the same function. The police would thus not lose their facility for supervision and crowd control. The alternative bridge proposal, however, would allow fans to reach a higher position, from which articles might be thrown. The police were therefore not happy with the alternative suggested by the club and some of my hon. Friends.
  It is important to bear in mind also that the police will retain power to close the access road to the car park. If the Bill becomes law, the police will have control over that. It is not subject to borough council influence, but entirely under the control of the West Mercia constabulary.
  The right hon. Member for Small Heath will also bear in mind that the chief fire officer for Shropshire county council, Mr. R. H. Russell, has responsibility for implementation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. In a letter dated 10 August 1983 to the chief executive of Shrewsbury borough council he confirms that he is responsible for issuing the certificate to the football club that he has examined the proposal, and that
  "after discussion with all interested parties, the Fire Service is satisfied that the project would not adversely affect any of the club's statutory responsibilities under the Act, particularly those which affect evacuation of the football ground."
  The authorities responsible for the observance of crowd safety and crowd control measures passed by Parliament are therefore happy with the proposals in the Bill. If there were any doubt about that, a Committee of the House would be the right forum to examine any differences of view.
  In my experience, the Bill is unusual in commanding such wide support in the town. I have not received one letter of objection from a constituent. Although the need for a car park is obvious, I should, nevertheless, have expected certain pressure groups to lobby against the proposal, because some people find new architecture less pleasing than old. However, even the Shrewsbury Civic Society recognises the problem and I have received no objections at all.
  I cannot understand—perhaps it will be made clear today—why the directors of Shrewsbury Town football club oppose part III of the Bill, which deals with the ancient square in the centre of the town. I cannot see what is contentious about that. I look forward to hearing from any hon. Member who supports the club stance in that respect.
  I remind the House of the statement in "Erskine May" relating to Bills of this nature. It states on page 979, in the Second Readings section:
  "the expediency of a private Bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee. Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the House will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee."
  I have heard no objection to the principle that a car park is needed in Shrewsbury and that the proposed site is the

  1031
  obvious choice. I look forward to hearing why any contested facts should not be examined in detail in Committee, as "Erskine May" recommends.
  I am concerned about the future of Shrewsbury, and these days car parking must be linked with that. I hope that all who have a genuine interest in the town and borough of Shrewsbury will support the Bill today.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: My constituency borders that of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). We are proud of our links with that ancient and beautiful town. Those links are social, commercial and cultural. One of the cultural links is a sporting link. In the professional leagues, at least, Shrewsbury Town football ground is our local football ground and the Gay Meadow is, as it were, our local place of football worship. We are very conscious of the happy reality of the great rise to prominence in the fortunes of Shrewsbury Town football club. In the past two or three years Shrewsbury Town football club has played a prominent part in British football life and entertained some of the leading football clubs at Gay Meadow. One result of achieving football prominence and success — we hope, expect and demand that Shrewsbury Town will eventually proceed to the first division—is the problem that football crowds always bring with them to towns.
  I have a personal, private worry about the Bill from the Montgomeryshire point of view. Although I do not have the experience of dealing with sport from a Government's point of view that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has, and of having the closest possible links with studies about football violence and crowd behaviour, my worry is coloured by my experience and great pleasure over the years of watching football matches at many different football grounds all over England and, of course, Wales.
  The Bill worries me purely on the ground of public safety. In Shrewsbury public safety may be affected when big crowds come to town to watch the major football attractions. I visited and examined the site of the ground, which is currently in conjunction with the coach park. They are cheek by jowl. From the point of view of the police and the public, the coach park is ideally sited because the coaches come down a small road which leads straight to the park. The coach park is within yards of the turnstiles and the visiting crowds can be shepherded straight in to the grounds without the slightest risk of crossing a road or becoming involved with the peaceful home fans. That is ideal for crowd control.
  The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, whose views I respect in this matter and who presented the Bill in the best spirit, said that Shrewsbury Town has a better record on crowd behaviour than most football clubs. The reason for that is the large coach park, which can accommodate coaches coming in substantial numbers from, for example, Everton, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham—
  Mr. Denis Howell: And West Ham and Stoke City.
  Mr. Carlile: Yes, and West Ham and Stoke City. That accommodation means there is no risk of trouble in the town.
  1032
  As I suggested earlier, crowd control has been the subject of much study, not least by the Centre of Contemporary Studies in its interesting document, "Football as a Focus for Disorder". One of the most experienced gentlemen involved in that report was Mr. John Cornwell, chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' arts and recreation committee. He is a member of the Football Trust, and an expert on these matters. In an article called "A Role for Local Government", he said:
  "New planning policies and housing developments should take account of the existence of football grounds, which in most cases are historically in the most crowded working class areas of town, equipped with few of the facilities which would be obligatory if the grounds were being designed from scratch."
  If a company called, for example, Shrewsbury Town Football Club PLC went to the local planning authority and asked for permission to build a new football stadium, one of the first questions the authority would rightly ask would be, "Where is your coach park?" It would insist that the company had an adequate coach park adjoining the ground. Shrewsbury Town already has one at Gay Meadow, so the club fulfils the criterion referred to in the article.
  The article continues:
  "Where railway lines run close by the stadium, local authorities should be prepared to join with others in designing and funding low cost basic platforms thereby reducing the crocodiles of hostile supporters winding their way through town or using public transport. Similarly proper car and coach parking facilities as joint ventures with the club should be planned for and developed."
  Shrewsbury Town does not need to plan for and develop a coach park, as it already has one. There is no risk of crocodiles of hostile supporters because the existing provisions obviate that need.
  I received a copy of the letter from Chief Superintnendent Burford to Mr. Williams of Shrewsbury Town football club dated 18 January 1984. It is important for the House to know that the letter refers to an actual test on the site with which we are concerned. I have only just seen a copy of his later letter of 20 February 1984, which deals with a theoretical test carried out on a different site. The letter of 18 January states:
  "I can confirm that I visited the car park at the Gay Meadow Football Ground on Thursday, 12th January 1984, together with other senior officers and officials of the Football Club.
  I witnessed several manoeuvres of a coach which were carried out in order to estimate the number of coaches it would be possible to park on the car park in the area of the ground left free from the proposed road and bridge development. My estimation was in the order of eighteen coaches. This would be roughly half the number that it is usual to expect to park there at present."
  That letter speaks for itself.
  I have gleaned from a quick glance at the letter of 20 February that it relates to a theoretical test and does not take proper account of all the other requirements of the coach park—for example, the parking of police vehicles and the need for supervisory places. That test is most unconvincing compared with the real test.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any account was taken of television vehicles, which need to be parked in the ground for the big occasions and matches? I had a quick glance at that letter but saw no reference to their being taken into account.
  Mr. Carlile: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that no account was taken of television

  1033
  vehicles. Anyone who has attended football matches where there are television vehicles knows that it is rather like party conferences. There are great caravans of TV vehicles all over the place, which can be as large as coaches and occupy a great deal of space.
  We can go further than the letter of 18 January from the chief superintendent, and say that a highly reputable firm of consultant engineers has examined the problem and agreed with the chief superintendent that there would not be enough room for the necessary number of coaches.
  As I said, I have been to a meeting at the football ground and I attended a meeting in the House about this problem. I am not convinced that there is no alternative route to the car park which might involve traffic coming from the west going over the English bridge and turning to its right. That would obviate the need for the bridge in the proposals put forward by the borough council. It would be wholly against the public interest for the population of Shrewsbury to be endangered unnecessarily by a possible overspill of football crowds into parts of the town which, under present arrangements, are protected. It is for those reasons that I take the view that I have expressed on the Bill.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Eric Cockeram: My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) told the House of the difficulties of car parking in his ancient city. As the Member for a neighbouring constituency, I can vouch for the accuracy of his statement. If anything, my hon. Friend understated the case. Shrewsbury is one of the most difficult towns that I know in which to park a car, because of the sharp U-bend of the river on which that historic town was constructed many centuries ago. The problem is made worse by the new traffic regulatory system, but we need not discuss that tonight.
  The need for a car park is firmly established, and, as my hon. Friend said, it was supported by all parties on the town council and the county council, and is supported by the public. He told us that he had received no letters of objection to the proposal, which is remarkable, and I can tell the House that my constituents constantly complain about the lack of car parking facilities in Shrewsbury. They will also benefit from the proposal.
  I have not had the benefit of receiving either of the two contentious letters from police officers. However, even if I had received them, I would not tonight set myself up as an arbiter between the two arguments. They should be sorted out in Committee, where witnesses can be cross-examined, which would be better than hon. Members making assertions that cannot be established by cross-examination.
  What concerns me most is the cost of the operation. A little while ago it was estimated to be about £6·5 million, but we can be sure that, if costed today, it would be at least £7 million, and that, like most other public contracts, the final amount will be more than that. What shall we get for more than £7 million? The answer is 700 car parking spaces, a cost of £10,000 for each space. It must be one of the most expensive car parks outside the west end of London. The reason for that cost is not primarily the construction of the multi-storey car park, but the construction of a bridge across England's longest river at a picturesque point of the river Severn just below Shrewsbury.
  Mr. Conway: So that the House is fully aware of the facts, may I say that in November 1983 the cost of the access road and the bridge across the Severn was estimated to be £1,337,000, and the cost of constructing the car park was estimated to be £2·8 million, which makes a total of £4·1 million. It is so expensive because of the difficulty of the architecture and screening involved. My hon. Friend is adding the cost of a gyratory scheme, which has been proposed by Shropshire county council in its TPP statement to the Government, which will go ahead regardless of whether the car park is constructed. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I repeat that the access road and the bridge will cost £4·1 million.
  Mr. Cockeram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, which merely demonstrates that not only two different views of police officers are being disputed tonight, but the true cost of the project.
  My hon. Friend's intervention also demonstrates the need for this matter to be examined much more carefully in Committee. Whatever the figures may be, it does not alter the fact that to acquire extra land and build an approach road more than a quarter of a mile long, and a bridge across the river Severn, is a very expensive addition to a car park, if it could be avoided. I share the view of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that it should be possible—I believe that it is possible—for access to the car parking site to be obtained from Wyle Cop. The council could negotiate for some property there, but I shall say no more about that this evening. If that could be done, the saving would be enormous.
  It is all very well for hon. Members to say, "It is not my district council and I am not a ratepayer who must accept the burden." The House cannot dismiss its responsibilities in that way. We have a responsibility on behalf of the public to ensure that public money is not wasted. If, as I hope, the Bill goes to Committee, it will be conscious of the extra cost involved in the proposal to build a bridge.
  I repeat that the proposal has wide local support. There is all-party support for it on the town and county councils. Among the traders and shoppers in Shrewsbury and in my constituency—I have received no letters objecting to the proposal — there is overwhelming agreement that the project should go ahead in principle. I support the Bill. There are some aspects which should be examined further before we give it final approval, but we should give the promoters an opportunity to make their case in Committee.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. John Golding: I must be unique in the House, because although I represent Newcastle-under-Lyme I have received letters objecting to the Bill. I wonder whether it is because Conservative Members are known to be fully committed to the Bill that their constituents have decided that it is useless to make representations.
  Mr. Conway: As the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, and because the Bill has the support of the borough and county councils, as a matter of principle I would have been happy to move it in the House; but I would not have spoken in favour of it had I not thought that it was necessary. Before I reached the decision to speak in favour of it, I met the directors of the football club and the promoters of the Bill. My decision to campaign

  1035
  actively for the Bill was not to gain a high public profile, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) suggests. I made my decision close to the time of our debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the inference that my constituents have not written to me about it. They write to me about many matters on which my views are known, even if they may disagree with them.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Whether or not anyone wrote to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram), who supported the Bill, the fact remains that 20,000 of their constituents signed a petition against the Bill. I hope that they will explain why 20,000 people living in Shropshire, Shrewsbury and Ludlow signed a petition on behalf of the football club. No one opposes the car park—I agree with what the hon. Members have said—but everyone opposes the lunatic proposal for gaining access to it.
  Mr. Cockeram: May I reply to the point that has been raised? It is one thing for someone in a hurry on a Saturday afternoon to be asked to sign a petition and to do so, but if people do not feel strongly enough on the issue to contact their Member of Parliament for the town in question, or for a neighbouring town, then the Member of Parliament is entitled to say that nobody has contacted him. That is a statement that I make, and it is one that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) makes.
  Mr. Golding: I have no doubt that no constituent has approached the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). My point is that those of the 22,000 who are constituents of the hon. Gentleman may think that it is not worth approaching their Member of Parliament. I do not subscribe to the view that, if a petition with 22,000 names exists, there is no opposition. If such a petition existed, no hon. Member could put his hand on his heart and say that there was no opposition to the Bill. That would be to treat with contempt those who go to the Shrewsbury and Atcham football club. It is tantamount to saying of those people that they will sign anything. In my view, they have indicated their opposition by the signing of the petition. It may well be, to soften the blow for Conservative Members, that after people have signed the petition they would say, "We have Members of Parliament who take notice of these petitions. Now we have signed the petition, there is no need to write to the Member of Parliament for Shrewsbury and Atcham." I receive post on many issues about which my constituents feel strongly. I do not believe that Conservative Members can adopt the posture that there is 100 per cent. support for the proposals in Shrewsbury and its adjoining constituencies.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Since we are discussing the critical point of support for, or opposition to, the scheme, I should like to quote a sentence from the Civic Society newsletter of this winter on the subject of the scheme:
  "The civic society council had several discussions on this issue and various points of view were put, but the society has never given support to the proposal."
  Mr. Golding: The point made by the hon. Gentleman is doubtless that the Civic Society has been neutral after
  1036
  discussion in which different points of view were expressed, some for and some against the proposal, presumably. The impression I gained from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was that the support was solid. I shall be interested to hear whether it will be suggested later in the debate that, far from being divided and sitting on the fence, the Civic Society was 100 per cent. in favour of the proposal. If that suggestion is not made, I shall assume that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham may have exaggerated slightly in suggesting that there was great unity and solidarity of purpose on the part of the good citizens of Shrewsbury in reference to this project.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I fear that I have been guilty of a little exaggeration, because I was unable to read the figures that were given to me. Two thousand, and not 22,000, members of the public signed the petition. I take this early opportunity to correct that mistake. This matter will have to be sorted out in Committee. A total of 2,000 stalwart constituents, most of whom vote for Conservative Members, must be listened to with great eagerness.
  Mr. Golding: My right hon. Friend has been generous to the House in correcting immediately the figure he gave earlier. This shows that the Opposition, unlike the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, are prepared to acknowledge immediately when we have strayed from the facts.
  A total of 2,000 is a large number for Shrewsbury. The House has been told of gates at the football matches of 11,000. Those are large gates, and the figure includes supporters and opponents, presumably. If one supposes that 8,000 are supporters and 3,000 are opponents, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is talking about 25 per cent. of the attendance.
  If hon. Members have ever tried to canvass football crowds going in and out of the football ground, they will know how difficult it is to get their attention. It must have been a magnificent effort on the part of those who opposed the Bill to persuade 2,000 supporters to wait and sign the sheet, particularly as supporters in Shrewsbury will be of a suspicious frame of mind anyway, if they are faced with people thrusting pieces of paper under their noses to sign. I thank my right hon. Friend for his correction, but I must say to him strongly that it influences the argument in no respect. It does not detract from the strength of the principle.
  I am amazed at the proposals. I have studied all the papers. The Stoke City football club drew my attention to the proposals. In so doing, it was anxious to point out the importance of the proposals to the Shrewsbury football club in the league. When the matter was drawn to my attention, I did not have the clear picture that I now have of the enormity of the proposals. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having drawn a diagram setting out the proposals. I note that there is to be a long road by the football ground.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Two hundred yards.
  Mr. Golding: My right hon. Friend further amplifies by saying 200 yards—and I say in parenthesis to my right hon. Friend that I hope that that does not become 20 yards.
  Mr. Howell: I understand my hon. Friend's scepticism, but I personally paced out the distance and 200 yards is a conservative estimate.
  Mr. Golding: The pacing of the distance by my right hon. Friend leads me to believe that the road will be at least 100 yards long, and possibly longer. It is to go across the coach park.
  Mr. Howell: The length of a football pitch is 110 yards and the road starts well before the pitch and stretches beyond it. It is easy to calculate that the road must, therefore, be more than 200 yards long.
  Mr. Golding: I stand corrected, but according to my right hon. Friend's diagram it is not clear whether the ground is situated north to south or east to west. That is why I did not take it into account. I accept my right hon. Friend's correction that the road will be nearly 200 yards, at least, whoever paces it, and whether it is conservative or not.
  The road goes across the coach park and obliterates it. What is the reason for wanting to be rid of the coach park? I have heard two arguments. One is that only 11 coaches use the coach park. What excuse is that? It is the same as saying that only 600 cars use the car park. Eleven coaches can carry 30 passengers each. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath is the arithmetic expert. I did not do sums at school, but my right hon. Friend did. if one multiplies 32 passengers by 10 coaches—that makes the calculation easier for me—we are talking about parking for about 320 people, excluding the drivers.
  Mr. Howell: I am sorry to keep interrupting my hon. Friend. I do not know that I am an expert in mathematics, but I do know that motor coaches these days can carry 50 people. The one about which we were told carries 54 passengers, so my hon. Friend's argument has even more force.
  Mr. Golding: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. When the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham referred scornfully to 11 coaches, he implied that they were small coaches or even minibuses. [Interruption.] The hon. Member talked about 11 coaches in an intervention. With ten or eleven coaches each carrying 50 people, the coach park provides for as many people as are catered for by the car park on a Saturday. I visit Shrewsbury from time to time and it has a massive car parking problem on a Saturday. What is the solution? It seems that it is to get rid of an area which provides for more than 540 people in order to build, at great expense, a parking area for cars.
  Has that been considered and faced? It seems that we are to get rid of one car park to build another, at enormous cost. The road will go over the English bridge, along the football ground—for 200 yards perhaps—and across the coach park. Then what? The English bridge and the Welsh bridge are to be joined by a wasted bridge. The English bridge and the Welsh bridge are worthy monuments. Will the wasted bridge be held in the same high esteem? What is the justification for building it? Should we build a new bridge over the river Severn to provide a car park for 600 cars, having destroyed a coach park in the meantime? That does not make sense.
  Mr. Dickens: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way again. The Civic Society newsletter is equally worried about the bridge. It asks for assurances from the council that
  1038
  "there is no intention of commercial development to the north of the proposed bridge and that the bridge is to serve the car park and to serve no other purpose. Many of us believe that that bridge is intended to serve other purposes."
  Mr. Golding: The hon. Member has the advantage of having been briefed. I am relying on the map produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath.
  I am not sure that I would be so bothered if what the hon. Member said were true. I am not sure what my attitude would be if he came to me and said, "We want to develop Shrewsbury commercially. We want to build factories to the north of the bridge and the bridge will provide commerce and industry."
  Mr. Conway: I have no wish to prolong the interesting speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), although he is trying to goad me into doing that. He says that he is keen to be briefed. I know the hon. Gentleman to be a sincere and loyal man, which explains his presence tonight. He may wish to ask for a briefing from my Labour party opponent at the general election because he supported the Bill and the borough council's actions. The hon. Gentleman should seek briefs from Labour Members of that council who support the measure. I hope that in the interests of party loyalty he will not delay the proceedings for too much longer.
  Mr. Golding: Is it an experienced hon. Member who tries to tie me to party loyalty on such an issue? Is the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham threatening me with the Labour candidate for his constituency? Am I to be intimidated in this way? We are discussing a private Bill. The hon. Gentleman should not threaten me. He is wrong. I do not understand how party considerations are involved. We must discuss the Bill on its merits.
  Most hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, have been blinded by one consideration in their opposition to the Bill — the consideration of the football ground and club. My right hon. Friend is prejudiced in support of English football, Welsh football, Scottish football, any football. He is attacking the Bill only on those grounds. Are we not failing to speak of the virtues of Shrewsbury football and the implications of this legislation for the coach park, for spectators' safety and the rest of it?
  I shall ask the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who has spoken so strongly for this Bill, about more of its provisions. I hope that he has come prepared to answer at least one other legitimate objection —perhaps objection is too strong a word, so let me say., one other query — about the Bill. I do not see the river Severn as a river alongside which there is to be found a football ground. I confess that, until Stoke City football club wrote to me I did not know that there was a football ground at that point in Shrewsbury.
  I have been to Shrewsbury for sporting purposes on several other occasions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, by the movements that he makes with his hand, shows what it is. He is imitating the casting of a fly. It is not a whiplash, but the casting of fly, the discharging of the spinner and, even in Shrewsbury, the use of the worm. The Severn is one of our great angling rivers and too little attention has been paid in the Bill to those provisions that relate to the water authority. I chastise my right hon. Friend for this. He is an all-round sportsman, but I have not heard him utter one word on the angling implications of this measure.

  1039
  When I looked at the map and saw that, in addition to the English bridge, a new bridge was to be driven across the River Severn, I asked myself what would be the implications for angling on the Severn and for the run of salmon so important to those who fish on it. I suppose that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham knows the provisions that relate to the water authority. They do not fill me with confidence. There are requirements and conditions for those who are building the wasted, the costly, the unnecessary, the blighted bridge. If we look at page 24—I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are the only one who is following the proceedings carefully—one sees clause 14(3)(c), which provides:
  "During the construction of any authorised work the Council shall comply"—
  here is the snag—
  "with any reasonable requirements of the water authority, or any person authorised by them, in relation to the prevention of pollution of the river or the avoidance of flooding".
  How will that be implemented?
  I declare an interest. I am a member of the council of the Anglers Co-operative Association, whose function it is to secure compensation in cases of pollution and also to campaign hard against pollution. How on earth will a bridge be built without causing disturbance to the waters, pollution and flooding? It is cloud-cuckoo-land to put into legislation:
  "the Council shall comply with any reasonable requirements of the water authority, or any person authorised by them, in relation to the prevention of pollution of the river or the avoidance of flooding."
  What will happen is that the contractors will not pay any attention to the problems of pollution. They will not be concerned about whether they are creating flooding further down the river. There will be neglect of the interests of angling when the bridge is built.
  Has any hon. Member seen a bridge being built? Knowing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well as I do from the days when we worked hard together in the Department of Employment, it would not surprise me if you had built a bridge on your own. Please cast back your mind to the scenes when a bridge is being built. Can you see the McAlpines, with their big cigars, coming down in their Rolls-Royces and saying, "Chaps, while you are building this bridge be careful to cause no pollution."? I hardly like to mention the word Cementation in the House, but can any hon. Member imagine its chairman saying, "Fellows, keep the water clean. Let the sand run without let or hindrance," or, "I see some soil, some slippage into the water, that may cause flooding further on. Fellows, don't do it." To imagine that is to live in cloud-cuckoo-land. [Interruption.] Perhaps it is too far-fetched to suggest that the chairman would go. I accept that correction from the Conservaive Benches. I do not think that the chairman of either Cementation or McAlpines or any other company would leave London to visit Shrewsbury to see what was going on. They would be too busy counting the profits to be able to nip to Shrewsbury from London.
  However, imagine the clerk of works talking to the navvies and saying, "The Severn water authority has written to us and told us that we must not cause any pollution or flooding." Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the response of the working people, working in hazardous conditions, working in the roughest conditions,
  1040
  to any suggestion that they should pay particular regard to avoiding pollution and flooding? It simply will not happen.
  One has only to turn to the next subsection in the Bill to see how absurd this legislation is. I see that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham is consulting one of his hon. Friends. I think that they must be discussing bridge building. I think that they are briefing each other. Although there was some scoffing when I revealed that I had not received a full briefing from the Shrewsbury Civic Society, I do not believe that Conservative Members have really thought out the implications in pages 24 and 25
  Section 3(4), on page 25, starts:
  "The Council".
  We have heard a bit about this council already. United, Conservative and Labour members wanted this bridge and this multi-storey. One can imagine the council in a town like Shrewsbury—a solemn body of important people in this ancient town. The subsection:
  "The Council shall remove any debris or other material which owing to the obstruction caused by any part of the authorised work has accumulated against any such part in such a way or to such an extent as to interfere with the free flow of water in the river or the passage of fish."
  It is cloud-cuckoo-land.
  If these workmen, under the supervision of the clerk of works, and the rest of them, drop material into the river and it piles up, the council will remove it if it impedes the free flow of fish. It could happen anyway. The debris will pile up, and the fish will have to face it. Is the hon. Gentleman telling me that the council will sit and observe the impediments that are faced by the fish, the salmon? Is that what the hon. Gentleman would have us believe? It is not on, and he knows it. The work will take place, the debris will be created and, like the pollution and flooding, it will impede the angler.
  Mr. Warren Hawksley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the proposals put forward by the Severn Navigation Trust to make the Severn navigable? Presumably that would run parallel with this, and cause even more trouble than the danger of pollution from the bridge, would it not?
  Mr. Golding: Mr. Deputy Speaker, had you heard the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), you would have been horrified. He has opened up a subject that brings pain to my heart. I know why he is doing it. He has introduced a scheme of such enormity that will distress the angling fraternity. So preoccupied am I becoming with the subject that he has raised that I see the Bill as nothing compared with that abhorrent suggestion. It is a good ploy. Your attention was distracted for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the hon. Gentleman tried — I repeat "tried"—to deflect my attack on the inadequacy of these proposals.
  The answer is yes, I am opposed to alterations in our rivers. I want the salmon to run freely in the Severn. There are not many rivers — perhaps the Welsh Dee, and, further away, the Wye —that are so accessible to the working people of Staffordshire and Shropshire as the Severn.
  I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are an expert on most things, but I am not sure that you realise that one of the great advantages of Shrewsbury is that its local authority provides much of the fishing. Because of that, salmon fishing in Shrewsbury is not the preserve of the

  1041
  rich. Salmon fishing can be enjoyed in Shrewsbury at a reasonable price, as a result of the farsightedness of the Shrewsbury council. I pay tribute to it for doing that.
  The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham will have to satisfy me that when this bridge is built over the river Severn, at such great cost, it will not make the angling any worse. However, he did not even mention it. The matter did not even cross his mind. For him, rivers are only for building bridges across. That is his attitude. Give him a piece of water and he will put cement across it.
  The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth wants to speak shortly, and I think that he should. [Interruption.] I correct myself. I said that I thought he wanted to speak shortly. Apparently he wants to speak at length.
  The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, in introducing the Bill, did not mention the angling interest. He came with a prepared brief. He came with it written out, and he has told us all he knows. It did not take him long to do that.
  Mr. Rob Hayward: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is better to take a short time to say something worthwhile than a hell of a long time to say absolutely nothing?
  Mr. Golding: The answer is yes. Of course I agree. However, I am not sure that either condition has been fulfilled this evening.
  The hon. Gentleman has not introduced the Bill properly. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath will take him to task for that.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I always do as my hon. Friend instructs, particularly on the subject of the angling interest on the Severn-Trent. As the Minister knows, I was responsible for water matters in the House for a long time. Indeed, no Minister in British history has had such success with water as I can claim for myself. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall address myself to that subject at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Golding: Has the hon. Member for the Wrekin been briefed on section 8? I hope that he has. The hon. Gentleman cannot answer across the Floor because it would be out of order, but I hope to see some flicker of recognition on his face when I mention that section. I am beginning to suspect that he does not know what section 8 is about. I am beginning to believe that the hon. Gentleman came tonight with a stock brief from those proposing the legislation and that he has not done his homework.
  Section 8 is about the temporary stoppage of highways. The Bill gives the council another power and this time it will use it. I cannot see it removing debris from the River Severn when it impedes the salmon, but I can see it creating the temporary stoppage of highways.
  Section 8 says:
  "The Council during and for the purpose of the execution of the works may temporarily stop up, alter, divert or otherwise interfere with any highway or any private right of within the limits of deviation and may for any reasonable time"—
  we shall have to ask the sponsors about the word "reasonable"—
  "divert the traffic therefrom and prevent all persons other than those bona fide"—
  what does that mean? —
  "going to or from any land, house or building abutting on the highway or right of way from passing along and using the same."
  1042
  I am told that "bona fide" means good faith. Does that mean that if the council asks an angler if he is of good faith and he says that he is, he can pass, whereas, if he says that he is not, he may not? The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) nods his head. Having given the advice, he sees in me a quick and willing pupil and signifies that I have learnt my lesson properly.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am convinced that the Bill will become an Act. As captain of the House of Commons football team, I have an interest to declare. The hon. Gentleman is trying to persuade us that he is on the side of the fish and is worried about piles of muck by the bridge foundations. All he is really interested in is the anglers and their interests, and those of the fish are in opposite directions.
  Mr. Golding: That is such a fly on the water. and out of season, that I am sorely tempted. Of course I am on the side of the anglers. There are no anglers without fish, although there might be if the work is done and done badly. Anglers will be looking carefully at this legislation to see what damage it will do to angling.
  I should declare another interest, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to my attention. I am a council member of the Atlantic Salmon Trust. That trust is specifically for the defence of the salmon; it does not represent angling interests. Although I admit that in speaking tonight I am speaking for anglers on the River Severn, I also have an interest to declare in the preservation of salmon.
  The hon. Gentleman has diverted me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath is desperately anxious to speak at length on the subject and has asked me to shorten my remarks because of the need for him to lay out the argument on behalf of the football fraternity.
  Although I speak for anglers, I welcome the captain of the House of Commons football team tonight. It is nice to see the hon. Member for Eltham in the warmth and comfort of the House of Commons and I hope that tonight he has the unusual experience of being on the winning side. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not accustomed to that in his capacity as captain of the House of Commons football team.
  Mr. Bottomley: Although we occasionally lose to the Press Gallery, we have not lost an international yet.
  Mr. Golding: You are a stern chairman, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that if I were to give the House and the country the record of the House of Commons football team under the captaincy of the hon. Member for Eltham you would rule me out of order, not for tedious repetition or irrelevancy, but for bringing the House into disrepute. The hon. Member for Eltham has diverted me. He rose only to let the world know that the captain of the House of Commons football team is here and that it is he.
  Section 8 makes it possible for the council to take away freedom of access, and that is important. Although it says that the council should provide reasonable access for foot passengers, it also says that they must be bona fide. 'Who will decide what that means? The captain of our team points to heaven. Am I being asked to approve a Bill that provides that the good council of Shrewsbury will look to heaven before deciding whether an angler on foot can have reasonable access or not? It is not reasonable.
  Having studied the Bill, I suggest that there has been so much concentration on part III that not sufficient

  1043
  attention has been paid to the earlier provisions. While I do not wish to delay the House, I must refer to clause 10. We have heard about conflicting police evidence, but I am not sure that I have followed the argument on that closely enough. I shall have to peruse Hansard to be sure that I have understood it.
  If there has been a dispute involving the police, that must be set against the background of clause 10,subsection (2) of which reads:
  "The bridge shall be closed at such times and to such extent as the chief officer of police may determine on any day on which the football stadium situate at Gay Meadow in the borough is open for the holding of football matches or other events to which the public are admitted."
  I hope that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham will explain what that means. I also hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath will deal with it.
  If the bridge is shut because the police chief says that it must be shut, what good is the car park, and what access will there be to the car park? I was surprised when I read clause 10(2), but perhaps I shall be told that it does not mean what I am interpreting it to be.
  Mr. Denis Howell: My hon. Friend raises an important point which those of us who visited the ground spent some time analysing. It is clear that the shoppers' car park will be used mainly on Saturday afternoon, but it is on Saturday afternoons that Shrewsbury Town plays its football matches. When there is an FA cup match—such as Shrewsbury played the other day against Ipswich—large numbers of coaches arrived, and presumably the police chief must then decide whether to give priority to shoppers' cars or to football coaches. We spent much time investigating that, without receiving a satisfactory answer.
  The fact that provision is being made in the Bill to cover that situation means that Shrewsbury town council intends the police chief to take such action. Considering the high — I believe, astronomical — cost of the bridge, the people of Shrewsbury for at least 22 Saturday afternoons a year when matches are played—or if they are lucky with their cup ties, for 25 Saturday afternoons—will find that the shoppers' car park is engaged when shoppers want to use it, because to allow them to use it would conflict with the thousands of people wanting to visit Shrewsbury Town football club. I hope that that clarifies my hon. Friend's thinking on the subject.
  Mr. Golding: I thank my right hon. Friend for his advice, although I was seeking clarification from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. In any event, my right hon. Friend is prejudiced in favour of football, whereas the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has shown great objectivity tonight in revealing that he does not have the same prejudice in favour of Shrewsbury football club.
  Mr. Howell: He is its vice-president.
  Mr. Golding: It is possible to be the vice-president of any organisation and not have the prejudice that my right hon. Friend has for football. My right hon. Friend is a fanatical supporter of English, Scottish, and Welsh football clubs. Indeed, he is a fanatical supporter of all forms of recreation. He is prejudiced in favour of people enjoying themselves, and he would not deny that charge.
  Mr. Howell: Guilty.
  Mr. Golding: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham takes a more balanced view, is not such a fanatical supporter of football and is not so prejudiced. My right hon. Friend, on the other hand, is besotted with association football, although clause 10(2) does not relate only to association football, for it says:
  "The bridge shall be closed at such times and to such extent as the chief officer of police may determine"
  Which police chief is that, the one who agrees, or the one who disagrees?
  Mr. Conway: It is the same man.
  Mr. Golding: So be it. The provision continues:
  "on any day on which the football stadium situate at Gay Meadow in the borough is open for the holding of football matches or other events to which the public are admitted."
  That is where my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath slipped up, because he failed to appreciate the significance of the second part of that subsection, where it refers to "other events". Were he not so besotted with football, he would have noticed that.
  I digress to point out that my former colleague at the Department of Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker) is working short time and has left the Chair. We welcome in his place as Mr. Deputy Speaker the hon. Member for Woodspring (Mr. Dean).
  Let us assume that the football club's ground is to be used for other purposes.
  Mr. Denis Howell: We looked into that possibility, and it might help my hon. Friend to know that some of us thought that that part of the provision had something to do with the Shrewsbury flower show, which is one of the pretigious flower shows in the country. I understand that the facilities of Shrewsbury Town football club are sometimes used in association with that show. We all assumed, therefore, that the proviso was to assist with car parking and other matters when the flower show was on.
  There may be other reasons for that proviso, but I understood the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) to say in an interruption that he had some reservations on that very point in relation to the real reasons for the bridge being built.
  Mr. Golding: I have not regarded the knowledgeable interventions of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) as interruptions. They have been extremely helpful interventions. As I pointed out earlier, he has a substantial brief from the Civic Society and knows all the implications and ramifications of this proposal.
  I am an admirer of the Shrewsbury flower show. Percy Thrower is probably the finest gardening exponent in this country.
  Mr. Howell: Arguably.
  Mr. Golding: I have always been more positive than to use such words as "arguably". When I was a kid, Percy Thrower was the main gardening exponent. My dad regarded him as the nation's foremost gardener. We cannot think of him without thinking of the Shrewsbury flower show.
  I shall continue to oppose Sunday trading, despite the gasps and coughs from my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath. I am a staunch opponent of it.
  Mr. Howell: So am I.
  Mr. Golding: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is also.
  What will happen to Shrewsbury Town football club, which is in financial straits, if there is a Sunday market? Such a market would be reprehensible, but popular. The chief police officer could say to the council, "I did not let you use the car park yesterday, and I shall not allow you to use it on Sunday for the Sunday market." Pressures will build up.
  Antique markets, which cost me a fortune, exist all over the country. Americans come from miles around, even from Chester, to Shrewsbury, which is a natural antique centre. Shrewsbury, a medieval city, attracts tourists of the widest sort—not the Tottenham Hotspur supporters.
  Mr. Dickens: As we are discussing the closure of the bridge during activities at the football ground, I shall read a letter of 27 January 1983 from the planning officer of the Shrewsbury Civic Society Trust Ltd., which states:
  "The Society is not fully convinced of the need for the bridge and/or notion of commercial development at the nurses home, where residential rehabilitation in association with the former RSI would be preferred. The Society would view with major concern action of short term expediency e.g. to attract private investment to assist the car park was taken to the long term detriment of the town centre."
  The Civic Society is saying—the hon. Gentleman might confirm this—that the bridge is being considered with other developments. It would be stupid to close the bridge when the council might be intending to rake up finances, which I doubt, by linking the bridge with other properties. How does the town council justify closing major access routes to the people whom it wants to attract? The hon. Gentleman may agree with me.
  Mr. Golding: That was an inspired intervention. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham ought to note those words carefully. He does not. I cannot keep a straight face. You were not here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. when he tried to convince us that the society was four square behind this proposal. We can read that in Hansard. Each time the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth reads the comments of the civic society, that argument disappears into dust.
  I would have a different perspective if the Bill provided a bridge and facilities for industrial and commercial purposes. I am not sure whether I would support the proposals, but separate considerations would arise. I am not an environmentalist first and foremost. My reaction, when someone says, "We shall create employment, but the environment will suffer marginally," is to say that people should grab jobs. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth is not pushing me in the direction he desires when referring to the possible uses of the bridge.
  The proposal to build the bridge just to provide a car park is astonishing. We are discovering, through interventions, that the car park will not be available to the public each time the chief police officer believes that a football match will create heavy traffic. Will that create an intolerable condition?
  Mr. Hawksley rose—
  Mr. Golding: I shall finish this point. The number of interventions makes it difficult for me to make my contribution in the short time available.
  The chief police officer will have the council on his back. He must decide whether the car park will be opened. If he decides that it will be shut on Saturday, problems will
  1046
  arise because of the huge crowds pouring into Shrewsbury in coaches. The new bridge will be closed, making the car park inaccessible. I do not assume—the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth will correct me if am wrong—that there will be a free car park. It will be a nasty, paying car park. The chief officer of police will be asked whether he will deny the council the revenue from the car park on Saturday. Each time the chief police officer decides that the car park will be shut on Saturday people will moan at him, thinking of the level of rates and expenditure cuts. Political pressure of the worst sort will be put on that officer.
  Mr. Hawksley rose—
  Mr. Golding: I shall give way before I continue with Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.
  Mr. Hawksley: I suggest that instead of moving forward we should go back a day. I am worried about those who park their cars on Saturday evening and find on Sunday morning that the car park has been closed and that they cannot remove their cars from it. Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the later days of the week, I hope that he will direct himself to the problem of Saturday evening parking over the long term. If I parked in Shrewsbury—I do so on many occasions—I would not want to find that I could not take my car from the car park on Sunday morning when I wanted to move on.
  Mr. Golding: I am not a dirty stop-out myself so I would not be faced with that problem. I think that the hon. Gentleman is nitpicking. I was addressing myself to the central issues. The chief superintendent has decided on Saturday to deny the local authority a substantial revenue. It would be substantial if 600 cars popped in and out after the occupants had paid for one hour or two hours of parking. I do not know how much the charge would be, but perhaps we shall be told.
  Mr. Dickens: I have no knowledge of the cost of the parking. However, will the hon. Gentleman concede that the same police chief who made an accurate test of the coach spaces then had to conduct a mock-up test with cones in the market place, as a result of which he produced a completely different story a few days later? This officer may well have to take the decision whether the road should be opened or not. This is a serious issue for the club and for shoppers and the scheme is an absurdity.
  Mr. Golding: I am not basing my arguments on the assumption that we have a schizophrenic chief of police. I think that the hon. Gentleman is probably being unfair to the chief superintendent who delivered the two contrary opinions. I congratulate the chief of police on having the courage to send out one letter that said one thing and then to send out another letter that said exactly the opposite. I suppose that that had the result of making everyone content. He has performed a service for the House, because hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber can rise in support of one or other of the letters and claim that the chief of police is supporting their position. Instead of following the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth in chastising the officer, let us give praise and thanks. It is good to have the presence of a religious adviser in the shape of the captain of the House of Commons football team, the hon. Member for Eltham. Let us give praise and thanks to any chief of police who can keep both sides happy.

  1047
  However, the decision having been taken for Saturdays, the same issues will have to be faced on Sundays. Imagine the consternation that there will be in the treasurer's department of Shrewsbury when the poor chief officer of police, having decided that the car park will be closed on Saturdays, announces that it will be closed on Sundays as well.
  What will happen when that announcement is made? The ratepayers will say, "We have paid an enormous sum in rates for the building of the road, the bridge, the additional road and the car park, and now we are told that we cannot use these facilities." The reaction of the ratepayers stands out like a pikestaff. I think that they will react when the chief officer of police makes his declaration for Saturdays, but what will happen when he declares that the car park will be shut on Sundays as well? The ratepayers will have been presented with an enormous bill for the building of 200 yards of road, the obliteration of the football ground coach park, the building of the new bridge and the employing of council labour to remove the debris, to stop pollution and to prevent flooding. They will have to meet the bill for building the road and the multi-storey car park and then they will hear that the chief of police has decided that they will not be able to use the car park on the second day.
  What will be the reaction of the ratepayers? They will go berserk. They will go crackers. I should not like to be in the boots of the Shrewsbury councillors when the decision is taken. They will be belted from pillar to post. The good citizens of Shrewsbury will say, "We have paid the bill and this is how we are treated." I hope that the police ball is not on the night when the chief officer of police announces his decision. One can imagine the scene. The poor chap will think that he is going out for a social evening, but he will find that he is grabbed by one ratepayer after another to ask him why he shut the car park for which they paid so much.
  I do not know how much extra the citizens of Shrewsbury will have to pay in addition to their present rate bills. Why will they have to pay extra rates for the citizens of Ludlow, Telford and Newcastle-under-Lyme to participate in the Sunday market? I cannot imagine that the constituents of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will go to the Sunday market. I have no doubt that they will prefer to attend chapel.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman could be misleading the House. Is he aware that there is a Sunday market in Church Stoke in my constituency, which is visited by many people from Shropshire, especially from Shrewsbury? One of the virtues of the Church Stoke Sunday market is that it has an immense car park that will accommodate many cars and coaches that come from Shropshire. Those vehicles can be parked alongside the market and the inhabitants of Church Stoke are not disturbed by the market shoppers, in contradistinction to what would happen if the Bill were allowed to be enacted in its present form.
  Mr. Golding: I have heard that people from Shrewsbury and Shropshire generally go to that Sunday market. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman declare that people from Montgomery attend that market.
  Mr. Carlile: That is true.
  Mr. Golding: Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Welsh people of Montgomery visiting a Sunday market? I cannot do so. However, I can imagine people from Telford and Newcastle-under-Lyme travelling to Shrewsbury for the Sunday market.
  The chief officer of police should bow to the pressure of the council and the ratepayers and say that the car park will be open despite the Sunday market.
  Mr. Conway: I am conscious that during the course of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which has continued for one hour and 20 minutes, he has been attempting to persuade me to intervene so as to assist him in talking out the Bill. I managed to resist the temptation until this moment. The hon. Gentleman has maligned the character of the chief superintendent of Shrewsbury sufficiently now in his repeated references to the man bowing to political pressure. He is someone who is held in some esteem in my constituency by the directors of the football club, who are present, and by the members of borough council, who are also present.
  I understand the object of the hon. Gentleman's exercise. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I spoke for 18 minutes. The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) spoke for 12 minutes and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) spoke for seven minutes. All three of us have a direct and personal interest in the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated his lack of care and concern for my constituents by taking one hour and 20 minutes of the debate. I understand his right to do so while despising his logic in doing so. I cannot continue to remain in my place and listen to him passing derogatory remarks about the chief superintendent in suggesting that he will bow to political pressure.
  The clause to which the hon. Gentleman is directing his remarks was inserted by those in another place in Committee. The object of the clause is to give the officers on duty that day crowd control powers as far as that road is concerned. That does not necessarily mean closing it for 48 hours, on Sunday, during Church Stoke market, or right around the world. The car park might only be closed for an hour or one and a half hours before a match for the safety of the crowd, or for an hour afterwards when the crowd is leaving. There is no implication that it must be closed for any length of time.
  That is the last intervention that the hon. Gentleman will goad me into making, unless he continues to attack the honour of public servants.
  Mr. Golding: I did not attack the chief of police. I commended him for giving contrary advice which has satisfied hon. Members on both sides of the argument. Additionally, I have said that he would be subject to political pressure. Does the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham suggest that that is not so?
  The idea of shutting a car park just for an hour is tantamount to an incitement to a breach of the peace. Visitors to Shrewsbury would have to be told there were certain hours when they could park their cars and certain hours when they could take them out of the park. What would happen if the match went into extra time? I do not know much about football, but it is ridiculous to suggest that this car park, built at such great cost, should have flexi opening hours.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath has said that we must get the Second Reading tonight. My

  1049
  speech would have been shorter if the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham had intervened to say that the doubts that I have expressed have no basis in reality. However, the hon. Member has intervened only once, and did so in order to make bogus points.
  The chief officer of police will be placed in a dilemma. He will have to take a political decision to close the car park or allow it to remain open. He will have to choose which interest to serve.
  Mr. Conway: He will act in the interests of public safety.
  Mr. Golding: Of course he will, but public safety will lead to the council. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman will tell me that Shrewsbury council always acts in an entirely responsible and unprejudiced fashion.
  Mr. Conway: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Golding: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything, and my next point will be wasted on him.
  If there is to be conflict all the time about whether the football ground is used for purposes that create traffic and problems of traffic control, and the car park is affected, the council will always be disposed to refuse the football club permission to use its grounds for purposes other than the playing of football. If it gave such permission, it would lose income from the car park. Has a council ever given up income from a car park?
  Mr. Bottomley: I shall not say anything about the hon. Gentleman's unwarranted attacks on my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), who sponsored the Bill. However, the income from the car park will be insignificant compared with the cost of the works. The council may be content to forgo the extra £60 or £100, if the citizens of Shrewsbury are to have extra activities in their football ground. The hon. Gentleman's point is a poor one.
  Mr. Golding: If the Bill receives a Second Reading, we should test it and provide that Shrewsbury is a free town and that there will be no conflict of interest. The football team captain nods in agreement. He knows that councils are avaricious. I am tempted to speak about the Government's rate-capping proposals but I shall not. The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlisle) is trying to tempt me to do that. The one certain thing about councils is that they do not easily relinquish sources of revenue, however small.
  The dilemma is that the people who will visit the football ground, whether for a flower show, an antique show, a dog show, a horse show or boxing will not necessarily be ratepayers. There will be the argument which is found in every seaside town about ratepayers providing services for visitors. I do not believe that the council will say that the revenue is so insignificant that it will not allow events to take place at the football ground. The football club will benefit from activities held at its ground and the council will get the revenue from the car park. If the hon. Member for Eltham can suggest a solution he should rise and give it. He remains seated because he is beginning to think the matter out.
  Mr. Hayward: The simplest way in which to remove that conflict would be to remove the clause imposed in another place which provides that the police can close the
  1050
  road. If we removed that provision the police would not have the conflict of interest that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
  Mr. Golding: That is a positive suggestion. The proposition that that is a positive statement and that it is ridiculous is not contradictory. It is a positive suggestion that is ridiculous.
  Mr. Dickens: In regard to traffic control and whether the road should be closed on match days because of a conflict between football supporters and shoppers, has the hon. Gentleman addressed his mind to the fact that the police will also have to be active in Shrewsbury because if visiting football crowds are not able to park their coaches close to the turnstiles at the north stand so that they go straight in at the beginning and straight out safely to their coaches at the end of a match, they will have to park their coaches in other parts of the town? That will mean marauding football hooligans pouring through Shrewsbury whereas they would have been properly controlled by the club which is a model one. Has he considered the extra work that that would cause the same police who will have to decide whether the road to the car park is open and for how long? Those are important matters which no one has yet mentioned.
  Mr. Golding: I am expecting my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath to deal with those points. He is an expert on football crowds and control and it would be wrong for me to del with those matters.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth wishes to speak, and I do not wish to squeeze him out. Squeezing the hon. Gentleman is something that I do not wish to do. Nor do I wish to exclude my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath from the debate.
  In conclusion, the Bill does not seem to have been properly thought out. I shall listen to my right hon. Friend's wind-up speech before deciding which way to vote tonight, and take his advice.
  The speeches heard tonight, except mine, have not been sufficiently informed, and cannot be the basis of a sound decision. So I shall certainly follow my right hon. Friend into the Lobby tonight.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I shall set the scene by saying that hon. Members who have taken enough interest in the Bill to come to the Chamber this evening, have great respect for the town of Shrewsbury. It is one of the most charming towns in the United Kingdom, a medieval town standing on an island and surrounded by the river Severn. It is one of the nicest towns that I have ever visited.
  Shrewsbury Town football club is one of the most respected. I have had strong connection with Huddersfield town football club and Oldham football club. I was speaking to directors of both clubs when they met a few weeks ago. Their teams regard playing Shrewsbury town as a very nice match. They enjoy going to Shrewsbury arid using its facilities, and enjoy and appreciate the friendliness and sportsmanship of the townspeople. The teams always get a hard match.
  Football is our national sport, so the football club is important to Shrewsbury. When the team does well, so does industry in the town. Success motivates people. It has

  1051
  been found all over the country that, when town teams win at their national sport, local people work harder, enjoy it more, and are much happier.
  I do not wish to over-emphasise this point, but Shrewsbury town is regarded as having the best crowd control in the United Kingdom. It has been said by others that the club does not enjoy large gates, but it does enjoy large gates when it plays first division clubs in cup competitions. The club has achieved good results regularly in the past few years. I hope that it will move into the first division. If that happened, it would be commonplace for teams such as Manchester United and Liverpool to come to Shrewsbury regularly. I am sure that most of them would be beaten on the field at Gay Meadow.
  Let us consider why Shrewsbury Town's crowd control is the envy of teams elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The coaches come across the old English bridge, swinging into the road serving the club ground, and passing to the far end of the ground.
  I have taken the trouble to go there and see for myself the car park facilities, as well as the railway embankments and the training and turnstile facilities. I have done my homework and been responsible. The Bill has been pushed down from the other place after its Third reading for the House to deal with. I have taken a responsible attitude.
  Crowd control at Shrewsbury is such that the coaches come to the far end of the ground where they are sensibly and intelligently stacked. Right at the end is the grandstand, which it is hoped some day to extend. The turnstiles are right beside the parking area.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the club would very much like to extend provision for spectators at that end of the ground but that the Bill would put those plans in jeopardy at the very time when the club has a chance of achieving first division status?
  Mr. Dickens: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. Of course the club wishes to expand the facilities, and if it moves into the first division it will want to make the facilities still more comfortable for its supporters.
  The main thrust of my comments on crowd control, however, relates to the existing standards. The turnstile entrances to the north stand open straight on to the training ground which becomes the coach park on match days. The coaches are neatly parked and the 50 or so supporters from each go straight into an orderly queue at the end of the ground and make their way into the ground in a sensible, segregated and orderly way.
  The procedure after the match is even more important as away supporters often do stupid things when the result is not as they wished, which will often be the case at Shrewsbury. They will go home disappointed. Rather than having those supporters marauding through the town to other parking areas, it is far more sensible that they should come straight out of that end of the ground, into their coaches and away from the town. That is to the advantage of the town. No one denies that a beautiful town such as Shrewsbury must have car parking facilities. Those facilities are much needed and long overdue, but the price must be right.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Aston Villa is one of several clubs trying to build a coach
  1052
  park immediately behind the goal, as is the case at Shrewbury? I understand that in the past week the Football Trust has approved a grant of £60,000 to create such a coach park so that supporters of visiting clubs can go straight from their coaches to the terraces and return straight to their coaches from the terraces afterwards. That will be of considerable benefit to residents who have been plagued with difficulties for many years. Aston Villa and the Football Trust are to be congratulated on that. I hope that the Minister will commend such schemes, in view of his proposals for football ground safety, which followed my own earlier proposals. Such schemes are essential, but the one area in which such a scheme already operates successfully will be put in jeopardy by the Bill. It makes no sense for the Football Trust, the Minister and the Opposition to urge such schemes on every other club in the country if such an arrangement is to be threatened at Shrewsbury.
  Mr. Dickens: I was not aware of that development, but I was most interested to hear about it. It illustrates my earlier statement that the arrangements at Shrewsbury are the envy of the United Kingdom. It is not at all surprising that other clubs are modelling their crowd control arrangements on those at Shrewsbury. Long may that continue.
  In seeking to preserve a beautiful town such as Shrewsbury it is no use solving the car parking problem if at the same time one is creating other problems. I am most uneasy about the arrangements proposed in the Bill.
  I was not even enamoured when I read the report from the other place. Lord Aberdare's address to the Committee upon closing was like an address to a jury. He said:
  "My Lords, in the last 50 years there has only been one instance of a private Bill being rejected by this House on a Third Reading."
  He was speaking about the other place. He continued:
  "That was the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill in 1975–76 session. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships will remember that Bill. Your Lordships will recall that there were wider political implications"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will paraphrase the address. It is not in order for him to quote directly as he is doing at present. I am sure that he can paraphrase it.
  Mr. Dickens: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can do that easily. Lord Aberdare was, in effect, saying to the House of Lords Committee that it was not good form to reject a Bill, and that there were other safeguards. It would go to the House of Commons and the petitioners, whether Shrewsbury Town football club or the county council, would have an opportunity there. In other words, he told the Committee that it did not have to take the decision but could hand it down to the House of Commons where, it would be responsibly debated on the Floor. That is exactly what is happening.
  I read that with great interest because it was like a direction to a jury. The Chairman thought that with an amendment on the table, there might be a chance that it would not succeed in the House of Lords, that he should remind their Lordships that it was 50 years since such a Bill was defeated, and that the right thing to do was to pass it to the House of Commons. There were grave doubts, even in the House of Lords, and I can see why.
  In their brief, the promoters quoted from the Shropshire county structure plan and the draft Shrewsbury urban area

  1053
  local plan. which set out the important role which Shrewsbury must play. They tested five strengths of the town: it is a county town, a sub-regional shopping centre, a commercial and administrative centre — which certainly it is — a valuable conservation area— which undoubtedly it is—and an important tourist attraction—which, of course, it is. I am one of the tourists who enjoy visiting it because it is such a lovely place.
  It would be less than honest if I did not congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on the way in which he presented the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He is a good, caring Member, and he presented the Bill on behalf of the local authority forthrightly. However, many matters may not be within even his knowledge, and they may be worth exploring.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I do not detract from anything the hon. Gentleman said about the acumen and the loyal presentation of the Bill by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). When we visited the football ground we all enjoyed his contribution. I have an instruction for the Committee that will consider the Bill, which is of cardinal importance. It shall be an instruction to the Committee considering the Bill that the overwhelming consideration in approving it will be the consideration of crowd safety. It spells that out.
  From my experience as the Minister with responsibility for sport—I am sure that the present Minister shares them — I find it extremely odd that, when the hon. Gentleman moved the Bill and in the promoters' case, which went to four or five pages, not one word was said about the instruction on the Order Paper, on which the House must vote on Second Reading.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman's tributes to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham will encourage him to tell the House what view he and the promoters take about this vital instruction, which is in the interests of crowd safety and control, and which no hon. Member, in the light of the events of last weekend at football matches, especially in Birmingham, would wish to oppose. But we have had total silence on that matter for two and a half hours.
  Mr. Dickens: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. I was amazed that there was no mention of the instruction not only in the Chamber but in the briefing material that was circulated to hon. Members by the promoters so that we could have both sides of the argument. Perhaps it was an oversight.
  Mr. Bottomley: As crowd safety is clearly of paramount importance, and is much more important than the odd remarks that we heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) about salmon, and his assaults on them with worms and flies, is it not likely that the instruction will be acceptable to the promoters? Should we not concentrate on the two major aspects: first, that the council appears to need a car park of which the House has been convinced; and, secondly, whether it is necessary for the council's scheme to go ahead as proposed, or whether the council should give more serious consideration to finding another means of access to the car park rather than going round the football club and going to the expense of building another bridge across the river?
  That is far more important, but it puts the House in a difficult position. Although these matters may be regarded as details, they underline the entire proposal. At some
  1054
  stage the House will need guidance on whether this matter should be sorted out on Second Reading or Third Reading, or whether it should go to Committee. As I have not declared all my views on the matter, perhaps I would be a suitable person to sit on the Committee.
  Mr. Dickens: I am obliged. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether I am obliged, but at least my hon. Friend got in a speech.
  In my opinion, the borough council has completely disregarded the aspirations of the football club. When I visited the football ground I observed a sports hall which had been built on to the end of a school. It is probably very desirable for the school, but the hall was built in the face of this Bill, making a venturi action at the opening to the football ground, so that when spectators and cars leave the football ground and get towards the road that leads to the English bridge, they are restricted and brought more tightly together. There was a crush, because the building was plonked in the route of the proposed road. It is another absurdity.
  The council says that it has considered the club's views, but it talked about bringing a road close to the club's facilities and said that it would have no impact. But if a yacht club or a golf club had a road next to its social buildings and offices, of course it would have an impact. At a meeting with the promoters of the Bill and other interested parties, I suggested building a road on stilts which could have been constructed by cutting away some of the railway bank and sweeping round above the training area, so that coaches could park underneath it and pedestrians could move freely underneath it. I was expecting the promoters of the Bill to go away and then come back and convince me that they had explored these possibilities. We were even suggesting other ways that the engineer—because the engineer, the chief executive and all the others were present—could explore to get into the car park that is so badly needed. There was discussion of the possible acquisition of some old property. This idea could have been put on the drawing board to show that the only possible way into such a car park would be by such a road and such a bridge. However, no such proposal has come forward. I saw no drawings, no schemes that had been ruled out, no engineer's drawings. A request was made for a sketch of the scheme with the road up on the viaduct, but it was never forthcoming. In the end, after long delay, a silly little sketch was produced.
  I was waiting for the minutes of discussions with the railway authority, because I had suggested that parts should be carved off the bank. I suggested the possiblity of coming round the end of some very bad boggy land, but this might have involved piles, and would have been too expensive. It was, therefore, out of the question.
  I would still have liked someone to produce a drawing. I am fair-minded. I fight for what I believe is right, but I fight fair, and am fighting for the town of Shrewsbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham does not know it yet, but I think one day he will thank hon.. Members for taking the trouble to attend the debate and show an interest in his town, because it is not possible to carry these things out on one's own. It is necessary to have the support of other hon. Members. Hon. Members may laugh, but this is no laughing matter. It is a serious business. This is a private Bill involving hundreds of thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money. Thousands of

  1055
  pounds have already been sunk into promotion of the Bill. The Bill was ill-conceived, yet it has had to grind on, and it is still before the House for consideration.
  I have discussed the matter with the football club directors many times to get information. They wish to talk to the council. The best thing that could happen is for the Bill to fail to receive its Second Reading. Then it would be possible to make much faster progress for the benefit of Shrewsbury.
  When a road scheme is proposed in the United Kingdom, and a line is put on a map, usually dozens and sometimes hundreds of landowners have to be consulted, and public inquiries and consultation have to take place. In this case, however, there is one landlord. Why did the council not discuss the matter with the one landlord in depth, carry the discussions forward and even explore the system on stilts to which I have referred as a viaduct on pillars?
  I am told by the football club that it is open to negotiation and is ready to explore all kinds of possibilities with the borough council. The club wants the car park. The football supporters live in the town, their wives shop there, the directors live all round the area, they use the town's facilities and they want car parking provision. Everyone wants car parking provision, and Shrewsbury badly needs it, but not at any price. If the Bill fails, as I think it will, then we can start talking. Let us not have this hobnailed boot approach when a carpet-slipper approach would be much better.
  Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with an important point. He will know that the Bill first came to the House 14 months ago, and has been subject to several all-party football club group meetings at which we have done our best to help. One of the great problems, as I have pointed out to the council, is that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the road should be moved back, in the interests of road safety, would involve trespass on railway land. That is why Shrewsbury council has not accepted the unanimous advice of the all-party football group. If the road is built into the railway siding it will be outside the limits of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham should withdraw the Bill and bring back a measure which would permit the limit to be extended. That would be sensible and everyone would be satisfied. Such a road and bridge would be ludicrous, but that is another matter. If the proposal is to go ahead the hon. Gentleman should take the Bill and re-introduce it next year when the demarcation line of the property is agreed by all concerned. I am astonished that 14 months after being advised by an all-party group in the House the council has not done that.
  Mr. Dickens: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), but I disagree with him. A Bill is not needed. Too much money has already been spent. Why spend money when talking will do? The Bill should be finished off tonight and the talks could begin. That would lead to progress. So many matters must be discussed. Much money must be raised. Planning permission will have to be agreed for the conservation area. The structure will have to have wonderful elevations. It cannot be a concrete monstrosity. The bridge cannot be
  1056
  of easy and straightforward design. It must have a citadel facade and a medieval character to match the English bridge. It is a big job.
  If everyone started talking everyone would be on the same side and the House would not have to be bothered with such a Bill. A compulsory purchase order is involved, but the project could be a winning seller with the right approach.
  I still wonder whether the bridge is required. An enormous amount of money is involved. We have heard many figures, ranging from £7 million. We have heard about the giratory road system that may go ahead in any case. However, we all agree that car parking space is desperately needed. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham on fighting hard for that, but I believe that he has been misled. He was right to promote the Bill on behalf of his constituency, but I do not want conflict in his town between the football supporters and the ratepayers who want to do their shopping.
  Sometimes families will be involved. The husband will be going to football and the wife, poor dear, will have to do the shopping with the children. She will do the shopping while he goes to football, unless he helps her in the morning. What a fiasco when the road is closed and cars cannot move in and out during certain hours and people have to look up whether Shrewsbury is playing at home or away. People will say, "Oh dear. I forgot that they were at home today. If I had remembered I would have stayed at home."
  We must remember the trade which shopkeepers will lose on home match days. So many factors must be considered. Investment is needed. That stands out a mile. Development schemes are needed to raise some of the money necessary. There are so many bridges to climb—[Interruption.] Sorry. It has been a long day and I have to listen to such nonsense in the Chamber, although I have enjoyed it.
  We should dispatch the Bill tonight so that everyone can talk. That will lead to progress. Most hon. Members contributing to tonight's debate have gone to the trouble of going to the market place, the town centre and the football ground. They have bothered to take an interest. I got a letter from the Football Association because of my connections with Huddersfield Town football club [HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no secret about that. It wrote to me just as some little engineer in the council office was writing to all the Labour Members of Parliament that are union sponsored, reminding them to come and oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the most extraordinary things that has ever happened to me in my 29 years in the House came when I suddenly got a letter from the general secretary of my trade union telling me that he had been written to by the borough engineer of Shrewsbury, urging him to press me to vote against the Bill. It is an astonishing performance for a borough engineer to write to the general secretary of a trade union urging him to use his powers, as I am a sponsored Member of Parliament for the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staffs, to ask me to vote against the Bill. The general secretary is a good personal friend and I told him that he had no business even contemplating sending me such a letter. If I catch your

  1057
  eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall talk about this matter further, because it affects us as hon. Members, quite distinct from the merits of the Bill.
  Mr. Dickens: The Football Association wrote to the club saying that there was a football club in terrible difficulty and if there were any hon. Members who would consider its case, it would be grateful. When I looked at the letter from Huddersfield Town football club with which I have connections, I did not blithely say, "Oh, it is a football club, I must dive in and support it against all the odds." I went down to Shrewsbury and explored the circumstances. There is no way that I would be supporting Shrewsbury Town football club — I do not mind the directors hearing this—if I did not think its case was solid and right. That is not my style. Having said that, the football club does have a strong case and has been treated very badly.
  Mr. Bottomley: There are two points to be made. My hon. Friend should be careful about throwing around accusations in the House, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) should rephrase his remarks about the borough engineer, because expressing an interest in that way is as acceptable as through a football association. I feel strongly about this because of the way that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) cast aspersions on the House of Commons football team, although he must know how we suffer. Does not my hon. Friend agree that we should not take a view on Second Reading straight away but wait until we have heard the two Front Benches speak? They can put ideas and considerations to the House that will help most of us to make up our minds. My hon. Friend may have made up his mind, but there are some of us who are still listening to the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be helpful if I remind the House that this debate must end at 10 o'clock, and there are a number of right hon. and hon. Members who still wish to make contributions.
  Mr. Dickens: I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  When I stood for Parliament for Middlesbrough I was described as a publicity-seeking Tory preservation crank, but we saved the historic buildings in Middlesbrough in the face of opposition, although it was almost a one-man show to do it. When I left, I was described as the man who lost his seat but saved Middlesbrough's heritage. I hope that my little contribution tonight will have helped to save the heritage of Shrewsbury from football hooliganism.
  9.44 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): As is customary on these occasions, it might be helpful if I intervene briefly at this point.
  While the Government have no reason to comment on the proposals set out in the Bill, we appreciate the difficulties referred to by hon. Members. The Bill poses serious problems for Shrewsbury Town football club. The loss of its land is a matter that should be given proper consideration.
  Like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) I am concerned about violence associated with football matches. The Government and the football authorities have been working together to combat this problem and I welcome and support the measures
  1058
  which many clubs have taken to prevent outbreaks of violence. Segregating the supporters of opposing teams is an important ingredient of these precautions. Again, therefore, it is right that the impact of the Bill on the segregation measures employed by the football club—particularly with respect to coach parking— should be considered in detail.
  The football club has, of course, petitioned against the Bill, and it will have a chance to present its objections to the Committee considering the Bill. It seems to the Government to be right for the detailed arguments to be resolved in Committee, when the club will have an opportunity to discuss the matter and present its objections set out in the petition. The House will decide whether to give a Second Reading to the Bill this evening. In giving a Second Reading to the Bill, as to any private Bill, the House would of course not necessarily be approving its provisions in principle. It would still be open to the Committee to disallow the controversial part of the Bill — and it is undoubtedly controversial. Undoubtedly, too, the Committee would have an opportunity to scrutinise it in some detail, as opposed to the rather superficial debate that we have had this evening.
  Many important issues will have to be discussed in Committee if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading. If, having reached the controversial part and having heard all the evidence, the Committee came to the conclusion that it was right to disallow the controversial part, that would certainly have the Government's blessing.
  Many important issues have been debated this evening. I have no wish to detain the House any further, and in my view it is right that the Committee should have a chance to consider the matter closely.
  9.46 pm
  Mr. Denis Howell: We have listened with great interest to the Minister. Like the promoters of the Bill and the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), he has not said a word about the instruction that is to be voted on. I have tried to get the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham to tell us this evening what he or the promoters think about the instruction, which is solely concerned with football safety.
  I find it incomprehensible that any hon. Member could vote against the instruction. Had the hon. Member got to his feet a long time ago and told us that the instruction was something he could recommend to the House on behalf of the promoters, we could have then given it serious consideration. However, he has not done that. We have spent two and three quarter hours and we have heard not a word about the instruction. The instruction has been on the Order Paper for many months. Indeed, I think it has been on the Order Paper since well before the general election, which makes it clear that some of us regard this as a matter of paramount importance.
  If I had more time, I should have a lot to say about the cost of this proposal. Again, we have not heard a word about that, except from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram), who, although he intends to support the Bill, gave us the most cogent arguments showing why the bridge should not be built at such a cost. I think he said that it would be the most expensive car park in the United Kingdom, and he was right.
  Even now, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham sits there, in spite of my pungent remarks, and tells us nothing. He does not tell us whether he wants

  1059
  crowd safety to be a consideration in the instruction. I can only conclude that he and the promoters of the Bill disregard such considerations.
  Mr. Conway: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howell: Certainly.
  Mr. Conway: Although the right hon. Member is entitled to make the remarks that he has made, I am sure that his detailed reading of the Bill will remind him of clause 15, which gives the club the protection that the instruction seeks to achieve. However, he is well aware that the whole purpose of the instruction is to wreck the motion. He referred to the length of the debate and the points that had been raised. I remind him that his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) spoke for one and a half hours and left the Chamber immediately afterwards, displaying an utter disregard for the town of Shrewsbury.
  The right hon. Gentleman has shown himself tonight to be a man of good principle. I mean that sincerely. Nevertheless, I remind him of the speech that he made on 24 January 1983. In a debate on the Epsom and Walton Downs Bill the hon. Gentleman said:
  "I wish now to deal with some of the difficulties that seem to have arisen. I share the general view that these difficulties can probably be explored at greater length in Committee. If, however, one studies the proceedings that have taken place in the other place, it will be seen that considerable progress has already been made. It would be wrong to suggest that hon. Members should start discussions and arguments de novo. We are doing no such thing. As the second Chamber to receive the Bill, we should acknowledge concessions that have already been made without in any way seeking to prevent the objectors, in this case, the Epsom Riders Protection Association, from pursuing their points."—[Official Report, 24 January 1983; Vol. 35, c. 724.]
  I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment and I hope that as a man of principle he will stick by what he says and will help the Bill to reach its Committee stage.
  Mr. Howell: I have rarely been so flattered by having a speech of mine so extensively quoted. When the Epsom and Walton Downs Bill returns to the House shortly, I shall make another speech along similar lines. There is a tremendous difference between this Bill and that one. The Epsom town council went to enormous lengths not only to protect the Epsom racecourse on which the Derby is run but to enter into meaningful negotiations with the riders and ramblers who objected to the Bill. It followed exactly the advice that we have given to the Shrewsbury borough council.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has been tempted, but may we return to the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill?
  Mr. Howell: Tattenham corner is a good way to get to Shrewsbury, but I shall follow your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I support private Bills when I can and I have tried to facilitate this Bill, but I am sad that the sound advice that I gave to Epsom and which it accepted has not been accepted by the Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council. That is a considerable difference. Proceedings in Committee on the Epsom and Walton Downs Bill were conducted amicably and an attempt was made to reconcile the conflicting interests of the racehorses on the one side and the British Horse Society on the other.
  1060
  Neither the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham nor anybody else has yet told the House what the cost of this ludicrous proposal will be. I described it as the most crackpot traffic scheme I have ever met in my public life, which goes back well over 30 years. As has been described, there will be more than 200 yards of road alongside Shrewsbury football club with a left turn across the car park, a bridge and another left turn to return another 200 yards into the car park. It is utterly absurd.
  The hon. Members for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), for Shrewsbury and Atcham and myself attended a meeting with the council. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham knows that it is correct when I say that time and again we asked how much the bridge would cost. I do not object to the proposal on the basis of its cost, although it is ridiculous. That is a matter to be argued out between Shrewsbury town council and its ratepayers. We were told that the bridge was likely to cost £1·2 million at 1981 prices.
  Having served in the Department of the Environment, I can say categorically that no builder in Britain can build this bridge over the river Severn for £1·2 million. It is an absurdity. The council could not tell us the cost or give us a breakdown of the figures, and we still do not know those facts because the necessary homework has not been done. The council has had all these months in which to convince us that the bridge could be built at a reasonable cost, but has failed to do so.
  The multi-purpose car park, the council says, would cost £4·2 million, and a gyratory scheme £1·4 million, giving a total cost to be met by the ratepayers of Shropshire —Shropshire as well as Shrewsbury—of £6·8 million. Do Conservative Members consider that to be peanuts, for a car park of that size? No Secretary of State for Transport in Britain would agree to a 700-place car park costing almost £7 million, and that is before inflation. There has been much inflation since those figures were produced, so the whole thing is ridiculous.
  There are alternatives which have not been considered. One involves a garage owned by Kennings—some of us went to see it and we gathered that Kennings was anxious to sell it—immediately adjacent to the car park site. In other words, not only is the proposed access to the car park ludicrous, but there is a much better access which could be provided by taking over the Kennings business and driving a road through there, giving a new arrangement at that point. None of us is against the idea of a car park. That is not a judgment for us. We accept that a car park is needed, but we do not want the crackpot means of access that has been proposed.
  Mr. Golding: Does my right hon. Friend recall the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) mentioning that Kennings wanted to sell so that a much cheaper car park facility could be created?
  Mr. Howell: I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, for whom I have great respect, and I do not think that he said any such thing, but I will read his remarks in Hansard.
  There is no doubt that access to the car park could be available directly off the road. It would mean demolishing the Kennings facility and having either an underpass scheme, which was once considered seriously by the council, or a traffic flow scheme such as I support, with

  1061
  a wider road which it would be possible to have at that point if the Kennings garage and service station was demolished.
  This week this country has witnessed some of the worst football hooliganism and violence for a long time. We have seen it in association with the FA cup, particularly in the city that I represent. I am writing to Ministers to draw their attention to the position. I am not speaking only of what happened at Birmingham City last Saturday, when 100 people were arrested, not all on the ground but between the ground and the railway station. Fifty were arrested at West Bromwich Albion and there were 50 arrests at Wolverhampton Wanderers. All of those clubs are in the area of the west midlands police authority, that one police authority. We can imagine the effect of 200 people being arrested on the citizens, shopkeepers and neighbours near those football grounds.
  That is why I say to the Shrewsbury town and to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham that when they produce a programme which will destroy the coach park—
  Mr. Conway rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put. That the Question be now put: —
  The House divided: Ayes 84, Noes 30.

  Division No. 174]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Ancram, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Benyon, William

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Budgen, Nick

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Burt, Alistair

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Butterfill, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Gow, Ian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Conway, Derek

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Simon

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Cope, John

  Hirst, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Critchley, Julian

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  1062

  Howells, Geraint

  Steen, Anthony

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Stern, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Knowles, Michael

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Lang, Ian

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Lightbown, David

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Lord, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Major, John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Malone, Gerald

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Waller, Gary

  Murphy, Christopher

  Ward, John

  Neubert. Michael

  Warren, Kenneth

  Newton, Tony

  Watts, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wheeler, John

  Norris, Steven

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Penhaligon, David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Pollock, Alexander

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Mr. David Ashby and

  Squire, Robin

  Mr. Eric Forth.

  NOES

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Lamond, James

  Barron, Kevin

  Leighton, Ronald

  Best, Keith

  Loyden, Edward

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Campbell, Ian

  McTaggart, Robert

  Canavan, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Marland, Paul

  Craigen, J. M.

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Nellist, David

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Parry, Robert

  Golding, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Haynes, Frank

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Home Robertson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Mr. Alex Carlile and

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Mr. Warren Hawksley.

  Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 32 (Majority for Closure).
  It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 1 March.

  Wine Production
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—
  [Mr. Garel Jones.]
  10.11 pm
  Mr. John Golding: I was on my feet, and in that way I did the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) a service.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your guidance on the hon. Gentleman's intervention. As I recollect, he was not on his feet. If he was, he has been on his feet for far too long today.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Some people might say that about the hon. Gentleman. However, the fact is that he was on his feet and I have called him.
  Mr. Golding: That was churlish of the hon. Member for South Hams. If I had not risen, and the Parliamentary Secretary had been called, the hon. Gentleman would have been made a twit. He would not have been able to continue his speech. Having spoken on the radio this morning and made much of what he was going to do, he would have been marked as absent tonight. It was only because I rose to my feet immediately—
  Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an adjournment debate on English wine. Although one is always happy to hear the hon. Gentleman, he may feel that it is appropriate to allow me to finish my remarks, and to allow the hon. Lady to answer.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be better to allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed. We are all then anxious to hear the Minister.
  Mr. Golding: I was on my feet to ask certain questions. The hon. Gentleman has been making a point about access by tourists to drink. I ask how he would define a bona fide tourist. That question must be asked. The hon. Gentleman would be creating a wine drinking den in the west country to which people could have access at any hour of the day or night. No Home Office Minister could permit that. The cider interests—which the hon. Gentleman is overlooking in his support of wine—and the beer interest would feel aggrieved if the hon. Gentleman created wine drinking dens at their expense.
  Mr. Steen rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) an injustice. I had not realised that this was an intervention in the hon. Gentleman's speech. The hon. Gentleman has the Floor.
  Mr. Steen: In view of your kind statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether the Clerk might put the clock back for two minutes — the length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. However, I see that the Clerk is waving his head. If I am not as coherent as I was earlier this evening, the reason is that I have consumed with my colleagues a bottle of English wine—Carr Taylor, which is on the English wine list and is grown from English grapes around Hastings.
  Rather than delay the House any further, I shall recap for the benefit of hon. Members who did not have the good fortune to hear the previous speech. English wine is made
  1064
  from fresh grapes grown in England. British wine is made from syrup, most of which comes from the EEC and there is some dispute as to whether it comes from Argentina and Chile. The empire preference gives British wine a 42 per cent. duty advantage over English wine and it continues to give advantage to German, French, Italian and Greek wine. Moreover, EEC concentrate receives a subsidy which is not available to English wine producers. That blatant discrimination is aggravated by British wine labels which boast names such as Rougemont Castle and Carrow Prior which depict colourful scenes of Britain in an attempt to deceive the public into thinking that the wine comes from Britain when Britain is the one place where it does not come from. The voluntary code—
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise for intervening. My hon. Friend, who is continuing his speech and, with your approval, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is now apparently finishing, said that he would repeat all of the main points of his earlier speech. I know that this Adjournment debate is somewhat longer than usual. Is it in order for my hon. Friend to explain his arguments again as he has kindly given me permission to speak briefly—I hope that that has the approval of the House and of my hon. Friend the Minister. I should like to speak, but time is running out and, as my hon. Friend has conceded, he is merely repeating the points that he made before Seven o'clock.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It looks to me as though the hon. Gentleman will not now get the time that he hoped for. The debate will last for half an hour after resuming. If the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and the Minister have agreed that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) can speak, he can do so, but I appeal to them to be brief.
  Mr. Steen: I cannot agree to my hon. Friend making a speech now. He intervened several times before seven o'clock and has now had the opportunity to make another point on a point of order. I shall agree to no more interventions from my hon. Friends or Opposition Members. I am glad to see that the only Opposition Member present—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) —has a vineyard in his constituency. He has the Adgestone vineyard. There might be others.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I also have the Cranmore and Barton vineyards.
  Mr. Steen: I was discussing the voluntary code stating the origin of wine. The voluntary code on British wine labels is misleading.
  When the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) intervened, I was talking about British vineyards and the problem with tourists. We want to encourage tourists to visit our vineyards, but they are prevented from tasting wine outside licensing hours unless the vineyard has aplied for and received an on-licence. The licence involves the vineyard having a separate room or building for the purpose. If a tourist visits a vineyard and wants to taste its wine out of licensing hours, the vineyard must have an off licence which also requires a separate building or room for the purpose.
  The snag occurs when foreign tourists visit a vineyard, wish to taste the wine, cannot do so because they are there outside licensing hours and must therefore buy a bottle from the off licence. Moreover, they cannot consume the

  1065
  wine on the premises but must go to a neighbouring farmer for a corkscrew and glass to taste the wine. That makes a nonsense of the laws. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that.
  I learned to my horror that the Food from Britain campaign, which was launched by my hon. Friend's Department, features British wine. Britain is the one place where that wine does not come from. My hon. Friend the Minister has been extremely kind to listen to all of the material which has been thrown at her for nearly two hours. I hope that when she makes her winding-up speech —if she gets the opportunity to do so—she will take a constructive and helpful attitude. The English wine industry is young and run by the type of people whom the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend's Department want to prosper. They are entrepreneurs and often young people who want to make a go of a crop which is full of problems in our climate. I hope that my hon. Friend will give them some encouragement and will not make them feel that the Ministry and the Government are not doing all that they can to assist this important industry develop.
  10.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am delighted to reply to the debate on English vineyards and the problems facing the English wine industry. I have always admired the dedication shown by English wine growers in restarting a wine industry in this country. They have had to contend with the biggest problem of all—the climate. I am impressed by the quality of wine made under those conditions. It is a remarkable achievement when one considers that the industry has grown from nothing since the war.
  The extent of viticulture in Roman and medieval times suggests that there is nothing wrong with the soil conditions in this country, although the climate then was probably warmer. The success of wine growing in other northern European regions, especially in Champagne and the Moselle, proves that good wine is not the exclusive preserve of the southern countries. It is often said that, as the vines get older, so the wine produced gets better. Therefore, I look forward to future vintages with great interest.
  I am glad to note that the wine industry has just had two good vintages, in 1982 and 1983. They were of good quality, and plentiful. Last year's harvest was a record, and it will be interesting to see how the wine turns out. One has to expect some good and some bad years, as in any other agriculture industry, but such improvements in production reflect underlying advances in the knowledge and skill of the producers.
  It is clear that the industry is here to stay, so we must assemble serious statistics on it. Wine is not specifically mentioned in the agriculture census, and information on vineyards is, therefore, aggregated with other crops in the published information.
  My Ministry carried out a special survey of English wine in 1975, to establish the areas planted with particular wine varieties and the season of planting. That information is out of date now, but I know that the English Vineyards Association is interested in collecting some up-to-date statistics. The association circulated a questionnaire among its members about a year ago, but the response rate was rather disappointing.
  1066
  More recently, the association has discussed that matter with my officials. This year, the suggestion was floated of a joint English Vineyards Association—MAFF exercise. I have yet to see the details and would need to he assured that the exercise would not simply create another form-filling exercise, but the idea merits examination and I shall be interested to see the proposals in due course.
  A factor which we must bear in mind in any discussions on wine is that this is a product covered by the common agricultural policy, the wine regime of which contains very detailed rules on all aspects of production, marketing and labelling. Wine is a major CAP commodity and its importance will be emphasised still further when Spain and Portugal join the Community. The regime, of course, applies in the United Kingdom as well as in the main producer countries, although I am glad to say that English wine is exempt from some of its more onerous conditions. For example, English wine is not covered by the ban on new planting of vines for table wine which operates throughout the rest of the Community. That is a vital derogation, without which the industry could scarcely have developed at all.
  We are also exempt from the requirement to supervise destruction of by-products, a quality-control measure which would lead to an unnecessary administrative burden in the United Kingdom. Finally, growers are not closely restricted as to the vine varieties that they should plant as it is still too soon to decide which are the most suitable for English viticultural conditions. In contrast with these areas in which some of the strictest conditions of the regime are waived, it is fair to acknowledge that we do not operate Community support measures such as distillation in this country. The Ministry has discussed this balance with the English Vineyards Association on various occasions, and the association has always insisted that nothing should be done to imperil the present status of English wine-growing, which it believes should remain experimental. We support that objective.
  Having said all that, there is unfortunately a serious surplus of wine in the Community, caused by the growing gap between production and consumption. The main means of disposing of it—distillation—is not only costly but creates alcohol or brandy which may compete with our own alcohol and spirit drinks industries. I mention these matters which may appear to be remote from English wine because they are very much to the forefront of the current deliberations in Brussels. The European Commission has recently produced a large package of proposals to amend the wine regime and most of these are aimed directly or indirectly at making economies in the regime. Because of our budgetary and industrial concerns it is clear that the Government must give those proposals very serious consideration. Indeed, our general concern is that the Commission proposals, although a step in the right direction, do not go far enough to discourage overproduction in the future. Enlargement of the Community is likely to increase the surplus and therefore firm action is more than ever necessary.
  Two of the Commission's proposals will directly affect English wine and it may be helpful if I explain our position on them. The first would raise the minimum natural alcoholic strength of wine in all regions of the Community. In some northern regions, including the United Kingdom, the increase would be 1 per cent. —from 5 to 6 per cent. — while elsewhere the increase would be 0·5 per cent. The Commission's main object here

  1067
  is to improve wine quality—and discourage overproduction—by reducing the amount of "enrichment", a term to which I shall return in a moment, carried out in the Community. That is an objective which we would support for the Community in general and in the light of discussion with the English Vineyards Association we shall press for English wine to be treated no less favourably than that of the northern regions such as the Moselle.
  The second part of the proposals concerns enrichment—increase of the alcoholic strength of wine where this is naturally low. At present growers in the north are permitted to use sugar for this, while those in the south have to use grape must. In a double proposal, the Commission would ban the use of sugar in the north and abolish the aid paid on grape must in the south. This would have effect from 1990 and would produce a substantial saving—about 115 million ecu or nearly £80 million, according to Commission estimates. The effect of that is that English wine growers would have to use rectified concentrated grape must — in effect a pure syrup of grape sugar—for enrichment. Although I believe that use of this product should have no adverse effect on the wine produced, I remain to be convinced that rectified must will be available in sufficient quantity and at reasonable prices. The Government will therefore be seeking assurances on those points before agreeing to the proposal.
  Another area where EC developments may affect English wine is that of aid for promotion. The Council of Ministers agreed last year to set aside a small sum of money for wine promotion to try to offset the increase in the surplus. Although we must ensure that any action in this area does not adversely affect the position of our other drinks industries, the proposal from the English Vineyards Association seems sensible. It has asked that some funds be granted to reduce the cost to the grower of applying for the association's seal of quality. If that can be achieved, many smaller growers may be encouraged to apply for the seal, with beneficial effects for the entire industry.
  That brings me to a point which is often raised—that of quality wine status for English wine. We are frequently asked why it is impossible to introduce a form of—dare I say it in French? —"Appellation Controlée", as is done in other producing countries. The answer is that quality status can be accorded only on the basis of lengthy testing of geographical areas, vine varieties and production methods. By definition, quality wines are those which meet stringent rules, and that implies a substantial restriction on the producer's freedom to experiment.
  It is clear from discussions with the industry that, although quality wine status may be a desirable long-term objective, it is premature to talk about it now. But, having said that, I applaud the initiative of the English Vineyards Association in setting its seal of quality in 1978. This award is officially a certification trade mark and consists of a golden disc stuck to the bottle. It shows that the wine meets certain analytical criteria and that it has been passed by an expert tasting panel. This is a useful way in which to improve the consumer's confidence in the product he is buying.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) raised the question of the distinction between English wine and British wine. English wine is made here from grapes grown in English vineyards. British wine is
  1068
  also manufactured here from grape must imported from other countries. That grape must is usually imported in concentrated form, when it is a syrupy liquid. It is easier to handle in that form, and there is an obvious saving in transport costs. I assure my hon. Friend that the main countries of origin are Cyprus, Spain, Italy, Greece and France, and my information is that it is many years since supplies were obtained from South America. I trust that he will accept that. The manufacturers have drawn up a code of practice covering production processes, as well as the labelling of the final product. The must is diluted back to the original strength and then fermented like any other wine, under closely controlled conditions.
  I emphasise that English wine and British wine are perfectly respectable products. British wine has been in existence for at least 100 years. Some of the leading English wine growers, wishing to make use of their equipment in the off-season, even make British wine too. Thus, the products exist side by side, although they serve different segments of the market.
  Mr. Steen: Why, then, does British wine have a 42 per cent. advantage in terms of duty over English wine?
  Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend will know that I cannot talk about duty on wine. He must raise that matter with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. British wine is an inexpensive product at the bottom end of the price range, and it is dependent for its appeal largely on its price. English wine, by contrast, is a prestige commodity whose price places it, like single vineyard wines from any other country, well up the price range for wine. The clinetele for these two products are therefore entirely different.
  Mr. Dykes: Further to that brilliant and highly acceptable analysis of the difference between the two, does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for our hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) to compare the two directly? They are different markets, and the aim should be a reduction in the duty on all wines, including imported wine.
  Mrs. Fenner: I hope I have made the point that they are different.
  I know that the question of excise duties is of interest to all sectors of the drinks industry. This is not just the usual pre-Budget speculation but stems from two important Community developments. The first is the judgment on wine and beer taxation, where the European Court found that our duties had tended to protect beer at the expense of wine, and we are therefore required to bring the duties on these products closer together.
  The second development is a reasoned opinion from the European Commission calling on us to harmonise the duties on wine, British wine and cider. The Government have already announced that, before the next Budget, the European Court judgment will be taken into account. Both these developments imply some improvement in the relative position of wine compared to other drinks, but the House will know that I cannot be more specific on that now.
  Mr. Steen: Will my hon. Friend deal with the labelling of British wine?
  Mrs. Fenner: English wine needs merely to state "table wine", although producers use the phrase "English table wine". "British wine" is a phrase permitted under

  1069
  Community and British law, provided that confusion with other wine is avoided. Our labelling law permits the use of a traditional term to describe a product, and British wine is such a term. Nevertheless, although the phrase is adequate under the law, the manufacturers have recently volunteered to add another phrase to their label, to which my hon. Friend referred. It now bears a phrase alongside British wine to show that the wine is made from imported raw materials. I welcome this voluntary initiative. It has avoided the need for any legislation. It should enable the products to co-exist in future.
  My hon. Friend made much of some of the labels. I confess that I have not seen a label with a rolling countryside. Rougemont is a perfectly respectable label, showing Rougemont castle. That wine is made in the Exeter area by Whiteways at Whimple in Devon. Another one to which my hon. Friend referred is Belgrove. To my certain knowledge, Belgrove is a non-existent place and there can be no risk of confusion. As to Carrow Prior, that label states correctly that the product is made on the site of a medieval priory, and, as this is true, there can surely be no objection to it.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate took the trouble to raise this interesting subject. I hope that I have explained that, although the industry is a small one, we take its problems seriously.
  1070
  I am sorry that I have been unable to cover all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams in his extensive speech. I assure him that any points that I have not had time to answer will be covered by writing to him.
  10.40 pm
  Mr. Golding: I compliment the Minister on her speech. She spoke with the eloquence that only one who has had an apprenticeship in politics in Newcastle-under-Lyme could have achieved. It was an excellent contribution. I wondered who she was protecting. Is the Minister there to protect the bogus wine syrup industry or the consumer? I do not drink wine of either character.
  I am very disappointed that the Minister could not bring herself to refer to the problem of duty. I thought that a Minister of the Crown at the Dispatch Box could discuss every subject raised in debate. She did not cover this subject because she wanted to dodge the central issue—the fact that, if the Common Market has its way, the duty on beer will go up by 7p a pint and—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Passport Office
  Passport Office
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Drumadd Barracks
  Drumadd Barracks
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Oman
  Oman
  NHS and Local Government Workers (Costs)
  NHS and Local Government Workers (Costs)
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  International Organisations
  International Organisations
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Senior Personnel (Private Sector Employment)
  Senior Personnel (Private Sector Employment)
  War (Industrial Capacity)
  War (Industrial Capacity)
  Disarmament (Ministerial Responsibility)
  Disarmament (Ministerial Responsibility)
  Nazi War Criminals
  Nazi War Criminals
  Argentina
  Argentina
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Arwen 37 Weapon
  Arwen 37 Weapon
  Riot Control Equipment
  Riot Control Equipment
  Children (Employment Offences)
  Children (Employment Offences)
  Immigration (Detention)
  Immigration (Detention)
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Police (Computers)
  Police (Computers)
  Wheel Clamps
  Wheel Clamps
  Probation Officers
  Probation Officers
  Homicide
  Homicide
  Detained Persons (Costs)
  Detained Persons (Costs)
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Life Assurance (Tax Relief)
  Life Assurance (Tax Relief)
  European Community (Publications)
  European Community (Publications)
  European Community (Information and Publicity)
  European Community (Information and Publicity)
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Civil Servants (Parliamentary Lobby)
  Civil Servants (Parliamentary Lobby)
  Inland Revenue (Net Receipts)
  Inland Revenue (Net Receipts)
  Public Assets (Sales)
  Public Assets (Sales)
  Local Authority Finance (Wales)
  Local Authority Finance (Wales)
  Tax and National Insurance
  Tax and National Insurance
  Public Capital Expenditure
  Public Capital Expenditure
  Tax Thresholds (Family Income Supplement)
  Tax Thresholds (Family Income Supplement)
  Mortgage Funds
  Mortgage Funds
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Hunger and Starvation
  Hunger and Starvation
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Products
  Agricultural Products
  Hill Farming (Subsidies)
  Hill Farming (Subsidies)
SCOTLAND
  Robbery with Violence
  Robbery with Violence
  House Purchases (Foreclosures)
  House Purchases (Foreclosures)
  Holyroodhouse Palace
  Holyroodhouse Palace
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Steel
  Steel
  Motor Cars
  Motor Cars
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Vehicle Imports and Exports
  Vehicle Imports and Exports
  "Streamlining the Cities"
  "Streamlining the Cities"
  Manufacturing (Outward Direct Investment)
  Manufacturing (Outward Direct Investment)
  Pirate Radios
  Pirate Radios
  North Tyneside (Special Development Status)
  North Tyneside (Special Development Status)
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
ENVIRONMENT
  Rates and Rebates
  Rates and Rebates
  Radioactive Discharges
  Radioactive Discharges
  Yacht Moorings (Rates)
  Yacht Moorings (Rates)
  Rates
  Rates
  Animal Imports (Endangered Species)
  Animal Imports (Endangered Species)
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Glass
  Glass
  Glazing
  Glazing
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Commons Land (Mitcham)
  Commons Land (Mitcham)
  Shared Ownership Programme
  Shared Ownership Programme
THE ARTS
  Subsidy
  Subsidy
CIVIL SERVICE
  Union Membership
  Union Membership
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Budget Rebate
  Budget Rebate
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nazi War Criminals
  Nazi War Criminals
  French Road Blockade (British Drivers)
  French Road Blockade (British Drivers)
  El Salvador (Elections)
  El Salvador (Elections)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Health Education
  Health Education
  Universities (Staff Statistics)
  Universities (Staff Statistics)
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Losses
  Job Losses
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Dyestuffs Industry (Bladder Cancer)
  Dyestuffs Industry (Bladder Cancer)
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Leicester
  Leicester
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
  Manufacturing (Statistics)
  Manufacturing (Statistics)
WALES
  Archaeological Sites
  Archaeological Sites
  APPLICATIONS GRANTED, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
  APPLICATIONS GRANTED, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
  APPLICATIONS REFUSED OR OTHERWISE AVERTED
  APPLICATIONS REFUSED OR OTHERWISE AVERTED
  Prefabricated Houses (Mortgages)
  Prefabricated Houses (Mortgages)
DEFENCE
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Consultancies
  Consultancies
  Submarines and Ships
  Submarines and Ships
  SS20 Missiles
  SS20 Missiles
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Humans (Experiments)
  Humans (Experiments)
  Ships (Cable Faults)
  Ships (Cable Faults)
  Military Bands
  Military Bands
ENERGY
  Opencast Coal Sites
  Opencast Coal Sites
TRANSPORT
  Railway Electrification
  Railway Electrification
  Archway Road Inquiry
  Archway Road Inquiry
  LF912 (Vehicle Passengers, Pedestrians and Pedal Cyclists)
  LF912 (Vehicle Passengers, Pedestrians and Pedal Cyclists)
  "Streamlining the Cities"
  "Streamlining the Cities"
  Computerised Information
  Computerised Information
  Line and Side Road Orders
  Line and Side Road Orders
  A40 (Crossing Arrangements)
  A40 (Crossing Arrangements)
  French Road Blockade
  French Road Blockade
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Convicted Persons
  Convicted Persons
  Maghaberry Prison
  Maghaberry Prison
  Teenage Girls
  Teenage Girls
  Youth Training Programme
  Youth Training Programme
  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Maze Prison
  Maze Prison
  Republic of Ireland (Meeting)
  Republic of Ireland (Meeting)
  Security
  Security
  Assembly
  Assembly
  Constitution (Government Policy)
  Constitution (Government Policy)
  Stock-car Racing (Dunmore)
  Stock-car Racing (Dunmore)
  Prisons (Security)
  Prisons (Security)
  Loyalist Prisoners (Lost Remission)
  Loyalist Prisoners (Lost Remission)
  Housing Grants
  Housing Grants
  Homeless People
  Homeless People
  Housing Executive Office, Cregagh
  Housing Executive Office, Cregagh
  Empty Houses
  Empty Houses
  Supplementary Benefit (Appeals)
  Supplementary Benefit (Appeals)
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Local Government (Statistics)
  Local Government (Statistics)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Water Rate Bills (Assistance)
  Water Rate Bills (Assistance)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Kidney Treatment
  Kidney Treatment
  Old People (Heating)
  Old People (Heating)
  Retail Pharmacists
  Retail Pharmacists
  Opticians
  Opticians
  NHS Drugs (Private Patients)
  NHS Drugs (Private Patients)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Unemployed Persons (Benefits)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefits)
  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Glaucoma
  Glaucoma
  Depo-Provera
  Depo-Provera
  Drugs (Death)
  Drugs (Death)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Overseas Doctors
  Overseas Doctors
  Girls (Pregnancies)
  Girls (Pregnancies)
  Animal Testing (DHSS Laboratories)
  Animal Testing (DHSS Laboratories)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Single Payment Awards
  Single Payment Awards
  Phenylbutazone and Oxyphenbutazone
  Phenylbutazone and Oxyphenbutazone
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  National Insurance Numbers
  National Insurance Numbers

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.
Lord Leconfield and Egremont—Took the Oath.

Insolvency Law and Practice
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect publication of the White Paper due to be issued by the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the recommendations made by the Cork Committee on Insolvency Law and Practice.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government intend to publish a White Paper outlining their proposals for a revised framework for insolvency law within the next two weeks with a view to early legislation.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while being pleasantly surprised by that information, can the noble Lord please tell the House whether it means that there is no truth in the rumours circulating that the Cork Report will be put back in the queue and preceded by discussion of Professor Gower's 92 propositions, which I believe the Government are now considering?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are very pleased that we are able to give the noble Baroness such good news about the swift publication of this White Paper. I have heard nothing about rumours. I look forward to discussing with the noble Baroness in which newspapers I can read them.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister please explain why, in view of the prosperity promised by the Tory Party at the last election, there are insolvencies in the country today?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps they might be acts of God, not of the Tory Party.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, are they not identical?

The Queen's Flight
3.8 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans for providing the Queen's Flight with up-to-date aircraft.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I hope that an announcement will he made shortly on a replacement for the Andovers of the Queen's Flight. There are no plans to replace the Wessex helicopters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, which is a great deal more encouraging than previous ones I have received from him, may I ask him whether he can interpret with a little greater precision the word "shortly"?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as already announced the Royal Air Force is evaluating two British Aerospace 146–100s, and trials are going well. There is little reason to doubt that this excellent aeroplane will graduate to use in the Queen's Flight.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I also express approval of the position as outlined by the noble Earl? Does he agree that it is a good thing that the prejudice against having modern aircraft in the Queen's Flight now seems to have been dissipated? Does he not agree that it is cost-effective to have very busy public servants transported by modern aircraft? Does he not further agree that if the 146 is purchased, as I hope it will be, this will be a tribute to the remarkable serviceability of this aircraft in airline service?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have pleasure in agreeing with all three points that the noble Lord makes.

Local Government External Debt
3.10 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimated total of local government loans, et cetera outstanding at the latest available date, and what is the total annual interest payable on that debt.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the local authority sector in the United Kingdom had an estimated external debt of £36.1 billion at 31st March 1983. The interest paid on the Debt was some £4.2 billion in the financial year 1982–83.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that information. It was a genuine seeking for information. I hope to use the figures in a debate shortly. Will the Minister not agree, in the meantime, on the basis of the figures that he has given, that he would save more money by a 1 per cent. reduction in the interest rate than by all the controversial rate capping now in progress?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think it is understood generally that it is the central thrust of Government policy that we do everything we can to see that interest rates are brought down. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, in particular, will know better than most, the factors are not always wholly within our control.

Mr. Mahmut Dikerdem
3.11 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of their intervention on behalf of peace activists in Moscow, they will re-consider their refusal (31st January, col. 647) to act similarly on behalf of Mahmut Dikerdem, former Ambassador and President of the Turkish Peace Association, especially having regard to the sentence of 8 years' hard labour passed on a 68-year-old man suffering from cancer, and to the action of the Military Court in delaying the appeals procedure.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, it is not our normal practice to intervene in individual cases where citizens of another country have been tried under their own legal system. Exceptions are sometimes made but we do not believe that it would be appropriate to intervene in this case. We have, however, made clear to the Turkish Government our concerns about human rights in Turkey; and this was done by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in his discussions with the Turkish Foreign Minister in Stockholm last month.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble. Baroness for that more extensive answer on this occasion which is indeed helpful. I wonder whether the Government might feel disposed to go a little further and make this case one of those exceptions. There have been times when the Government have felt able to intervene in an individual case. I believe that if the noble Baroness was to examine the details of this case with great care—or with her normal care—she would find that Her Majesty's Government's special intervention was well justified in a situation where people imprisoned for long periods have committed no offence that would be found to he an offence in this country. It might be one of those cases, since Turkey is a NATO ally, when it would seem appropriate for one member of the free world to interfere when another member of the free world appears not to be acting in accordance with those principles.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, Her Majesty's Government are always concerned whenever there are violations of human rights, and we have made that quite plain when the opportunity has presented itself. In fact, we have to consider each case. In certain cases where our
848
diplomatic relations are close, we may judge that direct public criticism is best; but in other cases we may judge that confidential pressure is best. In all cases we need to examine very closely whether an approach might be counter-productive for those we are seeking to help.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while deploring the action of the Soviet Union towards the independent peace activists—and the World Disarmament Campaign, of which I was co-chairman, were the first to protest—may I ask this question. Is not the cause of human rights indivisible, and ought not our Government to be protesting in the case of governments which are allied to the West as well as to the Soviet Union?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that I have made it absolutely plain that the Government deplore the violation of human rights wherever it may occur, whether in the East or whether in any other country in the world. We have made our views on this matter quite plain. In the particular case in point, as I indicated in my original Answer, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State raised the matter of human rights with the Turkish Foreign Minister when he saw him in Stockholm, and both I and my right honourable friend raised the matter with the former Turkish Foreign Minister. But in each particular case we have to determine which is the most appropriate way in which to try to help the individual concerned.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it possible that the publicity that will be given to this Question and Answer may be of assistance to the person concerned in the Question?
Baroness Young: My Lords. I am quite sure that the Question today will be noted by the Turkish authorities, and we shall have to hope that the answer will be in the affirmative.

The Crown Agents
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the future of the Crown Agents.

Road Traffic Regulation Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 and certain related enactments, with amendments to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Agricultural Holdings Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Determination of rent of agricultural holding]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert ("and earning capacity")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and also to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 15, after ("capacity") insert ("and earning capacity")
Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 16, after ("capacity") insert ("and earning capacity")
I warned the House that I might return to Clause 1 on Third Reading if, after taking advice, I was still unhappy. The omission of ally reference to "earning capacity" leaves me still unhappy. My noble friend Lord Belstead at col. 1035 of the Official Report for 7th February said:
"by simply remaining silent on profit…we have prejudiced the interests of none and preserved the interests of all"—
A perfect description, if I may say so, of the tightrope that my noble friend has had to walk. So I fear that I have to give him a little push and tell him that, by relying on the word "productivity" only, he has prejudiced my interest. For I am advised that as the clause stands, if the prices of farmers' products fall, the arbitrator could argue that because the productivity of the farm had not altered, there would be no case for a rent revision.
I hope that the Government accept the principle that, should profitability fall, rents should take account of such a fall. Certainly they did so ill the original clause, for if we look at paragraph (c) we find that it reads:
"a competent tenant practising a system of farming suitable to the holding could reasonably he expected to profit front farming the holding".
I am therefore somewhat at a loss as to why the Government have in fact changed their minds on this matter.
I would accept that there is an element of the Sword of Damocles in my case, in that if a tenant does not farm well, or he does not farm as well as his competent neighbour, he will be in trouble. But I am more than prepared to accept that. I must tell your Lordships that
850
my noble friend Lord Belstead was kind and generous enough to explain the problem as regards my amendment. Quite why he should do so I do not know, considering how unpleasant I have been to him on occasions throughout our discussions on the Bill.
I know that my noble friend thinks that his word "productivity" covers my point. But I have to tell him again that I am advised that it does not do so. It may be too late for my noble friend to do much in your Lordships' House, but I ask him to say that the Government will look again at this point before it comes back to us. I do not believe that I or my noble friend Lord Belstead are apart on the principle—at least, I hope that we are not—and it is merely a matter of getting the correct words. I believe, however, that my noble friend's wording is seriously wrong. I beg to move.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in his amendment. The noble Lord made reference to the Report stage of the Bill when he said that the Minister said in Hansard at col. 1010, on 7th February:
"we have not reproduced the reference to profit from farming the holding".
He then said:
"In the discussions on the rent formula … it was pointed out to us that the words which we included in that formula, 'could reasonably be expected to profit from farming the holding', could be regarded as precluding the arbitrator from considering … any other profit produced by the holding from non-farming activities."
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, who played a prominent part in the proceedings on that occasion, said, at col. 1015:
"I am so glad that the references to profit have been cut out: that would have taken up an awful lot of time at every arbitration without getting anyone anywhere".
That statement may appear to be against the argument which the noble Lord and I are deploying, but the noble Lord went on to question the meaning of Clause 1(c), as it was saying:
"But what would 'productive capacity' do?"
Of course, those are the words to which we seek to add in the Bill. The noble Lord went on to say:
"That is mentioned in line 9. I suggest that there is a nice little pot of gold for professional people in that concept".
I want to quote what the noble Lord went on to say; it is rather a long quotation, but it will help to explain the sense of what the noble Lord was saying. He said:
"There will be endless argument as to the facts, as to what is the productive capacity of a particular holding, and endless arguments in law as to my noble friend's definition of 'productive capacity', and even more perhaps as to the way in which that definition affects the amount of rent to be fixed by the arbitrator in the particular case."
At col. 1016 (and I hope that I do not quote him out of context) the noble Lord urged noble Lords to consider the simple alternative to the Government's amendment, and concluded by saying:
"In spite of his valiant efforts to get it right, it really will not do as it stands".
The amendment which the noble Lord has moved is one of very few amendments before the House on Clause 1. There is certainly nothing from the Government as an alternative to satisfy the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, at col. 1020 of the same date, said that he could not follow the Minister's case on

851
profitability and he referred to his personal experiences on his farm. He said:
"Its productivity was very good indeed, but we could not make a profit. If the word 'profitability' is not included, I can imagine a farmer producing his books to an arbitrator and saying. 'Look at the past three years and see how low my profits have been, or, Took at my losses'; and the arbitrator saying 'I am sorry, old boy, but it is not in the Act that I take any account of that. It is just too bad' ".
At the Report stage debate on the Bill my noble friends and I, supported by a few others, tabled an amendment on the basis that we should take into account not only productivity but also profitability. After debate, the House decided that that amendment should not be made. The Minister having taken out any reference to "profitability" in the Bill as it came to your Lordships' House, we are now left with the reference to "productivity", and not "profitability".
I submit that the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is a moderate one and it seeks to include a word which is a reference to earnings. That, of course, could mean that the arbitrator would have regard to earnings, which could be on the profitable side or, indeed, on the loss-making side. On the last occasion when we debated the matter it seemed extraordinary that noble Lords, many of whom are concerned with landlords and tenants, should have had so little regard to these aspects.
Much has been said here and outside in the NFU and the Country Landowners' Association and, indeed, by the professional bodies about getting the right formulas for arbitration for the arbitrator to take into account. I shall not refer back to some of the speeches on Clause 2, where the industry makes concessions with regard to the 1976 Act. However, it means that Clause I is the essence of the Bill. The noble Lord the Minister has quite rightly very often reminded us that the need to get more people into the industry and to provide more tenancies is a key point of the Bill and the justification for it.
Albeit this is a joint package of the two organisations and takes into account other discussions, the Bill contains very little which will give your Lordships any satisfaction that this measure, which has been a long time coming to fruition—probably two years—will result in a great flood of people into new tenancies.
I shall not go into other aspects of the Bill which have been debated and voted upon in your Lordships' House. But on a number of occasions my noble friends and I—and, indeed, noble Lords opposite—have made suggestions as to how more people could gain entry into the industry. I submit that this amendment will help the viability of the industry to be taken into account when arbitration is called for, and it may also encourage more people to enter the industry with the greater opportunities which it provides. With those words. I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I would sympathise with my noble friend Lord Stanley on this amendment. In fact, it is remarkably similar to one which I moved in Committee. However, I moved it in Committee for a very different reason. In his opinion "earning capacity" includes profit. I wanted "earning capacity" included to broaden the base of the rent as
852
a result of a court case of Tummon v. Barclays Bank Trust Company Ltd., and I wanted all the non-farming activities that could be undertaken on a farm to be taken into account.
However, having discussed this at length in Committee and my noble friend the Minister having spent a great deal of time discussing it with me between the Comittee and Report stages, I have come to the conclusion that the words are not necessary. I think that I was under the wrong premise at the Committee stage; I think that my noble friend is under the wrong premise now. I believe that this matter is taken care of in the Bill with the revised wording that my noble friend has arranged for Clause 1.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Stanley and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, for this amendment. I really am worried about the effects that this amendment might have. I certainly understand that it is only equitable that changes in profitability ought to be reflected in rents which are decided and I am most anxious to show my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite that there is nothing between the Government and noble Lords as regards the intention of the amendments.
However, there are two real dangers in trying to put this amendment into the rent formula at this very late stage of the Bill. As I see it, the first danger is that, as drafted, this amendment might mean that the words "earning capacity" would apply only to the earning capacity from farming the holding, since the rent formula goes on to refer to "a system of farming suitable to the holding". There would, as a result, be a real risk that the formula would then be interpreted as excluding any other earning capacity from non-farming activities even though such earnings undoubtedly ought to be, and of course at the moment are, a relevant factor in rent arbitration. If this happened, then the sort of considerations that my noble friend Lord Caithness put forward as being relevant considerations would be relevant considerations no longer. That is the first danger.
The second danger is that there might be an alternative interpretation flowing from this amendment which might not be entirely what my noble friend Lord Stanley would want. Since "earning capacity" in the amendment is not defined, it could, if the fears I have just expressed were unfounded, be taken to include all non-farming earning capacity whether or not that capacity was currently being realised by the farmer. For example, if there was scope for obtaining additional income from caravan sites or farm shops, but this was not being realised by the farmer concerned, would not this be capable of being taken into account anyway for rent purposes? Under the existing law this danger does not occur, but the words "earning capacity" might introduce an undesirable degree of uncertainty, which would not, I believe, be what my noble friend Lord Stanley would want at all.
Your Lordships may say, "It is all very well putting forward the difficulties, but what is the answer?" I suggest to the House, as I ventured to suggest at the last stage of the Bill, that there is no necessity to do anything. In other words, this amendment is not necessary. In converting productive capacity into a

853
cash figure for the purposes of determining rent, as he certainly must do, the arbitrator will, in effect, have arrived at earning capacity. My noble friend Lord Stanley strongly made the point that high productivity may not necessarily result in high earning capacity. It is a good point, and I take it, hut I do not think it affects the argument. The arbitrator must necessarily convert productive capacity into a cash figure in order to arrive at his rent decision. This must be a reflection of the income which the holding can produce in the hands of "a competent tenant practising a system of farming suitable to the holding".
I have had a firm endorsement from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors of the rent formula as it stands as being most certainly workable. I hope your Lordships at this late stage may take the same view, but most of all I hope I may have convinced my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that the effect of the amendment is to be found in the rent formula as it stands, and that therefore this amendment is quite genuinely not necessary.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I briefly refer to his comment that he thought that this was rather a late stage to put in these changes? Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the original state of the Bill when it came before your Lordships' House. In Clause 1, paragraph (c) had a reference to arbitration, and stipulated that the extent to which
"a competent tenant practising a system of farming suitable to the holding could reasonably be expected to profit from farming the holding",
must be taken into account. The word "profit" was in. The noble Lord has taken it out and now says it is too late to make reference to it. We are not asking for profitability to be mentioned. We are asking for "earning capacity", which is a halfway stage, and which I should have thought the Minister might even yet have some reason to consider.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am glad that I am not apart in principle from my noble friend in thinking that some form of profit should be thought of when rents are being decided. However, I could not go along with his argument. He argued one way for five minutes, and then the other way for five minutes. May I take the last five minutes and his caravan case, and, I hope, destroy that? My noble friend was arguing that because my neighbour had a caravan site and could afford a rent of £100 I also should have a caravan site and afford a rent of £100. That perhaps rather simplifies his argument, but, first, I am not sure that we want a lot of caravan parks, and, secondly, here you are completely ruled out by the fact that, as my noble friend said himself, it is "a competent tenant practising a system of farming suitable to the holding". So that caravan park might not be suitable for my holding. There was another point that my noble friend missed, and that is that in Clause 1 the terms of the tenancy have to be considered. If I want a caravan park—and here I come back to my noble friend Lord Caithness, who has suddenly changed his mind because he finds that my amendment is not so attractive for him as it was before—and I have permission from the local authority to have it, then I go to my landlord and it goes in the terms of the tenancy. Therefore, there is no
854
question in my mind of me without a caravan park being compared with someone with a caravan park. One could say exactly the same with such items as self-picks, and all the rest of it, so you cannot do that. That is where the flaw in my noble friend's argument lies. However, I hope that when the Bill reaches another place they will look carefully at this matter, because we are not apart in principle.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may add one last thing. Of course, we shall continue to look carefully at this. I give my noble friend that assurance. I have tried to be open with the House during the various stages of this fairly short but quite complicated Bill, and I say quite openly to your Lordships that when Christmas was over we took the Bill away, and one of the things we looked at was whether it was possible to have in the text profitability on the one hand and earning capacity—which was the way that my noble friend Lord Caithness had raised it in the month of December—on the other.
I was advised, for the reasons that I have sought to deploy today, that it was difficult to put the concept of earning capacity in the Bill, if for no other reason than because it might mean that somebody would be assessed on capacity which they were in fact not realising. Therefore, with a certain amount of reluctance, I felt that the best thing to do on behalf of my right honourable friend was to suggest that we should not have explicitly in the Bill a reference to profit or to earning capacity, because on the one hand the question of profitability was covered for the reasons that I have sought to explain—because the arbitrator will perforce have to convert the productive capacity of the holding into a cash figure in arriving at what the rent properly payable is—and on the other hand earning capacity will be covered in "all relevant facts".
I believe that that is still the case, but of course I take the point of my noble friend and of the noble Lord opposite that this has to be looked at very carefully indeed, particularly as there is not a disagreement about ends—only about means. If my noble friend feels that the time taken on Third Reading to at least go over that ground again has not been wasted, may I assure him that the Government do not either?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
3.39 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 31, after ("shall") insert (", except in respect of land farmed with the holding,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this amendment and in the next two amendments, we are dealing with a fairly narrow part of the Bill. We are dealing again with rental determination by an arbitrator and with the extent to which the arbitrator should take into account rentals of comparable holdings. The Bill, as drafted, says that the arbitrator, in looking at this wider evidence of comparable holdings, should disregard all elements of rent which show evidence of

855
appreciable scarcity. What my Amendment No. 4 would do is to say that he should continue to disregard elements of scarcity on other people's holdings but, where he, the farmer, has been paying extra rent to get extra land and is willingly paying that higher rent, the arbitrator should take that into account. It should no longer be disregarded.
We have been over this narrow point once or twice in earlier proceedings on the Bill, and first the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, agreed to consider it. Then, as he knows, he wrote to me about it and I regret to say that he had my presentation wrong. He had not understood what I was saying. So I thought it well worth while trying once again to persuade him that there is merit in this point.
Let us consider a farmer who has the subject holding and bids an extra rent to get hold of extra land on some other tenancy. This is a frequent occurrence. What the Bill would do as it stands is to tell the arbitrator that he must take no notice whatsoever of the extent to which the farmer has hid up the prices to get hold of this extra land when he comes to reconsider the rent of the subject holding. Throughout the Bill all sides of the House have been trying to say to the Government, please let us get as near to reality, as near to what market forces will properly determine, as we can. Please let us try to avoid the sort of artificiality in the rentals of farms that we see in housing today, possibly for very good reasons, but which we know is inappropriate in farming and which we know from experience of housing is difficult to get rid of once it is there. Let us try continuously to avoid the situation where in 10 years' time we have islands of rent-controlled farms and other islands of free rentals in the market, and the situation, as I have put it, where the farmer can sit on his rent-controlled farm and go busily and happily around bidding up other pieces of land to get hold of them.
Perhaps I should put it another way to the noble Lord. If an arbitrator is considering a farming business—which is partly what he has to do at least; we have been over the ground of what he has to do, which is to decide the earning capacity of a farm—surely he should be able to take into account the fact that the farmer has bid up to the rent of the adjoining land so that he can average rents out all over. He is perhaps paying £35 on his subject holding and he may have bid £75 to get hold of some extra land. He thinks that by and large, averaged out between the two, the subject holding and the extra land, at £55 he can make it pay. Why should that not he considered by the arbitrator? It is a pointer to the earning capacity of the holding and to the earning capacity of the extra piece of land, but under the Bill as drafted he would have to discount that £55 completely, probably back to about £35. Why should he? It is total artificiality.
Here is the farmer demonstrating that he can pay more. He knows that he can in a free market, perhaps by making extra effort or doing something else, bring in greater profitability. I do not see why the arbitrator should not take that into account. The arbitrator should be able to say that he thinks on the whole that because the farmer is expecting to pay an averaged-out rent over the holding of £55 he should take that into account in considering the rent of the subject holding.
856
I press this amendment on the Government. Without it the Bill will make even more artificial a situation which is already giving a number of us some fear about what we shall think in 10 years' time when we look back at the effects of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords. I think that my noble friend has a point, but we would have grave difficulties in putting this into the Bill. He mentioned the farmer "rushing around"—I think that was the expression he used—in all directions looking for land to farm on which he thought he could make a profit. A few sentences later he said, "adjoining land". There would be a strong case for putting something in to the Bill that adjoining land farmed with a holding should be taken into consideration, but I do not think one could include land far away on a different farm altogether. If my noble friend would agree to that we might support the amendment. but to try to do it on the scale he was suggesting might be difficult.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord. Lord Northfield, is totally wrong. He will remember that I moved an amendment—and that is where his comes from, I might remind him—that would penalise the tenant who went next door, or owner-occupier, and hid up highly this next door land. Now the noble Lord wants to get hold of my cake—or, to be more truthful, my wife's cake—and say that not only will he be penalised on the part he is bidding for but on the farm itself.
I suggest that the noble Lord has not thought the matter through. What about the owner-occupier? He could do the same. I suppose it is all right for him. Anyhow, just for a change, I will try to help my noble friend the landlord. What happens if there is a little piece of land in the middle which nobody wants except this one tenant? This is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, made in Committee if I remember rightly. That land would be worth nothing. That is totally unfair on the landlord. I do not want to do all their work for them, but I will give them a helping hand just to show that there is no ill feeling.
I believe that the noble Lord has over-iced my cake. He has it wrong. Let us look at agistment rents. Why do farmers pay high rates for agistment? In order to make their holding more economic. No, my Lords, the noble Lord is totally wrong.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords. I can see the sense of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and what he is trying to do is obviously to stop the chap who has a hunk of land who bids a high rent for every other little bit round about, and averages it out with his own holding and thereby prevents many other people from getting land. The objective is perfectly sensible, but as I see the amendment it would apply to the whole of the present holding. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said, it would not stop the owner-occupier from bidding in the same way.
I wonder whether the Government would consider that aspect to see whether some formula could be found to penalise someone who could hid for a lot of land at high rents and, in three years' time, apply for arbitration. Under the present system could he apply for arbitration in three years' time and have the whole

857
thing reduced to the level of his own? That appears to he the danger which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is trying to avoid. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us his interpretation.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, after deep thought as to how to meet all the objections, I supported the Government on the main amendment which they put down at the Committee stage. With great respect to my noble friend Lord Belstead—who I admire very much and who has made great efforts to help the House—I must tell him that I supported the Government not because I thought the amendment was a brilliant contribution to the subject, but because I thought that nothing could be more awful than what was in the original Bill.
What was in the original Bill stems from the Government abandoning market value as a test. Under market value the subtle influences of earning capacity, of profitability, of some degree of scarcity in certain circumstances, are all brought into account between willing lessors and willing lessees. This is the way a market works. Once one attempts to go away from that and starts to define the almost indefinable, the Government get into the very greatest difficulty.
I have immense sympathy with all the amendments that have been put down. I see the argument that one could say that this might he a little better or that might be a little worse, but I myself feel, while really disagreeing wholly with what the Government are attempting to do here, that it would really be better to stick to the words in the Bill as presented by my noble friend Lord Belstead. There is one comfort. I think that this will have hardly any effect on the rents that are paid, and no effect whatever on the number of farms available.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, one of the great pleasures of dealing with this Bill has been the kindness of your Lordships—and how nice to receive the enthusiastic support at this late stage of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft! The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has explained the objective of this amendment, and the noble Lord has discussed it with me outside your Lordships' House. I would say in passing, if I may, that I think it could be that it is defective in drafting. I do not say that to be difficult, but I say it because I think that when one looks at the amendment it is not entirely clear which holding is being referred to so far as the drafting is concerned.
Nonetheless, the noble Lord has made it absolutely clear what is the intention of the amendment. It is really quite rigorous. What is at issue, and what concerns me, is that it would put the tenant who has recently bid successfully for another comparable holding in a quite different position from any other tenant, actual or potential. The amendment would, in effect, discriminate against the tenant, however small, who might wish to expand. That is a matter which I think should give us cause to pause. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, have very much said this. It is, of course, tenants and would-be tenants in general who, in their anxiety to obtain holdings knowing that these high initial rents can effectively be amortised over the lifetime of the tenancy, will bid for higher pieces of land. But this amendment would mean that the tenant
858
with an existing holding—I repeat, however small—would be much more severely treated in that his sitting-tenant rent would, at arbitration, be adjusted in the light of what he had hid on the open market for another hit of land.
However, I do have to take head-on the question which the noble Lord. Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, put to me, which arises from the illustration which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, gave about averaging. Let us be clear about this. If a farmer has two holdings together and, together, they are worth about £55 an acre, then, of course, at arbitration the productivity of the subject-holding will he assessed as being about £55 an acre and not at some lower figure which was the original assessment for the original bit of the subject-holding. Let us he quite clear about that.
Nonetheless, if there is any residual point there which we ought to look at I promise both noble Lords that we shall do so. But I think, with respect, that this amendment—and some would call it rigorous—I would call very uncharacteristic of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, because it is, perhaps, really unfair to certain tenants. I think it is right that we should have given it a good airing, as we have, but I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will feel that it is not necessary to press it.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I shall not press my amendment. This discussion will, I hope, be looked at in another place—because I still think there is merit in the case—and the amendment perhaps redrafted in the form suggested by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie. I am not absolutely sure that it needs redrafting because it has to be a comparable holding so that, even if it is slightly distant, it would still fall within the general terms of that part of the Bill. Nevertheless, I think it might well be redrafted and pressed in another place and come back to us.
I am sorry to say that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, was going to say, "I have only supported this dreadful Bill with great reluctance; and anything which makes it slightly better ought to be accepted". He could equally well have twisted the concluding part of his remarks in my direction as well as in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Nevertheless, I fully understand his view that, perhaps on balance, he wants to leave this part of the Bill. Very well; I hope I may tempt him with the next amendment, which is perhaps even more explicit and perhaps even more sensible, if I may say so. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 32, after ("question") insert ("which he considers excessive and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Earl. Lord Kinnoull, thinks, but I would suggest that it might be convenient to the House if we discussed Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. I see the noble Earl nodding, so perhaps we could have a general discussion on the two amendments and then decide which one might be better.
The situation is quite ironic, in one sense. Again, we are dealing with the determination by arbitrators of rents and the extent to which an arbitrator should take into account the rentals of comparable holdings. The Bill as drafted says that he must disregard rents which show, in the case of these comparable holdings, evidence of appreciable scarcity. The ironic thing is that at Report stage I myself moved to substitute "substantial scarcity" for "appreciable scarcity". I withdrew my amendment after widespread support in the House at that time because the Government were apparently hostile, and I therefore thought that we should ponder a little more before Third Reading. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is now fathering that very same amendment, and I have moved on to one which I hope might be slightly more acceptable. The lengths to which we go to try to tempt the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to support us occasionally have to be seen to be believed.
I thought that after we had not made much headway at Report on the word "substantial" I might try something which I had recommended to the Government all the way through the Bill; namely, that we should start from first principles and ask ourselves, "What are we actually trying to do?" As opposed to this rather sordid deal between the NFU and the CLA, let us ask what we are really trying to do in the Bill. What we are trying to do is to get the arbitrator to disregard what we have called silly rents, fancy rents, ridiculous rents, that arc being set.
When I used the word "substantial", it attracted a lot of support in the House. It made it more like an instruction to disregard something silly and exorbitant. That was the meaning of the word "substantial" as opposed to "appreciable". I had very good support from the noble Earl. Lord Caithness, who told me that he had seen lawyers, including QCs, and surveyors, and every one had come up with differing answers as to the meaning of the word "appreciable". I had the great support of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who told us that he did not know what "appreciable" meant but he had a fair idea of what "substantial" meant.
Then I had overwhelming support from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who put it graphically to all of us. He said—and this is in column 1054 of the Official Report of 7th February:
"I believe that 'substantial' is better than 'appreciable' because it means a big scarcity that we must ignore. That is what we want to ignore. We do not, really want to ignore a medium sized scarcity. That is what we are trying to say".
He has got it absolutely right. We do not want to ignore rather minimal scarcity or low-grade scarcity; we want to avoid substantial scarcity in looking at these comparable holdings, and at the ridiculous rents that have been offered.
Then we had the crowning accolade for the formulation of something like this from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, himself. I want to refer to what the noble Lord said at Report stage on 7th February. At column 1036, in replying to an early debate—a very important debate on the whole of the principles of Clause 1—he asked, "What are we trying to do?" He did not put it in exactly those words, and I could perhaps quote them. But he said that what is involved
860
here, what we are talking about, is "disregarding excessively high tender rents". Was he trying to persuade us? Was he trying to carry us along unnecessarily? Did he mean that? Was he just trying to get our support for the amendment? Was it a slip of the tongue? I take that at its face value. He meant that what we are trying to do in this part of the Bill is to get excessively high tender rents disregarded. So I say, why not put that into the Bill? That is the first principle and that seems the right way to go about it.
The difficulty that arises is that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, then got up and said something totally different. We now have a conflict between the two Ministers on the Front Bench as to what we are actually trying to do in this Bill. It is very amusing indeed to look at in retrospect, because the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was saying that we want to discourage all these high excessive rents while the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, at the bottom of Column 1054 said something quite different. He said in effect: "We are not really doing that at all.- This comes out in his words. He said that "appreciable",
"means something less than substantial but is intended to be a pointer to the arbitrator not to be influenced by insignificant scarcity.
So what is being recommended there is very, very minimal excess of rents, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, earlier on the same day was saying: "No, it is not that at all. What we really want to do is to discourage the highly excessive rents."
I am with him; and all those noble Lords who have been trying to get him to agree that what we are trying to do is to leave the market to operate as far as possible in these matters are with him all the way. I should like now to hear the resolution of the conflict between the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and his colleague the noble Earl. Lord Swinton. Do the Government want to outlaw really excessive rents or to outlaw them all the way down the line to a small degree of scarcity, as the noble Earl indicated?
In that issue, amusing though I made have made it, there lies a great difference. Let us take one example on the ground. Suppose we have farmers on a £35 rent now and suppose that a realistic rent might be £45 in today's circumstances: what does the Bill mean should be disregarded in the way of high tendered rents on comparable holdings—£55, £75, £95? I guess that most of us would say the arbitrator should disregard £95, look with slight suspicion at £75 and should probably think of something between £65 and £75 to be taken into account. My guess is that the Government, on the definition of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, would be saying that "appreciable scarcity" did not mean that at all.
My Lords, do let us get this clear. We have at the moment two conflicting explanations of what the Government are aiming at. I hope we can persuade the Minister that it is proper to have an explanation of which version they are seeking today. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, it may be convenient if I speak in support of the noble Lord's amendment and say that I support his principle entirely. Indeed, I think the great majority of your Lordships are behind the noble Lord's aim. The scarcity formula in the rent provision of this Bill has

861
been discussed, debated and criticised on every occasion so that my noble friend is well aware of our feelings, although I slightly doubt whether there is this mythical conflict which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, indicated. I am sure that my noble friend will clear that up in a moment.
I am very deeply concerned about the scarcity formula in this Bill, because it creates almost the maximum uncertainty as to how rents will be assessed in the future. It leaves arbitrators to interpret, as the noble Lord has said, an artificial formula among the number of other considerations which have to be taken into account. Indeed, it will leave the arbitrator to decide what discounts he sees tit. It would not be beyond the wit of arbitrators to find that in differing areas and with differing people one will have a pattern of inconsistent results and that is the very thing we should be trying to avoid: in fact it would be the very last thing that the NFU or the CLA would wish to see.
The scarcity formula was originally devised, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said, for good and agreed purposes: to pluck out and dismiss on rental evidence the wholly uneconomic key money transactions that make a nonsense for any practical farmer. I believe that, as the Bill is drafted, arbitrators in future will give undue weight to this formula because it is a new concept and it will put a duty on the arbitrator—one laid on him by Parliament—to discount rentals and to leave it to the arbitrator to decide how much. I think it is very sad that we may get a situation in which the high hopes that my noble friend floated on the Second Reading—that this Bill will breathe new life into the landlord and tenant system—may be wiped away by this provision and indeed young and hopeful future farmers may be denied the very first rung of the farming ladder that they so wish to climb.
I do not intend to move my amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has rightly said, there was his amendment at an earlier stage. I do not intend to move it, because, if my noble friend is not persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, then I really think it should be a matter for the other place to look at. It would be wrong to get the Government on a hook by a Division and hooked into being completely against amending this formula. I would hope that my noble friend, having listened patiently in all the stages of the Bill to all the arguments about this clause, will feel able to take the matter back to his right honourable friend and say: "Look at it again".
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, we were very much against this page and a half of verbiage, instructing arbitrators what to do; but if it is there and if we are to have words at all, I wonder why "discounting" was used in the first draft and, I think, in the second draft as well, and now we have the word "disregard". I should like to know the difference between the two, because they have been bandied up and down in the Bill. If we are to have a word on the scarcity, we would prefer "appreciable". I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—he is not in his place at the moment—that "substantial" is stronger than "appreciable" and we do not want a stronger word. I think that my noble friend's word "excessive" is stronger still; so, while disagreeing with the whole thing, if we are to have a word, we should prefer "appreciable".
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to point out to my noble kinsman that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is in a different place at the moment although perhaps not in a different position. I do think we have rather got to the stage of angels dancing on the points of pins. Really, the instructions are sufficiently clear to the arbitrator that he has now got to take into account the scarcity value, and whether it is "appreciable-, "substantial" or "excessive" is in fact in his own mind. Even the noble Lord's amendment says, "which he considers excessive". Obviously we depend enormously on the arbitrator himself and on his understanding. I think the general tenor of the word "appreciable" is satisfactory, and I must say that I think we are here trying to define too much how the arbitrator ought to use his judgment.
4.11 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I say very briefly that "appreciable", "substantial" and what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, suggested are very different. Unless we instruct the arbitrators carefully, they will not know what to do. It is known perfectly well that what is said on the Floor of the Chamber does not have any effect on Acts of Parliament. It is what is actually written into Acts of Parliament that is important, not what I or what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, says, much as we would like it to be the case. What matters is what is said in the Act of Parliament and the word "appreciable" in an Act is not sufficiently clear.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this little semantic argument and this dancing on the head of pins, for which I am not best fitted physically. But I am very interested to be reminded that the noble Earl in winding up used the words "not insignificant", because the word "significant" in place of either "appreciable" or "substantial" is precisely what I suggested, not in a formal amendment but in a more private discussion with the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill, and he rejected it as being a further interference with the formula which could only lead to further trouble. May I therefore suggest that he might like to look again at exactly what his noble colleague on the Front Bench replied in an earlier debate, in terms of the word "significant"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this amendment affects the paragraph in the Bill which gives me most concern, and many of us have spent months trying to persuade my noble friend the Minister and the National Farmers' Union that account should be taken of our fears and that this clause should possibly be reworded, but without losing its principle. Alas, to date our efforts have not been successful and it worries me greatly that the NFU cannot even accept this minor amendment. I hope that I am proved wrong in due course, but I believe that this paragraph, more than any other in the Bill, will be the one that leads to a reduction in rent. If it does, it will be a serious blow not only to landlord/tenant relationships, but to its very structure.
In yesterday's Financial Times we saw again that, according to the June 1983 census, the Ministry of

863
Agriculture reported that last year there was a further decline of rented land of 1.5 per cent. The whole landlord/tenant system is increasingly threatened, and if this paragraph makes matters worse the whole country will know that the National Farmer's Union and the Tenant Farmers' Association have done an excellent job in further featherbedding their own existing tenants to the detriment of newcomers and the whole system. I earnestly ask them and my noble friend to think again and respond more positively to our concern.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to say that all three of my noble kinsmen are wrong about the word "substantial", but we covered this matter before and I do not intend to go over it again. I would put one hurdle in the path of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I believe that it will complicate a complicated clause. We all say that the clause is complicated, but he is putting in words such as,
"in the opinion of the arbitrator which he considers excessive".
so the poor arbitrator, in his own opinion, would have to consider what he considers excessive and what he considers appreciable. We are getting very semantic and I follow the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, here.
The noble Lord's amendment will give no clear direction to the arbitrator: and here I hope that I carry my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft and my noble kinsman Lord Onslow, who want to make the position clear. He would make it less clear. In conclusion, may I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that I thought he told me that the National Farmers' Union and the Tenant Farmer's Association were legislating and they should not. But he is legislating.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has misread the Bill. It does not say "in his opinion" anywhere, so that confusion does not arise.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we have laboured hard and long over this rent formula and I thought that on Report your Lordships decided we had got it about as good as we could, with the very great help of an original amendment put down in Committee by noble Lords who included my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. If an amendment were put forward on which your Lordships' House was substantially agreed—and I think that the area of disagreement on this very interesting amendment is more evident than the area of agreement—then the House would need to look very closely at it again. If an amendment were put down which could he said to represent some great advance, I know that the House would immediately look at it again very closely.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has contributed so much to the consideration of this whole area of legislation, and, in particular, to the proceedings on this Bill, with respect to him I do not think that this amendment can be said to represent an improvement. First, what does it actually mean? The amendment would require the arbitrator to disregard comparable rents which he considers to be excessive.
864
But excessive in terms of what? After all, a drop of whisky is nectar to some, but may be considered excessive by the confirmed abstainer. A speech which is the pride and joy of he who has composed it, may be considered excessive to the ears of others.
Such a subjective judgment will not do and I do not think it compares very favourably with the objective test which we have in the formula of "appreciable scarcity". The purpose of the discount for appreciable scarcity is to instruct arbitrators, in setting rents for sitting tenants, to disregard the key money element in comparable rents. But if we were to say that rents for sitting tenants ought to disregard comparable rents which are excessive, it could well be argued that no rent is excessive if it has enabled the tenant to secure his holding in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, chided my noble friend Lord Swinton and myself for appearing to disagree. All I can say is that we are firmly agreed on the explanation which I have just given of the effect of appreciable scarcity. If, by any chance, we were not too sure, we could look at the robust common sense of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who in Committee simply said that arbitrators can surely appreciate what "appreciable" means when they see it. The requirement that, in looking at comparable holdings, an arbitrator should discount only for appreciable scarcity is, I therefore suggest, an objective test and—I must say this now to my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Kinnoull—wholly reasonable.
In essence, both of my noble friends were expressing anxiety that undue weight will be given to the appreciable scarcity test. All I can say to that is that the Scottish legislation has in exactly the same way a scarcity discount in it, but without the word "appreciable". So our wording is somewhat stronger and will, I hope, therefore appeal to my noble friends and to the noble Lord. Lord Northfield. I hope that the formula also appeals still to the House and that your Lordships will feel it is best to leave the rent formula as it is.
Lord Northfield: My Lords. I am not at all happy and I join the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Caithness, in saying that I am sure we shall see trouble as a result of the drafting of the Bill in its present form. I will simply repeat what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said at col. 1054:
"The word "appreciable", I am advised, would exclude de minimis scarcity".—[Official Report, 7/2/84.]
That is all. The rest of us have been saying we should be going a good deal further than that: that all we should be excluding are the stupid key money tender rents. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, used that phrase again today. "What we are trying to exclude", he said, "are key money rents". With respect, key money rents are not de minimis scarcity. There is still conflict between what the noble Lord has just said and the definition given by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in col. 1054 of Hansard for 7th February. We have not heard the last of this. I am sure that it will reverberate when somebody tries to execute it after the Bill becomes law.
Finally, I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: that perhaps we had better leave it. If we were to be defeated today in a division, it might, as

865
he said, put the Government "on the hook". I hope that we can persuade Members in another place to explore even further the clear conflict between de minimis scarcity on the one hand and high tender rents—excessive rents, as I have called them—on the other as to the true meaning and true intent of the Bill. In the meantime, with enormous regret and with a good deal of disappointment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 39, after ("of") insert (", or a person tendering for,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the Government will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have very great pleasure in accepting this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) Where the tenant has held a previous tenancy of the holding, then—

(a) in the definition of "tenant's improvements" in subsection (3)(a) of this section, the reference to any such improvements as are there mentioned shall extend to improvements executed during that tenancy; and

(b) in the definition of "tenant's fixed equipment" in subsection (3)(b), the reference to such equipment as is there mentioned shall extend to equipment provided during that tenancy;

excluding, however, any improvement or fixed equipment so executed or provided in respect of which the tenant received any compensation on the termination of that (or any other) tenancy.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 fulfils an assurance I gave on Report to my noble friend Lord Renton to clarify the position regarding tenants' improvements on a rent review. My noble friend had drawn attention to a small defect in the law and I am glad that this has enabled us to propose that we put it right.
The effect of the amendment is to make clear that an arbitrator, in determining the rent properly payable under the new Section 8, should disregard any increase in the rental value of the holding which is due to improvements executed by the tenant or fixed equipment provided by him not only during the current tenancy, as is provided for already, but also during any previous tenancy of the same tenant. This is subject to the proviso that the tenant has not received compensation in respect of the improvement or equipment on termination of a previous tenancy.
Your Lordships may think that this is a fairly remote point. I think it is. But there is the possibility of the same tenant having a previous tenancy of the same holding when there has been a surrender of a tenancy followed by a re-grant and repossession—for example, when an old tenancy agreement is brought up to date or when the boundaries of a holding are changed for some reason. That is the effect of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for moving this amendment. It is of great help in clarifying the situation.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I am sure that this amendment will be acceptable to the House, but before that is determined and before we leave Clause I may I say that Clause 1 of the Bill, as originally drafted, received a good deal of criticism. The noble Lord, Lord Thornycroft, has forcefully reminded us of that. We have spent very nearly an hour discussing Clause 1 on Third Reading. Since the clause was discussed at great length in Committee on 22nd November last the Government have amply fulfilled their promise to search for a revision of the rent formula which could have a greater measure of agreement. Again I can only congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and his department upon achieving what I believe to be the desired result, after thorough consultation. It is never easy—indeed, it is probably impossible—to make everybody happy. As I said at Second Reading, it is exceedingly difficult to find a really good rent formula, because what is needed is a rent formula which is acceptable to all sides: landlords, tenants, arbitrators, land agents, institutional clients and the Government. I believe that with the amendments which have been made to this clause by the House as a result of those consultations, we have now got a formula in which all concerned can have confidence.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I rise to say that we are pleased with the noble Lord's amendment and the flexibility which he has shown. From time to time there have been criticisms of the various amendments to Clause 1, which we hope the Minister will take into account. While I am on my feet, may I say that when speaking to Amendment No. 1 earlier today I quoted remarks which I attributed in error to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who was not then in the Chamber. Those remarks should have been attributed to my noble friend Lord John-Mackie. I apologise to the noble Earl for attributing to him the comments which I made about the speech immediately following his, which is reported in Hansard at col. 1020 on 7th February. These comments, of course, still apply. I thought I had better put the record straight while we are dealing with Clause 1.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I thank both noble Lords for what they have said. May I also thank my noble friend Lord Caithness who handled the amendment we have just taken, I think from my noble friend Lord Renton, at the previous stage. All I would add is, yes; I have detected one or two criticisms of the rent formula in Clause 1. That is why I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Middleton for putting the matter in context. I believe, as my noble friend has been good enough to say, that it represents a real step forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Crown Agents
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the

867
Minister for Overseas Development. The Statement is as follows:
"Last summer the Government of' Brunei terminated its contract with the Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations for the management of its investments. This resulted in significant loss of income to the Crown Agents, amounting to up to £4 million in a full year, so that action became necessary to enable them to meet their financial duties under the Crown Agents Act 1979.
"The board of Crown Agents accordingly submitted to Government proposals for reorganisation and improvement of the efficiency of the business, designed to enable them to achieve financial viability not later than 1986. Those proposals included the reduction of staff from about 1,200 to under 900, changes in terms of service to enable them to provide services competitively, and the sale of their principal offices at 4 Millbank, which would make possible the reduction of the commencing capital debt from its current level of £19.8 million to £9 million.
"The Government have taken the opportunity to undertake a thorough review of the future of the Crown Agents and the need for their continued existence in their present form. In undertaking this, we have had regard to the Government's policy to reduce the size of the public sector, to the services which the Crown Agents provide for developing countries and to their value to Britain's own interests.
"On the basis of this review I expect Crown Agents to be fully profitable by not later than 1986.
"After very careful consideration of this and other factors and of the representations made to me, the Government have decided broadly to endorse the proposals of the board of Crown Agents for their reorganisation with a view to their privatisation in due course. The timing and method of privatisation will be settled later. Pending the necessary legislation, the board will set in train appropriate measures of internal reorganisation in order to facilitate privatisation.
"To facilitate the financing of this reorganisation, it is the Government's intention to waive in full under Section 17(4) of the Crown Agents Act 1979 the interest due on the commencing capital debt in 1984 and to seek parliamentary approval under Section 17(10) for any waiver necessary in 1985 and 1986.
"I believe that this decision will enable the Crown Agents, under their vigorous chairman, Mr Peter Graham, to continue to serve successfully both Britain and the developing world".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
Lord Oram: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, even though (as she will not be surprised to learn) major parts of it, and particularly the threat of privatisation, are most unwelcome to those of us on these Benches. Does the noble Baroness recall stating just a year ago that the Crown Agents were performing successfully their role
868
of providing services for overseas governments, and particularly those of developing countries? Will she confirm that the Crown Agents in their present form continue to enjoy the confidence of those client countries? Will she say what consultations there have been with those client countries about the proposed reorganisation? Will she also tell me whether the staff were consulted before this Statement was made?
In particular, will the client countries and the staff be consulted before privatisation is entered upon? While we of course welcome the prospect that as a result of reorganisation we can expect full profitability by 1986, will not the confidence of the staff be undermined by the overhanging threat of privatisation in that period? Despite the early paragraphs of the Statement, is not the real nub of the Statement privatisation; is not that the essence of the Statement which the noble Baroness has read out? Why disturb something that is working successfully? Is this not once again a case of pursuing the dogma of privatisation to still further lengths of irresponsibility?
Reverting to what the noble Baroness said a year ago, is it not the case that many countries—100 of them, including many small countries—have very real reason to be grateful and to appreciate the value of the services which the Crown Agents have provided over the years? Will she bear in mind a point which the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, brought to the attention of the House: the fact that ex-colonial servants who are now pensioners have good reason to thank the Crown Agents for the efficiency of their services in that respect? Is there not a danger that all those beneficiaries of the work of the Crown Agents hitherto may suffer as a result of the proposals which the noble Baroness has today announced?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I. too, should like to thank the noble Baroness most sincerely for repeating the Statement, but I ant bound to say that it is impossible to give it a sincere welcome. It is a very important Statement. and one will want to consider it very carefully.
It is of course the case that when an organisation of this kind suffers a significant loss of income steps have to be taken to remedy that situation. But can the noble Baroness the Minister tell us why the steps taken have been limited almost entirely to running down the organisation instead of seeking alternative outlets for its many activities? There is a running down of staff, a running down of offices, and a running down of activities. This is not the normal way that active businesses and active boards deal with difficulties of that kind. Is it not the case that they normally search for alternative sources of income?
With regard to the reorganisation which the board has recommended with a view to privatization, can the Minister say whether that examination was undertaken on terms of reference which specifically provided that it was to be in the light or the expectation of privatisation? It seems from the Statement which has just been repeated that the board's proposals with a view to reorganisation have been made with a view to privatisation. One wants to know, therefore, whether these were the objective views of the board on how best to forward their activities, or whether they were the views of the board

869
on how best to adjust their activities so as to be capable of easy privatisation.
One of the most important questions I want to ask is: what do the Government think will be the effect of this announcement and of their policy on the services provided to developing countries, which is one of the main activities of the Crown Agents and does not necessarily lie all that easily with the concept of privatisation and of making a profit no matter what? I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister can provide more information on that point.
Will the noble Baroness also fill in my recollection as to whether we have debated the Croom-Johnson report? My recollection is that there was a report by Mr. Justice Croom-Johnson on the activities of the Crown Agents and that your Lordships' House has never been given an opportunity to debate that report, which would be very material to our consideration of what is now intended. In short, I find myself compelled to say that it is much easier to come to the conclusion that the Government have been concerned more to pursue their policies or privatisation no matter what, rather than have regard to the best interests of the clients of the Crown Agents.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Oram and Lord Diamond, for their recognition that this is an important Statement. The noble Lord. Lord Oram, began by asking me about privatisation. As the Statement makes clear, the first proposals are a general reorganisation of the Crown Agents, and questions as the method and timing of privatisation will be considered at a later date. What has particularly precipitated this, as is set out at the start of the Statement, is the fact that the Government of Brunei have terminated their contract with the Crown Agents, so that since the summer of 1983 the Crown Agents have been running at a loss. The Government therefore felt it was right that the Crown Agents should be reorganised, and the general proposals are set out in the Statement.
On the particular questions I have been asked about reorganisation, I should like to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development has seen representatives of the trade unions at the Crown Agents, both in London and East Kilbride. They are aware of the reorganisation, and I expect that my right honourable friend will meet them again to discuss the implications to the staff of the Government's decisions.
On the general question about privatisation, the Government believe that the work which the Crown Agents do could be done by the private sector. Our aim in privatisation will be of course to retain the confidence of the clients; we would expect this to be the case. Morgan-Grenfell, who have examined the prospects of privatisation, have said that there is a good prospect of achieving privatisation and that the Crown Agents' financial forecasts are a reasonable basis on which to make a decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked a series of questions. In reply to his question about a debate on the Croom-Johnson Report, that must be a matter for the usual channels. In fact, in the Answer I gave at almost exactly this time a year ago on the action which the Government have taken on the findings of the
870
tribunal of inquiry into the Crown Agents, I outlined the action which the Government had taken on that report and explained that the 1979 Act gave the Crown Agents a clear legal status and provided for appropriate accountability to, and control by, the Secretary of State. I hope that this Statement will be seen by the client countries as indicating a determination to make the now reorganised Crown Agents not only more efficient but certain to maintain the high standards of work that the client countries have come to expect.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I do think we should recognise that, over the 150 years since the Crown Agents started, they have played a tremendous part overseas in those countries in different continents with which we have been associated, and that those who have done their job deserve the fullest praise for what they have carried out. It is, of course, true that about 14 or 15 years ago they ran into some difficulties; indeed this point was raised in this House for the first time. I have every reason to believe, however, that they have put their house fully in order.
But the world is different today. The Crown Agents were essentially a concomitant of the British Empire, and now we are dealing with a great many sovereign independent countries. The Crown Agents leave a sort of legacy that they are agents of the British Government. That is not true, I know, but it gave the impression of that, and I have very little doubt that the lack of confidence in Brunei was in some measure due to the fact that they thought that the Crown Agents were in fact the British Government expressing itself in a certain way. They were wrong in that, but never mind; I think this was an element that played its part. Now that they can take an independent line—call it what you will; I hate the word "privatisation"—and will clearly be not part of the British Government, I believe they can have and should have a very considerable future.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am most gratetul for the words of my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I think he has put very well what the present position is. Although it is very difficult to be sure what led the Government of Brunei to cancel their contract, it may well be that they felt that, with the approach of independence, it would not be appropriate for the Crown Agents to manage their investments, and that they wished to do this themselves. It is for those kinds of reasons that we believe the present arrangements will be a better basis for the future.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—I think she must be—that in all parts of the House there are many Members with experience of the work of the Crown Agents who will have heard the Statement with much apprehension? The noble Earl pointed out that this has been a public service since the middle of the 19th century. May I ask the noble Baroness whether, since the Crown Agents have not acted for commercial concerns in the private sector and since they do act for the United Nations on projects financed by the World Bank, and for international organisations of a similar kind, the Government can really be certain that such bodies will have

871
the same confidence in a privately owned organisation, and, moreover, a privately owned organisation the timing and method of the privatisation of which, if we can call it that, have still to be settled later?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have no reason for thinking that because it is a private organisation international bodies or developing countries should have less confidence in it. I think it is a very dangerous statement to suggest that simply because something is a private organisation it will be less competent or less reliable. I think we must look to the future with confidence that under its present organisation and present direction it will be able to fulfil its future role effectively.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister this? As I have been more or less intimately involved over the years I have been in this House, having been a former overseas civil servant, in the protracted and very difficult negotiations which have arisen from time to time regarding a satisfactory culmination of the takeover of overseas pensions, I am aware of the great expertise and value which has been exhibited by members of the Crown Agents in all the deliberations we have had. I must state to your Lordships how much we missed in some of the deliberations the assistance we had had from the late Lord Boyd of Merton. May I seek an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that under the reorganisation and the privatisation which is envisaged for the Crown Agents the Government will be in a position to maintain the expertise of the staff, which has been of so much help to us over these years?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to acknowledge to my noble friend Lord Gridley the importance that we attach to the expertise of the staff, and indeed I recognise the appreciation which has been shown in all parts of the House of the expertise that has been built up over the years by the Crown Agents. I should like to confirm to my noble friend that. in looking to the privatisation of the Crown Agents, some of the work which is at present carried out in East Kilbride, which of course includes the pensions administration work to which my noble friend has referred, and some of what is now done for the Overseas Development Agency, may well continue to be carried out in the public sector. But decisions on that particular part of the organisation have yet to be taken.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us exactly what will be the effect in East Kilbride on the staff there?
Baroness Young: My Lords. I gave the effect of the reorganisation proposals, which indicate a reduction of staff from about 1,200 to about 900. It is rather difficult to tell exactly how it would work out, because there would of course be some natural wastage, but the Crown Agents estimate that there would probably be a staff loss of about 250. We believe that any alternative decision to the closure and the break-up of the Crown Agents would have meant that a substantially greater number would have been made redundant. At
872
the same time, the Management and Personnel Office will take all practicable steps to facilitate the transfer to the Civil Service of any such staff who can be transferred to other departments.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I asked particularly about East Kilbride.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think it is rather difficult to give a more detailed answer than I have given. If there is a more specific number that I can give to the noble Lord, I will write to him about it. It is rather difficult to make a judgment on something which has yet to take place.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I wonder if I may ask the noble Baroness to clear up one rather general, but I think important, point. She said that the immediate considerations were the reorganisation of the Crown Agents, and then went on to say that it would be the timing and method of privatisation which would be settled in due course. Do we take it from this that there has been a firm decision to privatise? We understand from what we have read that there has been considerable heart-searching within the Government on this question. Do we take it that a firm decision has now been reached and that the Crown Agents are to be privatised? And what is meant by "in due course"?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will, I am sure, have read the Statement very carefully; he will see that it says that the reorganisation is with a view to privatisation. But, clearly, we wish to see the reorganisation take place, and the privatisation should take place at a time which is in the best interests of the organisation for its future success.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, this is not a question but a reflection that I spent rather too many years looking at the problems of the Crown Agents and that it is odd to think that they got into their problems because they went into own account business in the belief that, if things did go wrong, they would be left on their own and would have to fend for themselves. How wrong they were and what a sad story it all proved to be.

Agricultural Holdings Bill [H.L.]
Consideration on Third Reading resumed.
Clause 6 [Amendments with respect to cases excepted from restriction on operation of notices to quit]:
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 11, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) The following Case shall be inserted after Case H—
"Case I—the holding was let as a smallholding by a smallholdings authority or the Minister in pursuance of Part III of the Agriculture Act 1970 and was so let after the commencement of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984, and—

(a) the tenant has attained the age of 65; and

(b) if the result of the notice to quit taking effect would be to deprive the tenant of living accommodation occupied by him under the tenancy, suitable alternative accommodation is available for him, or will be available for him when the notice takes effect: and

873

(c) the instrument under which the tenancy was granted containd an acknowledgement signed by the tenant that the tenancy is subject to the provisions of this Case;

and it is stated in the notice to quit that it is given by reason of the matter aforesaid.
Schedule 1A to this Act shall have effect for determining whether, for the purposes of paragraph (b) above, suitable alternative accommodation is or will be available for the tenant.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. As far as I know, the following Amendments—Nos. 10, 17, 18, 20 and 21—can be taken with it as they are all consequential, or at least follow on from the paving Amendment No. 9. I believe that is correct.
Clause 11 [Short title, commencement, transitional provisions and extents]:
Amendment No. 10: Page 13, line 26, after ("references") insert ("in this Act, and in any Act amended by this Act,")
Schedule 3 [Minor and Consequential amendments]:
Amendment No. 17: Page 37, line 7, after ("compensation)") insert—
("(a)")
Amendment No. 18: Page 37, line 9, at end insert (";and
(b) the following words shall be added at the end ";or
(e) the said section 2(1) does not apply to the relevant notice by virtue of Case I in the said section 2(3) (which relates to notices to quit smallholdings given where the tenant is over 65.".")
Amendment No. 20: Page 37, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) in paragraph (a)(i), after the words "section 2(2) and (3) above" there shall be inserted the words "(including any question arising under Schedule 1A to this Act)";")
Amendment No. 21: Page 38, line 46, at end insert—
(". The following Schedule shall be inserted before Schedule 1 to that Act—

SCHEDULE 1A

  SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION FOR PURPOSES OF CASE I
  1. For the purposes of paragraph (b) of Case I, a certificate of the housing authority for the district in which the living accommodation in question is situated, certifying that the authority will provide suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant by a date specified in the certificate, shall be conclusive evidence that suitable alternative accommodation will be available for him by that date.
  2. Where no such certificate as is mentioned in paragraph I above has been issued, accommodation shall be deemed to be suitable for the purposes of paragraph (b) of Case I if it consists of either—

  (a) premises which are to be let as a separate dwelling such that they will then be let on a protected tenancy (within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977); or

  (b) premises to be let as a separate dwelling on terms which will afford to the tenant security of tenure reasonably equivalent to the security afforded by Part VII of that Act in the case of a protected tenancy;

  and the accommodation fulfils the conditions in paragraph 3 below.
  3. The accommodation must be reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant's family as regards proximity to place of work and either—

  (a) similar as regards rental and extent to the accommodation afforded by dwelling-houses provided in the neighbourhood by any housing authority for persons whose needs as regards extent are similar to those of the tenant and his family; or

  (b) reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent and character.

  (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, a certificate of a housing authority stating—

  (a) the extent of the accommodation afforded by dwelling-houses provided by the authority to meet the needs of tenants with families of such number as may be specified in the certificate; and

  (b) the amount of the rent charged by the authority for dwelling-houses affording accommodation of that extent; shall be conclusive evidence of the facts so stated.

  (3) If any furniture was provided by the landlord for use under the tenancy in question, furniture must be provided for use in the alternative accommodation which is either—

  (a) similar to that so provided; or

  (b) reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family.

  4. Accommodation shall not be deemed to be suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family if the result of their occupation of the accommodation would be that it would be an overcrowded dwelling-house for the purposes of the Housing Act 1957.
  5. Any document purporting—

  (a) to be a certificate of a housing authority named therein issued for the purposes of this Schedule; and

  (b) to be signed by the proper officer of the authority; shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is shown, shall be deemed to be such a certificate without further proof.

  6.—(1) In this Schedule "housing authority" means a council which is a local authority for the purposes of Part V of the Housing Act 1957, and "district", in relation to such an authority, means the district for supplying the needs of which the authority has power under that Part of that Act.
  (2) For the purposes of this Schedule a dwelling-house may be a house or part of a house.".")
  These amendments concern retirement provisions for smallholdings based on the retirement provisions for tenancies generally. I know that the Government have helped the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, to draft them so I therefore assume, I am sure with confidence, that they are acceptable to the Government. As I said, they are on the lines of the general retirement provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is moving are in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley. I have great pleasure in accepting the amendment, and shall accept also those to which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has spoken when we come to them.
  Lord Bishopston: My Lords, we support the amendment and are very pleased at the Minister's response. We raised the matter of smallholdings at an earlier stage and also pointed out the very considerable value that they have. We hope that the Minister will also take into account some of the other observations made during earlier stages before the Bill goes to another place.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 10:
  [Printed earlier.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Minor amendments with respect to statutory succession]:
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 15, line 22, after ("let") insert—
  ("(a)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 22.
  Amendment No. 12: Page 15, line 23, after ("landlord") insert—
  ("; or
  (b) by virtue of an assignment of the current tenancy;")
  Amendment No. 13: Page 15, line 24, after ("grant") insert ("or assignment")
  Amendment No. 14: Page 15, leave out lines 38 to 42 and insert—
  ("(a) shall apply whether or not any tenancy granted or obtained (otherwise than by virtue of an assignment) as

  875
  mentioned in those provisions related to the whole of the land held by the tenant on the occasion of whose death, or with whose agreement, the tenancy was so granted or obtained, as the case may be: and")
  Amendment No. 15: Page 15, line 47, at end insert ("and subsection (5) shall apply where a tenancy is assigned to joint tenants one of whom is a person such as is mentioned in that subsection as it applies where a tenancy is assigned to any such person alone.")
  Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
  Amendment No. 22: Page 40, line 41, leave out from ("holding") to end of line 43 and insert ("held by the tenant on the occasion of whose death, or with whose agreement, it was so granted or obtained, as the case may be.")
  The purpose of these amendments is to permit transfer of a tenancy in the context of Section 18(5) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (which makes provision for inter vivos succession by agreement between the parties concerned) by means of assignment as well as, as is presently the case, by surrender and regrant. The amendments are in response to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Renton—Amendments Nos. 63 and 64—which were withdrawn at the Report stage.
  My main reasons for proposing these amendments are these. Assignment is a simple form of transferring a tenancy, although it is a method which can only be used where the whole of the land comprised in the tenancy is to pass to a successor. Although most tenancy agreements contain an absolute bar on assignment, this bar can be waived simply by the landlord where an inter vivos succession is agreed. There is, therefore, advantage in extending the range of methods available to parties on such an occasion, and as a result of this amendment assignment will be available to the parties as a means of implementing their agreed arrangement if they so desire.
  There may well be cases where it is simpler to resort to this form of transfer rather than to use the method of surrender and regrant, with its attendant carrying out of outgoing and incoming valuations, claims for dilapidations, and other matters arising at the end of a tenancy which can be avoided on assignment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 12:
  [Printed earlier.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 13:
  [Printed earlier.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 14:
  [Printed earlier.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 15:
  [Printed earlier.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Statutory succession by person nominated by retiring tenant]:
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 21, line 44, leave out head (e).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are back with an aspect of the law on statutory succession. We on these Benches are glad that part of that law is surviving. We welcome very much Schedule 2 because it represents an important improvement. However, I fear that its importance is overshadowed by the fact that Clause 2 remains intact. I say overshadowed because that clause, in our view, represents a departure from the policy of agricultural legislation of the past 100 years which was always aimed at strengthening the position of the tenant. Nevertheless, we welcome the provisions of Schedule 2.
  We ask the Government, however, to have second thoughts about paragraph 2(1)(e). By virtue of this paragraph the right to nominate a successor is conferred only on a tenant who will have attained the age of 65 on the date when the succession is to take place. I believe that in Committee the original starting point to the discussion was the desirability of introducing a retirement provision and that it was at that stage probably age-related. I believe that the original amendment which my noble friend and I submitted was age-related, but that was amended.
  In the course of the debate in Committee the point was made by many noble Lords that the right to nominate a successor should be available to any tenant who simply wished to retire from farming, irrespective of the reason—a farmer who has not attained the age of 65 may well wish to retire because of ill-health and to nominate a successor. Again, it may be that he wishes to take early retirement and assign the tenancy to his successor. There is much support in our society for the principle of early retirement. It seems to us that a farmer should not be precluded from taking early retirement. Yet, as I understand the clause, that would be the position. Once Parliament accepts that there is a right to nominate a successor the exercise of that right should not, in our view, be dependent merely on arriving at a certain age threshold. I beg to move.
  4.59 p.m.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, first I would just say that the age of 65 was agreed after a lot of discussion within the industry and with an eye to the recommendations of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, which in paragraph 634 chose 65 as the appropriate age at which a transfer of this kind should take place. We are, of course, talking about voluntary retirement. No element of compulsion is involved. So far as the existing machinery is concerned, a tenant may approach his landlord with a proposal to retire at any time under Section 18(5) of the 1948 Act. That existing machinery remains unaffected.
  In talking here as we are about the new arrangements which are being made for inter vivos succession where the matter is not necessarily agreed, I think we come to a difficulty. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, says that the health of the tenant may come into it: it may be necessary for the landlord to take a view that the health of the tenant is not very

  877
  good and the moment had come when this machinery should be put into effect. I think that this would present very great difficulties for the ALT. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the health of tenants to be examined in that way. If, after all, a tenant is suffering from ill-health to such an extent that his farming record is suffering, the good husbandry provisions of legislation can be brought into play.
  I return, if I may, to my original point. The age of 65 for these retirement provisions was proposed by the NFU and the CLA because they felt that it was right and that it was as far as they ought to go, and because they knew that it was the age that had been recommended by the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. For the reasons that I have attempted to give, I should be very reluctant to go further than that.
  Lord Northfield: My Lords, I do not think that our report should be called in aid too much on this point. I think that the committee was really dealing only with retirement at that point. It may be that we just failed to consider the idea of handing over earlier. I would resist using the report in this context.
  May I just ask the Minister whether in fact the possibility of handing over earlier than death—which I think is a very laudable objective—is covered by the amendments that he has just moved referring to assignment? Could the matter be dealt with that way?
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I honestly do not know the answer to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has just asked about assignment. I rather think that the answer is no. One wants to rest upon the amendments which we have put forward in the enormously long amendment dealing with voluntary retirement, to which of course this particular amendment is aimed.
  Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we very much regret once again that the noble Lord the Minister is unable to accommodate this amendment. It is an amendment which is addressed to the situation of a tenant who wishes to retire and to nominate his successor. But with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 17:
  [Printed earlier.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 18:
  [Printed earlier.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 37, line 9, at end insert—
  ("(2) In section 10(8) of that Act (construction, etc.), for the words "paragraphs (a) and" there shall be substituted the word "paragraph".").
  The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 20:
  [Printed earlier.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 21:
  [Printed earlier.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 22:
  [Printed earlier.]
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Although this Bill is comparatively short, it has occupied your Lordships for well over 30 hours. My noble friend Lord Swinton and I are most grateful to your Lordships for the detailed scrutiny given to the Bill. There is widespread agreement on the need for this legislation and on its principal objective—to make more tenancies available. But opinions differ on how precisely this should be achieved. That is why the Government took the view that any changes which were likely to be able to stand the test of time had to be based on proposals which in the first instance came from the industry itself. We are indebted, therefore, to the Presidents of the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association for coming forward with an agreement which made this Bill possible.
  Your Lordships tabled nearly 90 amendments in Committee and more than 100 at Report. The result has been a number of very worthwhile additions to the Bill. It is a tribute to the good will shown on all sides, both within and outside your Lordships' House, that we have been able to arrive at the rent formula which now forms Clause 1.
  I recognise that it can be argued that Clause 2 does not go far enough. But one of the lessons of the 1976 Act is that there are grave dangers in tampering retrospectively with agricultural holdings legislation. This is why the Government were careful to retain the non-retrospective nature of the provisions relating to succession.
  So far as the rest of the Bill is concerned, we have taken on board the proposal of my noble friend Lord Sandy s that the basis for assessing income for the commercial unit test should be set out in a statutory instrument and we have restricted the number of tenancies to which a successor can succeed. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for the fact that we have not yet been able to come forward with amendments on eligibility for succession, but I give an undertaking that we are still working on this. The Bill now encourages some increase in the turnover of tenancies by facilitating voluntary retirement. Thanks to my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lord Sandford and to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, the Bill now incorporates amendments reinforcing conservation agreements between landlord and tenant.

  879
  The Government are also indebted to my noble friend Lord Renton for several important technical amendments, and we still intend to bring forward an amendment to meet my noble friend's proposal to empower the Lord Chancellor to vary the sixth schedule rules. In fact, that amendment was moved on Report by my noble friend Lord Caithness, who has also moved into the Bill a safeguard against the three-year rent cycle being restarted where new fixed equipment has been provided. With those few examples, I believe that we now have a more comprehensive Bill which will encourage farm tenancies. For that I have to thank your Lordships' House. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Belstead.)
  Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, if I may say so, has carried through this Bill with his usual charm and good will. He says that he is pleased with it and we have done a good job but that some people may disagree with that. To use a slang expression, he can say that again. I have just been handed a letter which appears in the Farmers' Weekly. It is headed:
  "CLA has reneged on the rent bargain".
  It is quite a good letter. It is signed by a furious farmer who says that his name and address is with the Farmers' Weekly. I shall try to be as brief as possible. I could be very brief indeed in the words that I use about the Bill but I shall refrain from that.
  The phrase in the Queen's Speech was that legislation would
  "make more farming tenancies available".
  What have we got? We have a Bill that is supposed to satisfy a deal between the CLA and the NFU and which, at the same time, is going to produce more farms to let. My noble friends have pointed out what the NFU has given up without getting what it wanted in its place. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has done a wonderful job for his organisation. It should be proud of him. I congratulate him on the manner he has gone about, quietly and efficiently, getting what he wanted. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has fought hard for his organisation but the cards were stacked against him. The landlord lobby was too strong for him.
  What about the main purpose of the Bill? I have heard or read a number of times, seen on television and been told personally, that the landlord-tenant system is something that we must protect and continue. It has become legion. Here, then, was a Bill in which there was a chance to do something. Many noble Lords opposite, as did the NFU, the agricultural press, the TFA and even the CLA, put their names to the chance that this Bill provided. But what will the Bill, in its present form, do to stop the decline in tenanted land that has continued since the end of the 1914–18 war?
  The Bill brings us virtually back to the 1948 Act and the 1958 Act which operated up to 1976. I have shown noble Lords previously the graph that I am now holding. I assure noble Lords that the graph which dates from 1948 is as accurate as I can make it based
  880
  on the figures available. The graph shows a straight line from 1920 all the way to 1976. I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether he agrees with it. The noble Lord has left this matter aside every time that I have mentioned it. He has never indicated that he agrees with the graph. In order to satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I have allowed for an insignificent hiccup between 1976 and 1982. Nevertheless, what has been done to alter the steady decline that has been taking place?
  I would ask noble Lords seriously what has been done to stop the decline that occurred during the period I mentioned and to which we are now going back. I should like to emphasise that point strongly. Frankly, I think that the answer is that practically nothing has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, instanced a few things that have been done in the Bill, but few of them will achieve anything. There is certainly nothing in Clause 1 unless landlords think that the wording is so vague that they believe that they can continue getting rents up every three years. They could do this before. They were able to do it between 1948 and 1976 when the law was the same.
  There are those—I think they are probably right—who say that, in some cases, the Bill may have the opposite effect and that if the NFU has got what it wanted, namely, more control over increases in rent, this may make landlords unwilling to let more land. You have a choice. In my opinion, Clause I will have neither effect.
  Clause 2 returns us to the pre-1976 position when, as I say, the decline was also taking place. What leads one to think that landlords will take any different view now from their view then? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in reply to an earlier debate, said that the present Government had created a climate of opinion among landlords that they had been better treated in the past by Conservative Administrations and would therefore be more willing to let farms. The noble Lord suggested that there were more farms to let last year than the year before and that this was due to the climate of opinion that had been created. However, my noble friend Lord Bishopston knocked the legs from under that contention when he pointed out that the new Act had not come into effect and might not come into effect for quite a while.
  What else has been done in the Bill? It has made provision for earlier retirement to allow a successor to take over. I believe that the effect will be very minimal. It might have been better if the noble Lord had accepted our amendment put recently by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. There will be minimal, if any, effect. To try and discover what else the Bill does to produce more tenancies, one can go down the list on the front of the Bill, as amended, and find from Clause 4 downwards useful changes to tidy up various other Acts. Not one of them really does anything to produce more tenancies.
  I would prefer to ask what the Bill has not done. It has done nothing that will definitely produce more tenancies. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, put forward a scheme that would definitely have kept land in the tenanted sector. It was turned down. My noble friend Lord Northfield put forward a scheme to give the Crown Estate some powers to get more land into the

  881
  tenanted sector. My noble friend admitted that the effect might be minimal. Again, however, the suggestion was turned down. We had an amendment rejected to stop institutions taking land out of the tenanted sector. That is happening at an alarming rate. I quoted the figures in Committee. We got short shrift as we say in the north-east of Scotland.
  We tried to retain succession. Whatever else noble Lords may think, this keeps land tenanted. We supported the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, on his plea for a plan that would have helped a little. Again, the effect would have been minimal, but it all adds up. Not one of these amendments did the Government accept. It makes me wonder whether the Government really care about the tenanted sector and whether the sentence in the gracious Speech was simply a cloak for producing a Bill that would get rid of the almost pathological objections of the Government's noble friends to succession. I do not know what will happen to the Bill in another place. For all that we have achieved here on the so-called main objective of the Bill, we might as well have handed it over to the other place three months ago and not wasted our time.
  5.18 p.m.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords. I nearly cried over the references to wasted time. My noble kinsman is, I think, making too much of the Government's intentions. I agree with what they have done in the Bill hut, as I said on Second Reading, it is only a small step forward. I give the Government at least credit for trying to take an agreed step forward. They have not used retrospective legislation to produce further examples of the see-saw achieved by the two ruling parties since the end of the war. Those parties must take the responsibility for the mess that now exists.
  The Bill itself is useful. From the point of view of the tenant farmer, the sensible and fair conditions for arbitration will he very useful as farming faces a very difficult future. I have no doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will be disappointed by the rents that he is able to obtain for his clients. Without doubt, the climate will not be so favourable as it has been over the past 10 years. I welcome therefore the arbitration proposals. It is only right to look at my noble kinsman's graph. There is some chance, I believe, that it may be improved. If you leave the three generation succession in the Bill, then no landlord except an extremely noble landlord will think of throwing his control and his cash away in giving a fresh tenancy, whereas there is a good chance of him doing so if it is for one generation and to one tenant.
  However, the Bill is a step forward. If it is to succeed in its objective, then the Government will have to remove some of the fiscal anomalies which exist between let land and owner-occupied land. That would assist the Bill greatly. But of course that is not the province of this House. I hope that the Government realise that the only real hope of making the Bill work as regards its objective of getting more tenanted land would be to remove some of these anomalies.
  I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted certain amendments. Some of them were not major amendments, but they would have been useful. However, on the whole, the Government have been
  882
  fairly co-operative, except of course over the ludicrous provision for the appointment of the arbitrator, which I suppose they have retained from the point of view that, if one is going to be reasonable about some things, it makes one feel better if one is wholly unreasonable and stupid about one factor.
  However, apart from that, this is a useful Bill. It does not contain anything like the number of provisions that I should like to see it contain. But I do not think that we should quibble too much when it is a step which might well—and I go no further than that—improve the position as regards the availability of tenanted land. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead—even when he was being most unreasonable about the appointment of the arbitrator—has always clothed his unreasonableness in a very charming manner.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, in view of the differences of opinion that this Bill has caused, I now realise why my right honourable friend Mr. Peter Walker was not anxious to introduce this Bill, even though he was promised three years ago that there was no dispute. I think that my noble friend Lord Belstead is saying. "Yes".
  I am, therefore, surprised that—despite remarks made by my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Jopling that agreement reached between the parties must be upheld—Clause I (the main plank of the Bill so far as I am concerned) has been changed. It has not been changed to break faith or, indeed, to alter the philosophies—and I cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie there—except, possibly, as regards the omission of the words, "earning capacity". However, as regards that, I have had a very helpful answer from my noble friend Lord Belstead this afternoon. I know that Clause 1 will be examined very carefully in another place before it returns to us.
  I hope also that the problem of retirement for the new tenant will he looked at again. I do not think that your Lordships—and I in particular—have done justice to this problem. I know that the matter is fraught with problems, most of them human problems, and I realise that compulsory retirement gives the National Farmers' Union great problems. I was interested and surprised to hear that it also gave similar shivers down the back of my noble friend Lord Middleton. I realise that I am a maverick in this matter so far as both the NFU and the CLA are concerned, but that is the great privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House.
  Having disagreed with practically every-one—particularly all my noble kinsmen—at some stage or other during the Bill, I should like to thank noble Lords, and my noble friend Lord Belstead in particular for appearing to be so patient, humorous and tolerant in giving such careful answers to me, even though I did not like some of them very much.
  Lord Northfield: My Lords, I should like to echo the words of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who has been extremely courteous to us all not only in the Chamber but outside and in private meetings. I have said before that I do not recall Ministers being quite so courteous before and he has excelled in that direction. I am also grateful to him for what he said about

  883
  introducing in another place the rules concerning eligibility, which are extremely important and which he has not yet been able quite finally to draft in response to my amendment.
  I should like also to say "thank you" on behalf of the members of my committee. The dust was blown off our report and it came in useful on all manner of occasions. A number of our recommendations have been implemented, particularly those concerning retirement, rights of succession and even—and I come to it now—the recommendation about getting as near to the market as we can. I say no more than that. We dragged the Minister from the jaws of socialism back to the market, and it is rather nice to have that achievement behind us at this stage of the Bill.
  I hope, in that respect, that nobody will actually finely read the Bill if it goes through in its present form. If they get to the fine print they will encounter the point that we were arguing about earlier about arbitrations being extremely difficult and acrimonious over the meaning of "appreciable scarcity". In such circumstances I hope that, as happens now, arbitrators will use their common sense and use the Bill only as a guideline, and that the Bill will be forgotten as regards its small print and the dangers that it could cause.
  There are two matters about which I am very upset and which we have found in recent weeks could contribute in a direction contrary to the intentions of the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord John-Mackie that the Bill will have very little effect on the number of tenancies. But there are two matters that will have an effect in the contrary sense and one of them was announced during the course of the debates. We know that 10 per cent. of land is under institutional and public sector ownership. I will not give the figures, but Government departments, local authorities, Crown and religious institutions, conservation authorities, financial institutions and so on, together own 10 per cent. This is a very important bedrock of the tenanted sector—very important indeed. It is the foundation for keeping a reasonable tenanted sector throughout agriculture. But during the course of the debate it was announced that the Government intend to sell off their tenanted sector to owner-occupiers. It really is a bit much to come before the House and say, "We want to preserve the tenanted sector, but we shall lead the way as the Government by doing the exact opposite". It is very hard for us to stomach that.
  Secondly, we saw that on Monday in The Times there was an announcement that one county authority is planning to sell 15,000 acres possibly to owner-occupiers. But again there is no Government guidance that the better thing to do is to sell the land to an institution that will keep it in the tenanted sector as one block. How much better a solution that would have been! Moreover—and this is going in the same direction—when we pressed the Minister to say that he would give guidance to local authorities in this matter, he said, "We can't interfere with local government any more". We felt heartbroken for him in view of how far the Government have gone in that matter.
  It is rather hard to have a Government saying that they want to preserve the tenanted sector, but leading
  884
  the troops in the opposite direction as regards these two vital matters. There are these 15,000 acres under Government control and we suggested that they could have been handed over to the Crown Estates Commissioners and formed the basis for putting another extra rung in the ladder of farming opportunity. Now those acres are going to be sold off to owner-occupiers. What a tragedy! It is not a very good start for this Bill, as much as we congratulate the noble Lord on the way in which he has handled it in the House.
  Lord Middleton: My Lords, I did not plan to speak, but the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has just paid me some compliments for which I thank him. However, I am not sure that I am too happy about them, because I must say to your Lordships that I do not accept in any way whatever that I have been trying, during the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House, to undermine the common view that was reached by our industry as a whole as to how to rescue the landlord/tenant system and the recommendations that were made by the industry to Government. If I have done anything during the passage of this Bill, I have endeavoured to increase their effectiveness.
  5.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for all the time and trouble that he has taken in listening to, and in some cases accepting, my amendments. We have not agreed on everything and I should like to see some further amendments, a matter which I shall pursue. However, the parts of the Bill which I disliked are a great deal better and a great deal more workable than the original parts that were given a Second Reading in this Chamber. That is due largely to his efforts and to those of my noble kinsman Lord Swinton. Landlords and tenants—in fact, the whole of agriculture—have cause to be grateful to them.
  The Bill has given us the opportunity to discuss many of the points raised in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and doubtless in more detail than he thought possible at one time. We are all grateful to him for his very considerable help and experience. I hope that, whatever the divisions that have been caused in the past few months within the industry as a result of this Bill's parentage, they will soon be healed; but it will take movement on all sides. Those involved will have to sway some very entrenched opinion, and I particularly draw to the attention of the House the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, referred earlier. There are far too many other pressures on farming, and for those involved not to provide a more united front will only exacerbate the situation.
  Finally, let us spare a thought for those who have to implement this legislation—the surveyors. Much has been said about them and perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, my old friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, and any other Doubting Thomases with the words spoken by Winston Churchill in 1932, but which are equally applicable today:
  "A love of justice and equity and a firm resolve to deal with every issue on its true merits, without fear, favour or affection, are inseparable from the rightful discharge of a surveyor's duty.".
  Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench on his courtesy and doggedness in handling this Bill and to thank him for three things. First, I should like to thank him for rating me up to the rank of Viscount—it was unexpected recognition at an unexpected moment—and to thank him on behalf of those of us who sought to persuade him that this was a good moment to modify this legislation so that it allowed agriculture to have more regard for conservation, both as regards estate management practised by the landlord and as regards the husbandry as practised by the tenant farmer.
  At various stages in the Bill I have suggested to my noble friend that the same recognition is due to the importance which both the landlord and the farmer should attach to the value of diversifying the enterprise on the farm into other things besides purely production of food. Since the last stage I have had a further meeting with my noble friend and I am encouraged to hope that that is a matter which might he dealt with in another place. I am most grateful to my noble friend.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, very briefly, I should like to thank your Lordships for your words on the conclusion of this Bill. I acknowledge the value of the experience which your Lordships' House has to give to a Bill of this kind. Perhaps it is best exemplified by the fact that at one moment during the lengthy debates of the House on this Bill I counted no fewer than eight former Ministers of Agriculture in the House. Of course, throughout the whole of the proceedings we have had the benefit of the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, whose report has been so important to this matter over the past few years, but in particular to the proceedings in your Lordships' House. The Government Front Bench count themselves fortunate to have the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie, Lord Bishopston and Lord Prys-Davies, opposing, because the opposition is always tough but it is always self-evidently fair.
  Very briefly, I would just make these points in answer to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. I believe that real benefits will flow from this Bill for tenants as for landlords. The fact that the three-generation succession will not apply to new tenancies in the future is a provision which is fair, and it will be a direct encouragement to new lettings in the future. I believe that the ending of multiple succession will mean that more tenancies are likely to become available. I also believe that the arrangements for five-year starter tenancies, which we are providing for by administrative arrangement coincidentally with the passing of this Bill when it goes to another place and when it becomes law, will be to the benefit of tenants. I believe that the greater encouragement for voluntary retirement through the extension of the inter vivos succession arrangements will also help tenants to feel that there will be a greater turnaround of tenancies. I think that a more satisfactory rent formula, clearly designed to reflect arbitrators' current practice, is contrary to the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, referred, is substantially a reflection of the agreement which was reached between the NFU and the CLA, and is a sensible and fair formula, as the
  886
  noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who has been so extremely helpful and constructive on this Bill, very kindly said.
  The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me a direct question. He produced that formidable document—the graph—which he has had about him during the past few months and asked: did it or did it not represent the exact truth? Well, not exactly, my Lords. I am advised that the decline in the tenanted sector has been much greater in the past seven years since the 1976 Act than it was in the seven years prior to that Act. I think the noble Lord and I would agree that this must stop. I believe that, with the very realistic capital transfer tax relief which has been provided by the Government during the past three years, with the low rate of inflation which we have now achieved, which is of benefit to both sides of the industry, and with the provisions of the Bill, we have a better prospect for the future for more tenancies. In that hope and in that belief I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  Ullapool Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
  Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
  5.39 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords. I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD JACQUES in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 [Proscribed organizations]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Mishcon: In passing from the peace of' the countryside to the horrors of the happenings in some of the cities throughout the world, as a preliminary I should like to make three points. The first one relates generally to all the amendments with which my noble friends and I are concerned. It is this: it must be accepted now at this stage of the Bill that an Act of this kind is necessary. All of us regret it. All of us regret the departure from our normal standards of criminal justice and the procedures which normally apply. But Parliament has spoken, and in those circumstances all of us in contributing to the Committee stage of this Bill and its later stages must accept that extraordinary legislation as a matter of principle is necessary. The only purpose of the amendments with which my noble

  887
  friends and I are concerned will be to see whether we can minimise the trespass upon those normal principles of our criminal law and procedure. Not one of the amendments is intended as a wrecking amendment to this Bill.
  The second point I want to make is this. We have considered that Part II of the Bill is one of the exceptions to our normal law and procedure so extraordinary that the justification for it has not been made out, and therefore we have put down, as your Lordships will see on the Marshalled List before you, various requests, if that is the right word, that Clauses 3 to 9 do not stand part of the Bill. The sensible thing to do—and I have the advantage that the noble Lord the Minister is a most sensible and reasonable person, and I hope he thinks the same of me on the other side of the Dispatch Boxes—is to have one debate on the whole of Clauses 3 to 9, because the whole purpose of all that is before you in regard to Clauses 3 to 9 is that Part II should not be part of this Bill. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that there will not be nine separate debates.
  The last point I want to make is only so that I address your Lordships with, I hope, logic and clarity: it is that Clause 7 of the Bill gives certain minimal advantages to the person who is the subject of the exclusion order. From the point of view of tidiness, since I am asking that Clauses 3 to 9 do not stand part of the Bill, I have obviously had to include Clause 7. But if the Committee were to decide that Part II of the Bill remains, the last thing in the world I would want to do is to remove Clause 7 from the Bill. Your Lordships will understand that subject to the decision which is made upon Clause 3 of the Bill, I shall not be moving by any manner of means, if indeed the conclusion is that Part II stand part of the Bill, that, Clause 7 should be excluded.
  May I now turn to the whole purpose of my address to your Lordships. It is, I suppose, best done by referring at once to the report of Lord Jellicoe which was entitled The Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, which was copiously referred to on the Second Reading of this Bill. I want to pay tribute to him at once. Nobody could have been more careful in trying to examine all the arguments that had to be advanced and considered in regard to the painful provisions of this Bill if the enactments were to be continued as it is now suggested, and he suggested, they should be.
  Lord Elton: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord's flow and I hope it does not interrupt his continuity of ideas. I wonder whether he is now embarking on his case on Clause 3 stand part, on the whole of Part II? We have not disposed of Part I yet. It is a pure formality and will take seconds. We are addressing ourselves to the Question that Clause I stand part of the Bill. I think the noble Lord is beginning to make his case against Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. If I am wrong, I unreservedly apologise for interrupting the noble Lord.
  Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord the Minister is absolutely right. Having explained to the Committee what my procedure will be when we come to it, I must
  888
  now wait until it is put to the Committee that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for stopping me when he did.
  Lord Wigoder: Might I from these Benches express our total admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the great skill with which he has disguised the simple fact that his colleagues in another place fought the whole of this Bill tooth and nail, and eventually voted against it on Third Reading, in a manner which we are bound to say was not conducive to the defeat of terrorism.
  Lord Monson: May I make a Committee stage point on subsection (4) of Clause 1 of this Bill? Would the Minister be so kind as to explain why it is only organisations concerned in terrorism and connected with Northern Ireland which may be proscribed by the Secretary of State by order? What about terrorism connected with Scotland, Wales, or the Middle East, for example?
  Lord Elton: It is I think right that I should address myself first to the consummately clear and concise introduction to this debate by the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, rightly observed, would appear to be a march starting from somewhere other than where his party was in another place some time ago. I welcome the fact that he now agrees that an Act of this sort is very regrettable but very necessary, because that is our position too. He has now said that his every effort and those of his colleagues will be bent to trying to minimise the trespass on the normal procedures of law. That is a proper function of this House, and one in which Her Majesty's Government have been extensively engaged in drafting the Bill now before your Lordships.
  I am entirely content with the way of dealing with Part II that the noble Lord suggests. It is sensible to have one debate rolling up all the issues in it. I am glad to notice that even in that bath water the noble Lord discerns a small baby in Clause 7 which he would not want to throw out.
  Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as to nationalism of other kinds than Irish nationalism, I can only say that experience so far has made it clear that they are neither as powerful nor as lethal as those towards which this Bill is directed. Here I can join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in saying that we wish to minimise the interference with the liberties of the individual subject as far as we can. These are British subjects and we do not think that they should at present be proscribed. As to the Middle East, of course they are not British subjects, and I fear that different considerations there apply which would make it inappropriate to include them in this legislation.
  Lord Mishcon: I had hoped that I had not got to rise again before we got to the meat of the Committee stage. How unfortunate it is that, when we are deliberating serious matters of this kind, certain politicians have had to justify their existence by endeavouring to make political points. I thought I had made the position abundantly clear at Second Reading. I do not want to repeat to your Lordships my Second Reading speech. It would be completely unfeeling of me if I did.

  889
  I then spelt out the reasons which had actuated my right honourable and honourable friends in another place in thinking that it was about time, as a result of experience—terrorism not unfortunately having ceased and previous Acts not having done very much to minimise terrorism—that this incursion upon our normal law should cease. I said then that it was a view that was a perfectly honourable view to put forward.
  What I said to the Committee on this occasion—and I made it abundantly clear—was that Parliament had spoken, because, not only in another place but in this place as a result of the debate, the principle was carried at Second Reading. In those circumstances, I, being the democrat that I am, and my noble friends, being the democrats that they are, accepted that the principle must now be that it is necessary to have such a Bill. If my noble friend Lord Wigoder gets pleasure out of making a party point, I am the last person in the world to deprive him of that pleasure and in those circumstances I shall now sit down and wait to get on, as I hope he will, with the real matters that concern your Lordships.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Exclusion orders: general]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Mishcon: And so we move to the real business of the Committee and its real duty tonight, which is to consider Part II of this Bill.
  I was saying, before the noble Lord the Minister so thoughtfully caused me to realise that I was not procedurally correct, that the sensible thing for me to do, in my view, is to put the case against my argument so that I am being completely and absolutely fair in dealing with it. As I was saying before, one cannot think of doing better than quoting from the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, whose review of the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act we considered very carefully at Second Reading. He was keen to look at all the arguments which were against the idea of continuing exclusion orders and exclusion provisions in the Bill which amounted to internal exile—a matter which is foreign to our law and to the whole of our tradition. I am reading from page 68 of his report, where he says this:
  "It is difficult to generalise about these cases, but there are some points on which all those who have administered the system are unanimous, and with which, from my own examination, I agree. First, there have undoubtedly been cases where exclusion has rid Great Britain of dangerous terrorists. Second, in a number of cases—not necessarily the same—terrorists have found their effectiveness in general substantially impaired by the fact that they were no longer able to travel legally between Northern Ireland and the mainland, or between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. Third, although in a number of such cases there has been no room for doubt as to the terrorist sympathies and activities of those concerned, the form and sensitivity of the case against them has been such that no other means have been available of dealing with them. I am not saying that all successful applications for exclusion are illustrations of these three points".
  It is fair to say that the noble Earl, as one would expect of him, having considered the matter carefully, had decided that there were these three advantages and in those circumstances that Part II ought to be in this Bill and exclusion orders ought to remain.
  890
  Again I quote the noble Earl so that we may all see what he had in his mind and what, I say with respect, your Lordships ought to have in your minds. I quote from paragraph 175 on the same page:
  "I have found consideration of the system of exclusion to be the most difficult part of my task. It is in many ways the most extreme of the Act's powers: in its effect on civil liberties, it is in my view more severe than any other power in the Act; in its procedure and principles it departs more thoroughly from the normal criminal process than any other part of the Act; it has aroused substantial resentment even among many, particularly in Northern Ireland, who support the aims and content of the remainder of the legislation; it has led to criticism of the United Kingdom in the international fora on human rights; its value is difficult to demonstrate in a convincing way, both for reasons of security and because it is the most essentially preventive part of the Act; and yet those ministers and police officers who have operated the system are convinced that exclusion has on occasion saved lives throughout the United Kingdom".
  I do not think that I could put the case better than the noble Earl did in those words. Therefore, one has to look against that background to see whether there can possibly be any justification for continuing with the process of exclusion orders. I would just mention the six terrible disadvantages that a person against whom this part of the Bill operates suffers. First, he has no right to know why the order has been made. Secondly, he has no right to know the evidence against him. Thirdly, he has no right to cross-examine anyone. Fourthly, he has no right of trial or formal hearing. Fifthly, when he does make representations—as he is entitled to do under the provisions of the Bill—he does not know what it is that he is making representations about except that he should not be excluded from his home, a home that he may have had for less than three years, which is the provision now in the Bill. He has no right to know on what basis the representations that he makes are successful or unsuccessful. Lastly, he has no right of appeal.
  I suppose the first thing one has to do against all those six terrible disadvantages, quite apart from the complete distortion of a person's private and family life that an exclusion order may mean—an exclusion order that can go on for three years and then be renewed after the three years—is to consider what the figures are that one is dealing with. These are the figures since the 1974 Act came into force. I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will correct me if my figures are wrong, but I understand that there have been a total of 295 exclusion orders made in Great Britain, as a result of which 234 people have been removed from Britain to Northern Ireland, 37 of them being removed to the Republic of Ireland. Of the 234 people removed to Northern Ireland, only 52 have ever subsequently been charged with any offence. In Northern Ireland, seven people have been excluded from Britain and 17 from the United Kingdom as a whole. I am dealing now with a period of 10 years. Are we entitled to subject human beings to this sort of treatment—with the six disadvantages that I have spoken of, advantages which in our criminal law are accorded to the worst felons? Are we really entitled to do this with figures of this kind as to the total number of people involved up to date? Consideration of that figure shows what a small proportion has ever been charged with any offences at all. I repeat that it is 50-odd out of 270-odd.
  One would have thought the evidence against anyone who had been subjected to an exclusion

  891
  order—and it was the Secretary of State who made it—would be so conclusive and so monumental that obviously some kind of charge would have been bound to follow. One wonders whether it would not be wise to say that if there is this evidence of contact with terrorism, surely it is even better to keep those people under observation rather than to exclude them to a part of the United Kingdom or to Northern Ireland, where one imagines that they would not be able to be in any communication at all with those with whom it is said they have been in association for terrorist activities.
  I ought to end what I am saying to the Committee by quoting somebody whom your Lordships in recent months have come to know and respect as a Member of this House but for whom, I believe, your Lordships would have had an affection and admiration for him as a parliamentarian when he was in another place. I am talking of my noble friend, Lord Fitt. If ever there was a person who has been subjected to terrorist threats and who has behaved so courageously, it is the noble Lord. Lord Fitt. I am sorry that he is not in the Committee at this moment.
  Noble Lords: He is here!
  Lord Mishcon: I am so glad that the noble Lord is hearing what I have said about him. I hope that he will be able to take part in this debate. I had not realised that he was present. But, as I was saying, if ever anyone had suffered from threats of terrorists, he has; and if anyone has ever courageously opposed the terrorists, he has. And he has spoken time and time again—and, certainly, in the debate when a review of this legislation was suggested—and he has come out completely against this part of the Act. I hope that your Lordships will have the privilege and pleasure of hearing him in the course of this debate.
  I do not think that I can usefully say any more except to repeat what I have said at the outset. This is not a matter—and I must say it in fairness—to which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, did not give the most intense consideration. But there is no doubt about it at all that his description of the powers under this part of the Act shows that we are entitled to differ from him in his conclusions although in his premises this is the most terrible part that we have to inflict in regard to an invasion of civil liberties. We can take that for granted and we can accept it and it is no disrespect to him if we come to a different conclusion.
  6.4 p.m.
  Lord Denning: I ask your Lordships to keep this clause in the Bill. I have had some experience of the conflict which arises from time to time in our society between the freedom of the individual, on the one hand, and our national security, on the other; by which I mean the security of the lives of ordinary law-abiding citizens. I experienced this conflict during the last war when we had the regulations under Regulation 18B on which the Secretary of State, if it appeared to him that a person should be of hostile associations, could be detained. It was my task in those years to be a legal adviser and I saw Sir Norman Birkett and other young rising King's Counsel of the
  892
  time. It was my task to be a legal adviser, to advise the Secretary of State whether a man should be interned or not. I remember there was a Nazi parson and we were afraid that he would shelter parachutists coming from Germany. I interviewed him and I decided and recommended to the Home Secretary that he should be detained. The Bishop of Ripon protested vigorously.
  The inquiry which we had had to be secret, it had to be quite confidential; but we did put the case to him so that he could answer, put his views forward and we could understand and go through it. But we did put the case to him and we acted as much judicially as we possibly could, consistently with the security of the state. That was my experience in that war with Regulation 18B, with detention without trial, detention on suspicion, while doing everything we could to give the accused man or detained man a right to speak on his own behalf.
  The next occasion was when I was a judge, and we had the case of Mark Hosenball. He had been in this country for many years. He had come from Ireland, had been at Trinity College, Dublin, but he was a United States citizen. The Secretary of State then decided that his presence here was not conducive to the public good, and he ordered Mark Hosenball to be excluded. It is quite true that there was an inquiry, I think it was a tribunal, and the case could not be put in full to Mark Hosenball for this reason. Once he was told the sources of the information, even if he was just told the information itself, he or others would be able to get at them, and injure—or may be worse—those sources of information. So the whole case could not be put to Mark Hosenball. There were great protests in some circles at the decision of the Secretary of State. It came before the Lord Chief Justice, (then Lord Widgery), and it came before us in the Court of Appeal and I hope and think that we decided rightly.
  There are occasions in times of great emergency when the freedom of the individual—or, as I say, the requirement of natural justice—has to take second place to the security of the realm, to the security of the lives of ordinary people going about their business. There are such circumstances but only in time of great emergency. And a decision on it we held—and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and others always held—is not for the courts of law, it is not a judicial inquiry; it is for the Secretary of State who himself is answerable to Parlaiment for the exercise of these powers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he inquired into Northern Ireland affairs, came to that conclusion. So does my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, because it is not a judicial matter at all.
  It is a matter for the security of the State. The Secretary of State has information that no tribunal could see—information from the police, information from intelligence sources, information of all kinds, which cannot be made known to that individual without risk to others. So, in those circumstances, the rules of natural justice have to be put aside for the moment, the freedom of the individual has to be put aside for the moment, because there is a higher interest at stake and that is the security of the state—or, as I would put it—the security of the lives of ordinary individuals.

  893
  We had the case before us of those Birmingham bombers, when they planted their bombs and killed, I think, 26 people and injured 79 more. They were caught by our police force and our detectives. They got on the train on the way north to get the boat; they were intercepted by our detectives just as they were going on to the boat to go to Northern Ireland. They were brought back and tried, as your Lordships will know.
  So there they are, coming from Northern Ireland and committing outrages such as the one at Birmingham. Perhaps I may add at this point that this is not an out-of-date problem. We have had the Harrods bombing since and the police have said it was the work of the IRA. Are not the perils and the emergencies still with us? Is this not a case where the security of the lives of ordinary law-abiding citizens must be protected so far as we can? My noble friend Lord Jellicoe had far more information than we have. He had information from the police and intelligence services—far more than we have—as to the extent of the danger and the extent of the emergency. He comes to the conclusion (with reluctance, as he says) that, at all events for the time being, this power of exclusion should remain, subject to safeguard. And it is no mean safeguard. It is only stopping the individual from coming on a visit, if he is ordinarily resident there and comes on a visit.
  But at any rate my noble friend comes to the conclusion that the situation is still so extreme that this power of exclusion and these emergency powers should remain, subject to the safeguard. Go to an adviser—he will be a lawyer; and I am sure that if you have a lawyer of distinction examining these cases he will do, so far as possible, everything that is just, and the exclusion order will only be maintained when it is proper to do so for the security of the state. In all these circumstances, I would go by the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who thinks that this exclusion power should be retained, at all events for the time being. Let it be reviewed time after time if need be, but let it be retained for the moment.
  Lord Wigoder: We on these Benches cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his noble friends in their attempt to remove exclusion orders from the provisions of this Bill because, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, we believe that the findings of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, each in their turn, are really quite incontrovertible. That is to say, there have been occasions and there are likely to be more occasions where the power to make exclusion orders can serve to limit the effects of terrorism.
  Having said that, may I say that of course we accept some of the hardships that are inevitably caused by the making of exclusion orders such as those described by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon? We are very much aware of the personal difficulties that may arise for the individuals involved and also of the difficulties in community relations in Northern Ireland, and as between Northern Ireland and this country.
  However, although we are driven to the conclusion that it is right that the power to make exclusion orders should continue, I want to add that we on these Benches are not entirely happy that the Government have followed the spirit of the report of the noble Earl,
  894
  Lord Jellicoe. I draw attention to two particular passages in that report. The first is at page 77, paragraph 200, where Lord Jellicoe says:
  "I have concluded, albeit with some reluctance, that for the present at least a residual power to exclude must remain. I believe that the need for it is likely to decline still further, and that it should be allowed to lapse as soon as it is no longer considered strictly necessary".
  Then on page 69 the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, says this:
  "My conclusion is that the power to exclude should remain available to the Secretary of State in extreme cases; that its severity should he mitigated in the way I suggest below"—
  that part has been accepted—
  "and the possibility of abolishing it should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers."
  I am doubtful whether the Bill, as drafted, really gives effect to the weight of those recommendations, because what we are asked to approve in the Bill is that in essence exclusion orders will be in force for a further period of five years, with no possibility of periodical review except for the passing of some order which it is quite beyond the power of either House to amend.
  It is for that reason—and I do not want to anticipate any later debate—that various noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and myself, have put down amendments. First, Nos. 12 and 13 would provide for a body which could review the working of this Act, particularly in relation to exclusion orders, and report annually to Parliament on the Act's operation. In the second place, our Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 attempt to secure that the Government lay separate orders, certainly so far as Part II of this Bill is concerned, which would enable both Houses of Parliament to consider whether the powers of exclusion should be renewed or not.
  I believe that the combination of those amendments is very much more in the spirit of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations than the Bill as it stands; and before there is any Division, if there is to be one on this matter, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, whether he is able to make any encouraging noises—and nobody is more skilled at doing so than he is—as to the reaction which will greet these amendments when they are moved at a later stage during the Committee proceedings. If encouraging noises are to be forthcoming, we on these Benches, without hesitation, would support the renewal of the power to make exclusion orders in Part II of this Bill. Unless some sort of encouragement is given, then without wanting in any way to adopt the stance adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I am bound to say that we shall have serious reservations as to whether the Government are carrying out the spirit of the recommendations of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
  Lord Somers: I must confess that, when I looked through this list of amendments, I felt a sense of surprise that there seem to be so many in your Lordships' Committee who are anxious to preserve the rights and the comforts of the wrongdoer and who, in doing so, completely forget those of the law-abiding and innocent man.
  I have listened with great respect, of course, to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says. I always do, because I know that he is no fanatic on this subject. He referred to interference with civil liberties. But how

  895
  about the interference with the civil liberties of the innocent person who is damaged by the criminal? How about all those innocent persons who lost their lives outside Harrods a short time ago, including one very brave policeman? I must pause here for a moment to say how very proud we should be of having one of the finest and bravest police forces in the world.
  I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that, when possible, a man should know what he is being excluded for and why. I feel that is only fair, although sometimes it may not be possible. But the point is: do we really want to protect our innocent population or do we not? After all, when you put a man in prison you are interfering with his civil liberties, and the point of extreme importance to me is the protection of the law-abiding citizen, the preservation of peace and the well-being of the country.
  6.20 p.m.
  Lord Fitt: I want to say at the outset that I lend my full support to my noble friend Lord Mischon in opposing these clauses and asking for these amendments to be accepted. In doing so, I do not think it is necessary for me to make clear, once again, my total and unremitting opposition to the IRA and all its consorts. Let me say at the beginning that I totally object to what has been said within the past 48 hours by an honourable lady Member of another place, that the IRA are freedom fighters. The IRA are nothing of the sort. They are the greatest scourge of terrorists and murderers that we have ever seen on the soil of Ireland.
  But having said that, and as one who was born in 1926 in Northern Ireland, I have lived all my life under emergency legislation. The Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) was put on the statute book in 1922 and it was there for 50 years until it was taken off the statute book by the Conservative Government in 1972. One cannot say, that, throughout all those years, that Act was successful in preventing terrorism in Northern Ireland. I know how that Act was used against a minority population who happened to be in political opposition to a succession of Unionist governments, and those draconian powers were used on each and every occasion when it appeared that the Unionist party's domination in Northern Ireland was about to be challenged.
  When that Act was taken off the statute book in 1972, it was replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism (Emergency Provisions) Act and I am the first to concede that it was necessary, in many ways, to have that type of legislation—though not in its totality, because I have had occasion in another place to oppose that Act when it came before Parliament. Again, I concede that the people who were responsible for the Prevention of Terrorism (Emergency Provisions) Act were the people who set off the dreadful bombs in Birmingham in 1974 and carried out that terrible atrocity. But may I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that the police were successful in apprehending and convicting those who were responsible for that dreadful murder, without that Act. It was only later on that that Act was put on the statute book, but the police were able to detain
  896
  those people who were trying to leave the country after the commission of that terrible murderous deed.
  Not all those who were convicted came from Northern Ireland to commit that act. Some of them, much to their eternal shame, had actually been living in this country for some years, and yet found it possible to set off bombs in the city in which they had been living, which killed many people whom they must have known.
  The most objectionable part of this legislation has always been the power of exclusion. One must remember that, when the Bill first came before Parliament, there was no provision for excluding people from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. It was only at the insistence of a Unionist Member of Parliament that that was then included. It was said that if it was right to exclude someone from England, Scotland or Wales to Northern Ireland, then it must also he right to exclude someone from Northern Ireland and, eventually, the Government of the day accepted that reasoning.
  On exclusions, I have had to deal with a dozen cases on which I have made representations to a succession of Home Secretaries. I know that this is no answer to the problem, but if had thought for a single second that there was the slightest doubt that any of those people were involved, I should have had no hesitation in telling them: "No, I am not going to make representations on your behalf."
  Since the murderous troubles broke out in Northern Ireland, I have said that at the risk of losing elections. People came to my constituency surgery or advice centre and asked me to make representations on behalf of either themselves or their relatives, and if I had the slightest suspicion I said, "No, you have not convinced me that you are not involved in terrorism, and I shall not make any representations". I have lost votes by taking that attitude, but I have lost them in an honourable way, because I would not have wanted votes cast for me by people who in anyway supported terrorism in Northern Ireland. On the dozen or so cases about which I made representations to the Home Secretaries, I have yet to be convinced that those persons were in any way involved in terrorism.
  If you agree about exclusion orders you must be consistent, and I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said. He said that those who take the decision to exclude a person have at their disposal evidence which is not available to anyone else—from the police, from the arresting authority and from all the other people involved; and the Home Secretary himself must be convinced. We are told that the Home Secretary looks at the evidence placed before him and then signs his name to the granting of an exclusion order. I have always had doubts about whether the Home Secretary was able to look at all those individual cases.
  But let us accept for the moment that the Home Secretary looks at all those individual cases and is convinced that there is reason to exclude a person. This happens in England, Scotland or Wales. That person is excluded to Northern Ireland where there is a real hotbed of terrorism; where it is known that there will be a larger pool in which the IRA can swim—I speak exclusively of the IRA—where he will be given

  897
  protection, when he would not be given protection in the more law-abiding parts of the United Kingdom.
  So you are sending a potential terrorist from a law-abiding part of the United Kingdom into an area where he is liable to have many more friends, and where he will be given protection by the community which supports the political philosophy of the IRA. So you are making it more likely that he will engage in acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. As one who has lived his lifetime in Northern Ireland it would be unfair, to say the least, and a washing of one's hands to say. "There is the possibility that he is committing acts of terrorism here and he may commit them in Belfast, but at least he will not be committing them here". That would be a very unfair attitude to take against any citizens of the United Kingdom.
  Let me come to a notable case about which I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will agree with me. A succession of Secretaries of State in Great Britain—I suppose on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and with evidence of the police in Northern Ireland—thought it was right to put an exclusion order on a Mr. Gerry Adams. They had all the evidence at their disposal, which has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. So there was justification in their minds for excluding Mr. Adams from Great Britain, on the grounds that he had been involved in propagating terrorism. Then Mr. Adams fought an election. By a combination of very unusual circumstances Mr. Adams was elected and became Member of Parliament for Belfast West. And the Home Secretary revoked the exclusion order. Was he entitled to do so?
  Mr. Adams, a potential terrorist on 8th June and a danger to the security of this country, was found on 10th June when the votes were cast to have a majority and therefore to be no longer a danger to this country. I cannot accept that reasoning. Mr. Adams was a source of support then and still is a source of support to the IRA terrorist organisation. If it was right that he should have been excluded before that date by the Home Secretary it is right that he should be excluded now.
  There are many ways in which you can support terrorism. It is supported not only by misguided young people who are sometimes led into acts of terrorism and set off bombs, fire rifles and get themselves killed—as happened only 48 hours ago in Northern Ireland. The present shooting war was begun by the IRA in 1969. Those two young men who lost their lives in a totally wrong way within the past 48 hours and who were, I accept, terrorists were only 10 or 11 years of age in 1969. It is an indication of the terrible history of Northern Ireland that when the civil rights agitation began in 1969 those two young men were schoolboys. They have now given their lives, rightly or wrongly, for the cause of IRA terrorism.
  There are many ways in which IRA terrorism can be supported. There are people in this country who make speeches in support of Sinn Fein. There are elected Members of another place and some Members of this House who go to Sinn Fein meetings and tell the Sinn Feiners that they believe that the IRA is a patriotic army fighting for the freedom of Ireland. But those people cannot be excluded because they live in this
  898
  country. Newspapers are circulating in this country at the moments which, given that we accept the freedom of the press, are Irish based and intended to be circulated among the Irish community. I disagree with some of their editorials, which can only be tantamount to giving support to Sinn Fein. And those people are not subject to exclusion orders. You do not have to set off bombs or fire Armalite rifles; there are many ways in which you can give support to the IRA.
  I go very firmly down the road of my noble friend Lord Mishcon who pointed out the six disadvantages or six disabilities which face anybody who is arrested and excluded. The whole system is absolutely contrary to every tenet of British justice as we have known it to exist in this country for over a thousand years. I know that exclusion orders are counter-productive. Having lived in Belfast throughout the past 10 tragic years and having listened to and read IRA propaganda, I know that they were always able to point at the exclusion orders. For the IRA this is one of the main facets of the Prevention of Terrorism (Emergency Provisions) Act. I found it difficult to argue against them on this point. Time and time again people in Northern Ireland who did not agree with the IRA challenged me to justify exclusion orders. All I could tell them was that I was unable to do so. I voted against exclusion orders every time they came before Parliament.
  I realise that the atmosphere in which we are now debating exclusion orders is a million light years away from the scenes of murder and devastation that we have had to live with in Northern Ireland since the outbreak of this terrorist campaign. I can only say, with all the honesty at my command, that these exclusion orders are contrary to every concept of human justice. I believe that they are counter-productive and that they do not and will not have the intended effect.
  6.35 p.m.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: At the beginning of a relatively brief speech this afternoon, may I say that it gives me pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and to say that all of us, including those who do not agree with the conclusion which he has just expressed on this amendment, pay tribute to him for the high courage he has displayed in standing up against IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland. On an such occasion as this it is right to recognise that fact. When I was a Minister in the Home Office I remember having a discussion with the noble Lord about one of the exclusion order cases about which he has just spoken.
  I accept at once what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said to us about the disabilities faced by a person who is made subject to an exclusion order. The six or seven examples he gave were entirely correct. There is no doubt whatever that a person who is subject to such an order faces the serious problems which he outlined. But he faced those problems in 1974 when a Labour Government introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Emergency Provisions) Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, reminded us, it was introduced on that occasion as a result of the bombings in Birmingham when over 20 people lost their lives and many others were grievously injured. The Bill was put through both Houses of Parliament in five or six days and has remained on the statute hook ever since. It has been

  899
  the subject of two inquiries: one by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the other by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
  It seems to me to be quite clear that certain results follow. First, I do not think that anybody who reads either of the reports can have any doubt that both noble Lords took the view that as a result of the exclusion power being on the statute book a number of people are alive today who otherwise would have been dead. As a Home Office Minister for five years, I have absolutely no doubt that that is correct. When I gave evidence to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I said that I believed that any decision by Parliament to withdraw these powers would undoubtedly lead to the risk of more innocent people losing their lives. As a junior Minister dealing with the police and general security questions, I saw the submissions made to the Home Secretary on exclusion order cases. Inevitably I devoted a substantial amount of time to analysing the evidence which was going to be put before the Home Secretary and making a recommendation as to whether he should or should not make an exclusion order.
  Having said that, I agree very strongly indeed with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said about the character of the evidence. If the people concerned were IRA terrorists we should of course have preferred to bring them to trial and get them convicted in an English court. But the evidence which we had in many of these cases left me in no doubt that although the person concerned was an IRA terrorist, it would not have enabled us to secure his conviction in an English court. That is why the Bill was introduced in the first place. The fact is that if it had been known to some of the people who have been subject to such orders what the character of the evidence was and the identity of some of the people who had brought these matters to the attention of the security authorities, then there is no doubt that those people would have been murdered. It is exactly that point which the House must face up to when discussing Clause 3.
  I do not wish in any way to return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Wigoder a few moments ago about the attitude of the Opposition in another place; the point has been made and I entirely agree with what he said. If there were today a Labour Government, then following the bombing of Harrods I would find it incredible to believe that that Labour Government would not now be asking Parliament to renew these powers. I believe that we would be gravely deficient of our responsibilities were we not to give the Government the powers they are asking for today.
  6.40 p.m.
  Lord Henderson of Brompton: May I say a brief word as my name has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in connection with some amendments which the Alliance are moving in respect of Clause 17 concerning parliamentary control. I myself agree with the noble and learned Lord, as I said on Second Reading, and with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who has just sat down, that much though one dislikes the orders in Part II, they must be continued for the time being. I will only pray in aid the words of Lord Jellicoe:
  900
  "those ministers and police officers who have operated the system are convinced that exclusion has on occasion saved lives throughout the United Kingdom".
  I myself cannot go against the evidence submitted at the outset of Chapter 9 of Lord Jellicoe's report, nor against his conclusion that:
  "the power to exclude should remain available to the Secretary of State in extreme cases".
  On the other hand, Lord Jellicoe sets out most fairly in his report all the objections to exclusion orders, and in particular lie says that in his visits to Northern Ireland—and here I follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt:
  "I was impressed by the unanimity of view expressed to me on this point. Every political party"—
  I repeat, every political party—
  "from which I received oral evidence—and these included Unionist and Republican parties—expressed the view that the power to exclude had been used so as to turn Northern Ireland into a 'terrorist dustbin'".
  Lord Jellicoe said also:
  "it can have severe effects not only on the excluded person and family, but also on the population of Northern Ireland".
  That, I am sure, is what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, had in mind.
  One has to weigh up the balance, but I come down on the side of Lord Jellicoe and other noble Lords who have spoken in saying that if it is the opinion of the Ministers and the police officers who have to operate the system that exclusion has on occasion saved lives throughout the United Kingdom, then it must be right to allow exclusion orders to remain part of this Bill. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his colleagues if they will not agree to drop their outright opposition to the intentions of this part of the Bill and instead—and I do not wish to anticipate what I will be saying later—support my amendment, Amendment No. 11, which will provide not just one annual order but two; one annual order to approve the continuance of the Act, which will apply to the latter part of the Act, and a second order which will apply to the continuance or not of the provisions relating to exclusion.
  If I may say so with great respect to the official Opposition, I do not believe that the Committee would be with them or that they would gain anything by dividing the Committee in seeking to remove Part II. On the other hand, I feel very strongly that the whole Committee would support special scrutiny annually of exclusion orders. I hope that the Committee will agree to that instead of the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his colleagues have proposed.
  Lord Hylton: I believe we should be extremely discriminating in this matter of exclusion orders. I have some evidence which tends to show that the Royal Ulster Constabulary would perhaps be satisfied with a system of exclusion orders that operated only to exclude people who have already left their jurisdiction. It would therefore prevent people from returning and not expel them from where they are currently living.
  I have not had a chance to put a similar question to English police forces but it is possible that some at least may be in agreement with their colleagues across the water. I believe it will be extremely helpful if the

  901
  Government can say tonight that they will at least consider some method of reducing the scope of exclusion orders, perhaps along the lines I have suggested.
  The Earl of Enniskillen: I rise to say that I wish to support very sincerely the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I say that in some distress, as I have a great deal of admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to welcome him, as I have not been able to do so before.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said en passant that this order is by no means an out-of-date measure. How right; how right indeed! I have been out of touch for a very long time with the affairs of Northern Ireland, but it was a terrible distress for me, after I had been away for some six years, and only following events in the newspapers, to return to a debate in your Lordships' House; and, had I shut my eyes, I could have identified almost every speaker, and I could have written his speech before he had finished making it. That was years ago—and here we are.
  I appreciate the kind of tone in which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has very properly explained to your Lordships this afternoon the terms of exclusion in Northern Ireland. They go hack in history and it is a connotation which unfortunately,' cannot he buried and which continues to spoil and despoil the hopes of establishing sanity. I would support every single measure against any individual which can help our people who are fighting this evil in Northern Ireland—be they civilians with no authority, be they the Ulster Defence Regiment who are doing their duty, be they our own troops whom we have sent over there to give support, he they our politicians, or anyone else who is trying to make something out of the monstrous mess into which the IRA have put us. I would support every single measure against an individual that would make it better for the vast majority of the people who want it so, and I am therefore very much in favour of repeating this legislation and shall always be in support of such measures, providing they do achieve their object.
  The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, drew attention to Mr. Gerry Adam's case, excluded one day, unexcluded the next. That sort of play-acting—that is all I can call it—is intolerable under the circumstances that exist. If this order exists, it exists because it is necessary for it to exist and no one of your Lordships would have it otherwise. I am very surprised, because I did not know, that any such thing had occurred, that an exclusion order could he withdrawn just like that, and there were certainly, in my humble estimation, no grounds for so doing.
  I do not wish to occupy your Lordships' time any further. I would like to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his view which I think was very clearly and adequately expressed.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I, too, should like to respond to the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. The Committee should remind itself that there are very few countries in the Western world whose citizens can be ordered to live in one part of the country but not another, and the exclusion order is
  902
  made, as was explained by my noble friend, without a vestige of legal process. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for whom I, as a solicitor, have always had the greatest respect, argues strongly that the power to make an exclusion order should be retained, though he is careful to indicate that there ought to be a safeguard. But what safeguard is there in the Bill against the abuse of the exclusion-making process? There is none. The noble and learned Lord will say. "Go to the adviser, and the adviser will be a lawyer". I was an adviser under the wartime regulations. I would have every confidence if I could refer my case to Lord Denning, but the Bill does not provide for a lawyer to he made available as the adviser: so far as the Bill is concerned—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—a policeman could he an adviser. I make that point because the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1939 laid down that a policeman could not be an adviser. But there is nothing in the Bill to tell us who can be or who cannot be an adviser.
  My noble friend Lord Mishcon pointed out the six disadvantages of a person against whom an exclusion order is made, but I believe that there is a seventh disadvantage which has not been referred to this evening. A person against whom an order is made will, even if he makes a representation to the adviser, he told nothing of the advice which has been tendered to the Minister; so that if the Minister overrules the objection, the person affected will not know whether the Secretary of State is acting in accordance with or against the advice. Those are the comments I am prompted to make after listening to the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
  Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The noble Lord who has just spoken said that as far as he knew there was no other country in Western Europe which had had exclusion orders; I understood the noble Lord to say something like that. But there is no other country in Western Europe that has to deal with the IRA. The nearest organisation, I suppose—it is not at all like the IRA though it is almost as ruthless—is the Red Brigades in Italy, but I understand they have been pretty well brought to hook now.
  Though I have the greatest respect for the law, you cannot fight terrorists with the law. If you do that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, you are putting innocent people's lives in jeopardy, and it is quite certain that, if we had not had this exclusion order there would, as a noble Lord said, have been many more innocent people murdered.
  6.55 p.m.
  Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has temporarily fled the field, has had many answers to the questions he asked at the beginning of this debate. I must ask your Lordships to bear with me a moment if I dispose of one or two matters other than the central one he raised before I come to it. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, invited me to, as it were, speak from inside a crystal ball with a muffled voice about what is to come later on on the Marshalled List. My answer, when we come to that will not be so stark and cut and dried that I can say it is either yes or no; I am not given

  903
  to favour the precise proposals on the list, but I am disposed to recognise the difficulties which they address and to seek some other means of achieving a resolution of the difficulties. If I have rightly surmised what the difficulties to which they are addressed are, I think the noble Lord will at least wish to take some time before he conies to the conclusion that all is lost, and he may in fact find that something has been gained.
  I find it difficult always to discard large patches of speeches when other noble Lords have made them far more effectively than I can to start with. I think I ought merely to summarise, starting at the point where Lord Mishcon abandoned his quotation from the report of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. His concluding words, very bravely, I thought, under the circumstances, were
  "Those Ministers and police officers who have operated the system arc convinced that exclusion has on occasion saved lives throughout the United Kingdom.".
  Many of your Lordships, like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, would think it was scarcely necessary to debate the matter further, but I accept that we are a careful watchdog and that we must.
  I then look at the actual recommendations which my noble friend made, which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did not quote, though he alluded to them. The first (Paragraph 176) says:
  "I conclude, in effect, that the exclusion of some people under those powers has materially contributed to public safety in the United Kngdom and that his could not have been achieved through the normal criminal process.".
  The report goes on a little later, in Paragraph 178:
  "My conclusion is that the power to exclude should remain available to the Secretary of State in extreme cases; that its severity should be mitigated in the way I suggest below—"
  and I shall come on to that—
  "and that the possibility of abolishing it should be kept under regular review without prejudice to the Act's other powers.".
  I shall come on to that when we debate the amendments in the names of Lord Wigoder and Lord Henderson of Brompton. I therefore think it does not need to be further stated—your Lordships will recall me to the Dispatch Box if it does and I shall come with alacrity—that these measures do save lives.
  We then return to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly pointed out as being the central matter in our discussions; that is, not whether this legislation is needed but whether it goes further than needed. I now come to both the letter and the spirit of the proposals made by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and to which various noble Lords have referred. Here I revert to a text which I hope your Lordships will not find too long because the issues are not that complicated.
  At present exclusion orders have an indefinite life and they remain in force unless and until they are revoked by the Secretary of State. My noble friend recommended that such orders should have a limited life of three years, at the end of which period they would automatically lapse. We have accepted that recommendation and it is incorporated in Clause 3. If at the end of that period the police believe that the subject of the order is still involved in terrorism it will be up to them to make out a fresh case to the Secretary of State. He and my right honourable and learned
  904
  friend will only make another order if he is satisfied, on the basis of the intelligence available, that the criteria for making an order are fully met. The intelligence on which the first order was based will not be sufficient for this purpose.
  Under the present Act a British citizen is exempt from exclusion from a part of the United Kingdom if either one of two conditions is met. He is exempt if he is already the subject of an order excluding him from the other part and he is exempt if he has been resident in the part from which he would otherwise be excluded for 20 years. My noble friend recommended that this period be reduced from 20 years to three. We have accepted this recommendation and it is incorporated in Clauses 4 and 5. I believe that that will considerably reduce the possibility of hardship to families who otherwise would have to uproot themselves from their long-established homes.
  Clause 7 deals with the rights of a person who is made the subject of an exclusion order to make representations. My noble friend made a number of recommendations in this area. Those requiring legislative force are as follows. First, that the period during which the person is entitled to make representations should be increased from the present 96 hours to 7 days. We have accepted that recommendation and it is incorporated in Clause 7(4) of the Bill. The second is that the present restriction on a person's right to an interview with one of the Secretary of State's advisers, which means that there is no right to an interview if the person has already been removed, should be lifted. We have accepted that recommendation and Clause 7(8) provides for such interviews to he held in Great Britain, in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland. Moreover, in order to limit the time spent in custody, in Clause 7(5) an excluded person who agrees to he removed is given a period of 14 days from the date of his removal in which to make his representations.
  Turning briefly to more general principles, it has been suggested that the powers of exclusion are unnecessary because they do no good. Some have even said that the tragedies of recent months show that the power to exclude is ineffective because it did not prevent those awful incidents. That has not been suggested here but it has been suggested elsewhere. The essentially preventive nature of the exclusion powers does I accept make it extremely difficult to judge their effectiveness. The system only comes into operation when there can be no question of a prosecution. Here, I am on common ground with the noble Lord. Lord Harris of Greenwich. That situation may arise through perfectly normal circumstances. But it does also happen that the intelligence on which cases are based is so sensitive that it cannot be exposed in court without endangering lives. It does also happen that a man, released after serving a sentence for explosives offences, makes it clear on his release that his determination to act is as strong as ever. Sometimes it becomes clear that to prosecute would prejudice the gathering of further intelligence from the same source. There, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, made abundantly clear, lies the answer to the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, who expressed surprise that so few who are excluding are subsequently charged. If they could have been charged they would

  905
  have been charged and exclusion would not have been necessary. It is only where circumstances change and a charge becomes possible after an exclusion order that it becomes appropriate or to he expected that a charge should be made.
  My noble friend Lord Jellicoe carried out a painstaking examination of a large number of exclusion cases and spoke at length to those engaged in the operation of the system. He concluded that the power should remain. His conclusion was reluctant and regretful hut it was firm, and I believe that it was right. I almost said that it was unquestionably right but your Lordships have a duty to question everything in which you are in doubt and I hope I shall dispel your doubts on this. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe was in no doubt that there has been cases where exclusions had kept dangerous criminals out of Great Britain.
  My noble friend also found that in a number of cases the operational effectiveness of individual terrorists was substantially impaired by being unable to travel freely to the areas from which they were excluded. Your Lordships know that we are dealing with serious men—hard men, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, would say from the breadth of his experience—and that we cannot trifle with them or the regulations under which we seek to control them. The judgments involved in deciding such cases are extremely difficult. They involve a careful weighing of police intelligence and other information but I can assure your Lordships of the care with which they are considered by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State. What he is weighing against the risk of restricting the freedom of movement of one individual is the risk that if the restriction is not made another bomb will go off, as they have gone off, in Hyde Park, Regent's Park, or in the crowds shopping in a busy West End store. Those who argue against a power to make those restrictions need to argue also that the lives so lost are less valuable than the limited amount of freedom that the power permits him to remove. If your Lordships doubt the answer to that argument, ask the widows and orphans of those who have perished in spite of the exercise of those powers since 1976.
  The third, and possibly the most difficult point considered by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe concerned those cases in which, although there is no doubt whatsoever about the terrorist sympathies or activities of the people concerned, the nature and sensitivity of the case against them is such that there is no other available means of dealing with them. Inevitably, in these cases we are asking Parliament and the public to take on trust the fact that such cases are extremely strong ones and that in some of them only the need to protect the sources of information prevents the police from bringing charges. For very obvious reasons I can give no examples of such cases at all; but your Lordships will accept that good intelligence is vital to the protection of the lives of innocent citizens. I do not believe that that is in question. Nor should we deny the Secretary of State the power to act on that intelligence to protect the public. I take no comfort from the fact that it is still necessary to ask for powers to infringe the traditional rights and liberties of British citizens; but the fundamental and absolutely essential right and liberty of the British citizen, as in any other country, is the right to stay alive. My noble friend Lord
  906
  Jellicoe was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as I said at the beginning of my address, as saying that exclusion has on occasions saved lives throughout the United Kingdom.
  I am deeply grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the immense distinction which he brings to the point of view which we hold on this side of the House. As to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, like the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, who I first met on the wettest day in the Province of Northern Ireland—and that is saving something!—I greatly admire the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for his courage and forthrightness, but I must disagree with him. There is certainly an imbalance between the numbers of terrorists excluded from Great Britain and allowed to be in Northern Ireland and those excluded from Northern Ireland and allowed to be in Great Britain.
  Look at it how you will, the sad and depressing fact is that there are more terrorists in Northern Ireland than in the rest of Great Britain. If the powers were not symmetrical they would be grossly unfair. What is more, we should have more dangerous people at large in parts of the country where they wished to create mayhem and kill people. That I think is sufficient answer.
  The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and my noble friend Lord Enniskillen both asked me about the case of Mr. Adams. The order against him was revoked because it was thought wrong that a Member of Parliament should be hindered or prevented from travelling freely within the United Kingdom. Whereas the Bill addresses itself to protecting the rights of the individual, we also have to remember that we have to protect the rights of Parliament. I believe that the decision was the right one—although I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does not agree with me.
  The central issue before us is this. There are powers here which are necessary to save lives. If we do not have these powers, more lives will he lost. Of that I am convinced—as I think most of your Lordships are, too. If we are not given the powers, the result will be more people either dead or maimed, and we have seen enough of that. For God's sake, please give us these powers.
  7.11 p.m.
  Lord Mishcon: Everyone in this Committee will have respect for the last words of the noble Lord the Minister. Any Government having the responsibility in these troublous matters must obviously take decisions and hope that they will carry Parliament in them. I respect the point of' view that the noble Lord puts forward, but from this Dispatch Box I want to make one thing absolutely clear. There is no difference between the two parties in their abhorrence of terrorism or in the belief that where somebody has been convicted of the crime of terrorism he should be imprisoned for as long as public safety requires it and should have a very severe sentence indeed. There is no difference between us at all.
  The noble Lord, Lord Somers, quite fairly put to me that sometimes one seems to hear in this House and in other places more sympathy for the criminal than for the person injured by that criminal. I would say to him

  907
  that that is not an apt description of somebody who is subject to this exclusion order. A criminal is a person who has been convicted of a crime; if any such person convicted of a crime of terrorism was before the courts, I repeat that I would hope that a proper custodial sentence was imposed in order to protect the public.
  The problem in this case is that we are not dealing with people who been proved to be criminals: and we are dealing with a very human Secretary of State and a very human series of police officers. Those of us who have any experience in the law and possibly outside it know of the sorry number of cases where spiteful anonymous letters have been sent and spiteful evidence given about people which are subsequently proved to be false. The only way that can ever be tested is by thorough examination and cross-examination in a court of law.
  Your Lordships will see the fallacy in the case. When the noble Lord the Minister replied to the criticism about Mr. Gerry Adams he said that these powers were necessary and should be enforced because they were in fact leading to the saving of life; and if they were not there life was endangered and one did not have the right to endanger life. If that exclusion order against Mr. Adams was made by the Home Secretary on the basis that he was endangering the lives of our citizens, what right had any Secretary of State to allow him to journey, from Ireland to the Houses of Parliament and to be in this country in order to endanger the lives of citizens? Does the Secretary of State feel that it is perfectly all right to accord the dignity and liberties to do these things to a Member of Parliament but not to Mr. A or Mr. B who does not happen to have the privilege of being a Member of Parliament?
  I say these things not because the noble Lord the Minister was saying anything absurd or anything that was wrong. One merely sees the difficulties of all this business of exclusion orders, which are so remarkable and extraordinary from our point of view and from everything that we know, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, in our English law, going back with our record of justice over a period of one thousand years or more.
  We have had a debate. We have done what we ought to do; this is the only wish of the Opposition. We have scrutinised these extraordinary powers and had a debate about them. It is quite obvious to me, having heard that debate, that although we have put our point of view with sincerity, it is not a point of view that will command the support of the majority of your Lordships' Committee. If that be so, we have done our duty and I do not intend to divide the House.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): The Question is that Clauses 5, 6 and 7 stand part of the Bill?
  Clause 5 [Orders excluding persons from Northern Ireland]:
  Clause 6 [Orders excluding persons from the United Kingdom]:
  Clause 7 [Right to make representations to Secretary of State etc.]:
  On Question, Whether Clauses 5, 6 and 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
  7.17 p.m.
  Lord Monson: I should like to ask the Minister a question about Clause 6(1)(a). Clause 6 is presumably directed against terrorists or former terrorists from the Irish Republic and possibly from other EEC countries whom immigration officers might otherwise find it difficult to ban because of the common travel area, or because of EEC freedom of movement regulations. However, if Clause 6(1)(a) remains unaltered, these terrorists or erstwhile terrorists can be excluded only if the terrorism in which they were involved was connected with Northern Ireland. Surely in this overcrowded island the Home Secretary should have the power to exclude any non-British citizen who has been involved with terrorism anywhere in the world.
  Lord Elton: I regret that I am not entirely certain whether I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in his question. Clause 6 gives the Secretary of State power if he is satisfied that any person:
  "is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies".
  The noble Lord asks who these people are. We are in Part II of the Bill. These people are in fact those who commit acts of terrorism anywhere in the world. But if those who support me in these matters have heard the noble Lord better than I did, I think he is concerned about undesirable aliens arriving in this country. If that is the case, of course, we have the whole panoply of the immigration laws at our disposal and in that case nothing particular is needed.
  Lord Monson: If I might help the noble Lord the Minister: as I understand it the Home Secretary in the normal way has no power to ban citizens from the common travel area, and he may have difficulty in banning the entry of citizens from other EC countries and possibly the Commonwealth. But it appears that the acts of terrorism referred to in Clause 6(1)(a) are only acts of terrorism to which this part of the Act applies—that is to say, acts of terrorism involved in Northern Ireland. What I am suggesting—not of course to be dealt with at this stage—is that perhaps the Minister would look at subsection (1)(a) again and consider deleting all the words in that subsection after the word "terrorism". That would mean that it would cover not just certain, but all acts of terrorism, wherever committed.
  Lord Hylton: A concrete example perhaps of those with whom my noble friend is concerned might be, say, a Basque terrorist and whether he can be kept out, given the privileges of citizens of the EC.
  Lord Shackleton: I hope that the noble Lord will not pay much attention to this proposal. It goes far wider than anything proposed in the Bill.
  Lord Elton: The Home Secretary already has adequate powers to exclude people from the EC. I think that that is the reassurance that the noble Lord,

  909
  Lord Monson, requires. If he requires more, he will perhaps be kind enough to write to me, and I shall write to him.
  Lord Monson: I shall, of course, write to the noble Lord if he is unable to satisfy me on this point: can the Home Secretary exclude from entry to this country someone from the Irish Republic who had been concerned with terrorism elsewhere in the world than in Northern Ireland?
  Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I might assist the Committee. If one turns to the explanatory memorandum on the front of the Bill it says:
  "Part II enables the Secretary of State to exclude from Great Britain. Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom persons concerned in terrorism designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland".
  Part II appears from that summary to he limited to what I have read out. I was hastily looking through the provisions of Part II to see whether that was made clear. However, if that is the summary, I have no doubt that it is the situation.
  Lord Shackleton: It is made clear in Clause 4.
  Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful.
  Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Information about acts of terrorism]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Wigoder: I desire to oppose the question that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill. It is the clause that provides that if a person has information that he knows or believes might be of material assistance in preventing the commission by another person of an act of terrorism he shall be guilty of a criminal offence. I draw attention to the words
  "knows or believes might he of material assistance".
  This clause is perhaps the least significant of the powers given by the Bill. It is one that has repeatedly caused difficulty. I say that it is one of the least significant in its effect unless one is reduced to arguing that it is impossible to ascertain what its effect might be on people who have never been charged under the clause. Of the people who have been charged in Great Britain over the eight years from 1974 to 1982, nine were convicted of that offence. Most of them, I think, were convicted in one case, although I may he wrong about that. Certainly none of them committed an offence of any great gravity because none was sent to prison for more than a year, and only two were sent to prison at all.
  In Northern Ireland, one would perhaps expect many more such offences to be committed. Over the same eight years, some 22 people were convicted. I have been unable to find—I am sure that it is due to my oversight—what happened to the 22 who were convicted. It does not appear to be contained in the tables in either the report of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, or that of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. However, I would he surprised if any of them were sentenced to very long terms of imprisonment.
  910
  The creation of this offence in Clause 11 has given anxiety both to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in his report, very carefully argued, came down, on balance, against renewing the power in any further legislation. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in what was an equally carefully balanced argument, came down eventually just in favour of renewing this provision in any new legislation. I hope that it is not unfair to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to suggest that he was perhaps just a little confused by the fact that he seems to think at one stage that all that Clause 11 did, in effect, was to re-enact the common law of this country. On page 86 of his report, he says that among the consequential amendments to the Criminal Law Revision Committee's report of 1965 was the abolition of the offence of misprision of felony. The noble Earl's report adds:
  "The principle of the offence was therefore identical to that of section 11, in that it required no more than knowledge of a particular state of affairs and concealment of information about that state of affairs".
  The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was perhaps not placing sufficient emphasis on the fact that the common law offence of misprision of felony only applied to people who had knowledge that a felony had been committed whereas this clause extends that to make it a criminal offence to anyone who believes that he has information that might he of material assistance in relation to some offence yet to be committed. There is the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, came down, on balance, on different sides.
  There are, I think, four arguments against including this clause in the Bill. I can state them briefly and then cease my observations. First, it is now a matter of historical fact that this clause got into the original Bill as a result of a Back-Bench amendment. It was never proposed by any Government at any stage as being an essential power that they ought to have. Although I am happy to move what might be called Back-Bench amendments when I get the chance, it is perhaps fair to say that on legislation of this sort it is not really the safest, the most desirable and the most carefully considered way to proceed.
  Secondly, there is the fact, as I have indicated, that there is no precedent in English law at all for an offence of this width. Thirdly, again as I have indicated, it is clearly of very little practical value on all the figures that we know in preventing terrorism. Fourthly, there is the fact that I regard this clause, the creation of such an offence, as being offensive to common sense. It is offensive particularly in the circumstances of individuals living in Northern Ireland to say that it should be a criminal offence if they fail to disclose to the police information which they think might be of material assistance that might lead to the arrest of their wives, their children or their next-door neighbours. It seems to me quite wrong. It seems to me a total infringement of civil liberties and to have no compensating virtues. In those circumstances, having regard to the chequered history of this clause, I hope that your Lordships will conclude, in due course, that it is not appropriate that this clause should be included in the Bill. I beg therefore to oppose the question that this clause stand part.
  Lord Denning: May I also say a word about this clause. I hope that it will he retained. With all respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wigoder, he has not got his common law right. We had a case in 1962 in this House in its judicial capacity when I presided—the case of Sykes and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It concerned that old offence called misprision of felony. That sounds very odd to us modern people but it really meant that if a man knew that a felony had been committed it was his duty to report the same to the proper authority. It goes back to the whole case of hue and cry. If someone knows that a man has been robbing another he raises the neighbourhood and a hue and cry. So if one knows that a man has committed a felony, one should report it to the proper authority.
  The case that we dealt with is very apposite to our discussion this evening. It occurred in 1962. There was the theft of machine guns and ammunition from the Royal Air Force base in Norfolk. Where had they gone to? Who knew? Mr. Sykes in Manchester was found negotiating the sale of that ammunition and those firearms to a person who was purchasing for the IRA.
  Mr. Sykes could not he charged with being an accomplice to the theft. There was no evidence that he was connected with the theft. He was only a contact man. He could not be prosecuted for being an accessory at all. The only offence known to the law was misprision of felony. It was his duty to have made it known to the police and the authorities that there were guns and ammunition in Manchester that he was trying to sell. The offence is still most valuable in the case of felonies which have been committed and about which the individual does not know. It is not to make him tell, but to punish him if he does not tell.
  Let me give one more example. My learned friend said that it only applies when one knows that a felony has been committed. It is equally the law when one knows that it is about to he committed. Let us suppose that a man hears robbers planning a bank raid. Is he to keep quiet about it and not warn the police that a raid is about to take place so that they can intervene and stop it? If he does not tell them, it cannot be proved that he is an accomplice. But one can at least get him for misprision, or one ought to do so. So surely it is the duty of every man, if he hears and knows that a bank raid is going to be committed or if he hears and knows that a bomb is going to be planted in Hyde Park or the like, to tell the proper authorities? That is the object of such a clause as this, and to punish such a man if he does not do so because it is 10 to 1 that he is an accessory, but one cannot prove it.
  So this offence should be retained. When one considers at length the history in that judgment of mine, your Lordships will find that for 700 years that has been the offence of this law—misprision of felony. It was only taken away in 1967 when we abolished the distinction between felonies and midemeanors. However, this House in its judicial capacity said clearly that the offence did exist. It has only been taken away by that side wind. It applies not only when one knows that a felony has been committed but even more important—and it goes back hundreds of years—when one knows that it is about to be committed. One must tell the police so that they know at once. That is why I say—going back to our old
  912
  common law and going hack to our old good sense—this is only repeating in specific regard to terrorist offences, the old common law. Therefore, I ask the Committee to uphold the clause.
  Lord Wigoder: It is a very brave person who dares to stand up in your Lordships' House and query what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said about the law; but obviously I did not make myself clear. I accept entirely that there was an offence of misprision of felony, that if a person knew that a felony had been committed it was his duty to report it to the police. What I was saying was that there is, so far as I know, no case in English law under which a person has been convicted on the basis simply that he knew that an offence may be committed in the future in which he was not to be in any way a participant, and failed to give information to the police. I accept, as the noble and learned Lord has said, that there may be a moral duty in those circumstances; but I do not think that there has ever been a legal duty.
  Lord Denning: At the end of my speech in that case your Lordships will find my references hack to old Lambarde, 400 years ago and others since. So there is a case and an authority. It is important that if a man knows that it is going to be committed, it is his duty then to tell the police about it.
  7.35 p.m.
  Lord Fitt: The more I listen to some of the comments in this House, the more I am convinced that this House is as far removed from Northern Ireland as the Sea of Tranquillity. Clause 11 just could not be made effective in Northern Ireland. There is so much intimidation of whole sections of the population both in the republican sector and in the loyalist sector, particularly in the City of Belfast. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, a specific question about a specific case, because we have heard him say that there is a duty to give information if one has such information at one's disposal.
  I can recall that in 1974 or 1975 a very close friend of mine was driving along the Falls Road in Belfast, in the heart of a republican area. There was a traffic jam because the terrorist forces had deliberately played with the traffic lights. His car was stopped and three people jumped into his car wearing masks. One pulled out a revolver and said. "We are the Irish Republican Army and we are taking your car". He did not want them to take his car and he did a very courageous thing. He pulled one of the masks off one of the terrorists and he recognised the terrorist who also lived in the Falls Road, not very far from the district in which he lived himself. The terrorist told him, "Get out of this car, and if you tell anyone, you are finished". My friend got out of the car. He was absolutely terrified and in fear of his life. He did not go to the police. Whether it was his duty or not to go to the police, he did not do so because he was in fear of his life. It was obvious that the terrorists were going to use his car to carry out some illegal act, whether it even be murder or robbery. But the man who owned that car was not going to endanger his life or the life of his wife and family by going to the police.

  913
  It is all right talking in the atmosphere of this House about what is and is not one's duty. It is a matter of life and death. There must be hundreds if not thousands of people who are aware of—or believe they are aware of—some illegal act carried out by terrorists in Northern Ireland, but their lives are in danger. It is all very well from the atmosphere of this House or down the corridor to lay an obligation on those people and to say, "Never mind about the fact that you may be killed, that you may get"—in terrorist terminology—"a head job"; in other words, your brains blown out, or kneecapped, or your car burnt outside your door.
  I remember another case and it is one about which I felt very bad indeed. A disabled person in Northern Ireland came to me and asked me to make representations so that he could be supplied with an invalid car. I made the representations. After a number of months I was successful and he was granted the use of an invalid car. Two or three days after he received the invalid car he was cooling up the New Lodge Road and he was stopped by terrorists. He knew them; they were not wearing masks. They asked him if he would transport arms and ammunition from one section of Belfast to another section of Belfast on the grounds that the Army or the police or the security forces would never believe that arms were being transported in an invalid car. This poor chap was so pleased that after a number of months I had been able to get him his car, that he refused point blank and he said he was not going to transport arms at all because he was delighted he had the car and he was frightened that he may, be stopped by the security forces. So they closed the door and they let him go. At a quarter past one the next morning a petrol bomb was thrown into his little invalid car, which was parked outside his home.
  These arc the realities; these are the facts. Did anyone really expect that invalid to ring up the police and say, "I was stopped and asked to transport arms by a member of the IRA"?—because it was undoubtedly a member of the IRA. Those are the facts of life, and no matter how much we in this House may try to place the onus of responsibility on people to inform the security forces, at the end of the day people's lives and limbs are at stake, and I believe that it would be totally unjust to force such an obligation on them.
  Lord Monson: I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has just said, but would not the cases which he described he covered by the words "without reasonable excuse" in subsection (1)(b) of this clause?
  Lord Elton: When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, contributes to our debates I have a certain feeling of superfluity about my presence here to deal with some of the major issues before your Lordships. I need not now go into the ancestry of misprision of felony or these powers, and I would not wish to get caught in the crossfire if I did. However, it is established that there is precedent, and I shall therefore take that as read and again consider the matter of the recommendations put to us and our reactions to them, which I think have made the provision in the Bill more acceptable to your
  914
  Lordships. In the process I hope that I shall also be able to say something to assuage the understandable anxiety of the noble Lord. Lord Fitt.
  My noble friend made a thorough and detailed examination of the issues involved, extending to nearly seven closely reasoned pages. He concluded that the section in the Act was:
  "of significant value to the police service but that the service could operate without it if required to do so."
  Secondly, he concluded that they should not be required to do so and that the value of the provisions was not out-weighed by the arguments of principle against it. Thirdly, he concluded that, subject to the implementation of his recommendations that are designed to guard against the possibility of abuse, it should remain part of the legislation.
  In coming to those conclusions, my noble friend considered three areas of possible abuse. In paragraph 231 he dealt with the danger of unfair pressure being brought to hear by the police on, for example, the relative of a terrorist who happened to come into possession of information about terrorist acts even though not involved in such activities himself. The dilemma facing that person is that, if he passes his information to the police, he faces both the prospect of his relative being convicted and the possibility of reprisals, to which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has graphically alluded. But, if lie withholds the information, he then risks prosecution. My noble friend accepted that a person in this unfortunate position would be placed under great strain by the mere fact of the police bringing to his notice the provisions of Section 11. But he concluded that, even so, in extreme cases it could be justified, and he defined those cases as being ones in which the withholding of information might lead to death, serious injury or the escape of a terrorist offender. Most important, he said:
  "it is vital that it is not used in a routine manner".
  He then recommended that the police throughout the United Kingdom should be advised by circular that Section 11 should be used only where they suspect that information is being withheld which could, if revealed, prevent acts of terrorism or lead to the apprehension of terrorist offenders.
  It has been suggested that the recommendation does not fully reflect the care and consideration which led to it. Although chief officers of police were advised of this recommendation in a circular issued last August, the Government intend, in response to this criticism, to expand on the advice then given, so that it conveys the full sense of paragraph 23 I of my noble friend's report.
  I accept that that is no consolation at all to the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred, and I do not think that there is any consolation that we are able to extend to them. Some people are put in a position where they must risk either great danger or being in breach of the law. It is a matter for judgment when the law is brought to bear on those people, and it is our intention that we shall reinforce our advice to the police that that power shall be resorted to with the greatest of discretion. Of course, in Belfast the police are as aware as is the noble Lord. Lord Fitt, of the terrible stresses which this may produce and the fact that producing those stresses can on occasion be counter-productive and that there is therefore no

  915
  reason to use the power. But that does not mean that we do not need the power for use on other occasions.
  In paragraph 232, my noble friend considered the applicability of the powers of arrest in Section 12 of the 1976 Act to persons suspected of an offence under Section 11. He concluded that reasonable suspicion of an offence under Section 11 should not be grounds for arrest or detention under Section 12 or under the equivalent port powers, and recommended accordingly. We accept these recommendations, and they are included in the Bill in respect of Clause 12 and will be incorporated in Article 5 of the supplemental order when it is made.
  The noble Lord asked about the number of times this power has been used. I have a table which shows the number of persons charged under Section 11 of the Act and the outcome of the proceedings as at 31st December 1983. There were 14 people charged. One charge was not proceeded with, three persons were acquitted and 10 were found guilty, and, of those, eight received a suspended sentence and two received a sentence of one year or less. If my arithmetic is right, that makes up the full total of 10 convicted cases. I agree that it is a small number hut, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I do indeed accept that the purpose of the misprision of felony offence is not to make the individual tell but to punish him if he does not. However, of course, the knowledge of that punishment is sometimes sufficient to persuade him to tell, and it is because we think that that does happen on occasions that we wish to keep the power in the Bill.
  Finally, my noble friend turned his attention to the question of self-incrimination, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will be interested in that too. He believed, and so recommended, that Section 11 should be amended to make it clear that the information which it is an offence to withhold related only to the conduct of a third party and not to that of the person being questioned. This recommendation is incorporated in Clause 11 by the inclusion of the words "any other person" in paragraphs (a) and (b). Thus it is now clear on the face of the Bill that it is not an offence for a person to refuse to incriminate himself.
  I think that I have said enough to explain to your Lordships why we think this power is necessary. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will be reassured not only by what I have said but by the very rare occasions on which the power has been used, and that your Lordships will think it is reasonable to include it in the Bill.
  Lord Shackleton: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is aware that generally I have been supporting the Government over this Bill. The fact that I recommended the dropping of Section 11 in the earlier Act is not decisive for me because in the light of further evidence it is perfectly possible to change one's mind. I was very concerned that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, had come down on the other side. I have re-read his arguments with great care—in fact, I have read them two or three times—and, if anything, they have strengthened my dislike of Clause 11. I should like to explain my reasons to the noble Lord.
  916
  The first is that the attempts of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to some extent, to modify or disarm the nature of this clause, though gallant, do not seem to me to be successful. The fact that the powers of detention under Clause 12 could no longer apply in this case does not seem to me to be decisive, because it is perfectly possible for the pressure to be applied in such a case. There is also this provision to amend Article 5 with the intention, as I understand it, by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that this should no longer be treated as a routine matter. I do not know what that means.
  He suggests that it should only be where there is a threat of death, or there has been some act of violence. But in fact Section 11 refers to the preventing of an act of terrorism. That seems to me to be as clear a statement as you can have that it is in anticipation of a violent act, and I do not therefore believe that that further instruction that it should not be used in a routine way is decisive.
  Perhaps the noble Lord can answer me on this: I understand that it is possible that these powers can be used in relation to the actions of journalists in seeking contact with terrorists. I do not welcome, and indeed have been shocked by, some of the appearances, some of the information, that journalists or television interviewers have achieved.
  I fully accept that it is the duty of people to co-operate; to give any information they can. If this is so—and this is the inherent danger of this sort of legislation, which is why both Lord Jellicoe and I were so deeply worried about it, even though I believe it is necessary—there is the danger that the powers which appear to be related to people who have information, may even be involved indirectly, can be extended in a totally different way from that intended in the original legislation.
  May I refer to some experience I have had in the past of dealing with terrorism in a situation in South Arabia. I realise that this is not in strict parallel, but at that time it was vital to me to make contact, in one way or another, with the terrorist leaders, and at the same time not make contact in a way that compromised the situation. It was undesirable, for instance, to arrange freedom of access. On that occasion—and this has not been published, but it is long ago now—it was the press who acted as my agents. They never published any of the information they had that could have compromised the negotiations which ultimately came about.
  You may say that in this case I was representing authority; I was the law—I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to interrupt at this moment: I just want to make sure that I have the Minister's attention. It was a different situation, but I would find it objectionable if these powers were used in this way. Furthermore, and perhaps my major objection to this, the one aspect of this legislation which I would find objectionable is that it affects people who are innocent people.
  My noble friend Lord Fitt has given examples. It may be that in some of those examples one could say there was reasonable excuse, but will it be accepted as a reasonable excuse? People can always use that argument. But these are people who are not

  917
  themselves necessarily involved in any way in terrorism, but it is imposing on them by law a responsibility which they already have as citizens. Therefore, after painful consideration, I have come to the conclusion, unless the Government can answer some of these points, that if my noble friends wish to divide the Committee on this I would feel bound to support them on this occasion.
  Lord Monson: Could the Minister say whether, as a possible compromise, one could insert at the end of this clause. "No prosecution shall be brought under this section without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions", or the Northern Ireland equivalent? Would that be a possible safeguard that would merit support from all quarters of the Committee?
  7.54 p.m.
  Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether it would be appropriate, when considering this amendment on which the name of my noble friend accompanies the names of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and his noble friend, if one referred for a moment—and I promise not to be long—to what Lord Jellicoe actually said. Then I am going to follow on what my noble friend Lord Shackleton said in regard to what has in fact happened to journalists, or people much allied to the profession of journalism.
  I think it is proper first of all to turn to page 84 of the report of paragraph 220. To summarise 220 he says that this has not been used very often. The conviction rate is about 50 per cent., but the question of rarity of use must not be the convincing argument, and he does not accept it as the convincing argument if it is of use.
  Then at paragraph 222—and we heard before that it must he a matter that weighs very much with the Committee when you have complete police and security support for something, that that ought to be very much of a consideration—he frankly says:
  "There was a wide range of responses from different police forces, some arguing that their task would be made substantially more difficult without section 11, and others in which the possibility of using the section in any form seems rarely to be considered".
  Then if you turn to page 87 he turns then to the right of silence in paragrah 227, and says that the section appears not to affect the right. Then asks for clarity in this area because, he says, the law in this state,
  "may cause confusion, not to mention the possibility of abuse".
  May I in parenthesis deal with the point that the Minister made that the clause we are now considering makes it clear that you cannot be asked under this clause—and you cannot be convicted of an offence—if to do so would incriminate you yourself in giving the information. With great respect, this is not covered as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, wanted to cover it. He mentions this on page 89, the very concluding words. He recommends in fact that,
  "section 11, also, should be amended to make it clear that the information which it is an offence to withhold relates only to the conduct of third parties".
  All that this clause does is to talk in terms of information relating to third parties, but in no way at all does it meet the point which I ventured to raise on Second Reading. If you happen to have information which
  918
  relates to third parties and yourself as well, and you incriminate yourself by giving it, this is not covered by the present clause. In fact, it would appear to be an offence if indeed you do not reveal the information which incriminates other parties even though it incriminates yourself. That point has not been covered, and the clause is therefore objectionable even on the basis of Lord Jellicoe's point.
  I wonder whether I may, with great deference, refer to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who told us, and he must be right—I do not say of course he is right; he must be right—when he says, with his great knowledge of the law, that misprision of felony ceased in 1967 by virtue of the peculiar chance, the fortuitous happening, of felonies and misdemeanours being merged, as it were, into one branch of the criminal law. We ought not to deal with that situation by a clause in a terrorism Bill. If it is right that we should have misprision of an offence, whatever it is, that ought to be done by a proper Bill and not sneaked into this clause. I know he will forgive me if I make that point.
  Lastly, may I deal with the real point made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton. He dealt with the dangers of this clause being applied to journalists. He asked, with his usual courtesy, of the noble Lord the Minister that this matter should be clarified and that one should refer to any cases that may have involved journalists.
  There is an unhappy history to this clause in regard to journalism and the media. This has been used in a way that no one ever felt when the clause was first passed. May I take your Lordships' recollection hack to July 1979. Your Lordships may remember that there was a BBC "Tonight" interview with a member of INLA—I nearly said ILEA, I am sorry—which provoked, and properly so, much controversial comment. The comment was that the BBC had lacked judgment and had shown not its usual good taste. There was a subsequent filming of an IRA roadblock by the "Panorama" team in October 1979 at Carrickmore which also produced a reaction that the BBC was acting wrongly.
  Questions of good taste are matters for consideration and there can be two views. Alarmingly enough the Attorney-General took the matter in hand and reported the results of an investigation into these matters in another place on 1st August 1980. He said that he had decided not to prosecute the BBC under the old Section 11, which is the present Clause 11. He went on to say that he was,
  "satisfied that the actions of the BBC staff were of a kind that would have constituted offences under section 11 of the 1976 Act".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/8/80; col. 2010.]
  We are doing something a little alarmingly when we get to this stage and allow the clause to be part of the Bill, if that is the interpretation.
  The Attorney-General told another place later that he had informed the chairman of the BBC governors (who was Sir Michael Swann at that time) that:
  "if similar incidents took place again, I would take a stricter view of what had happened and those who participated would he on warning that, subject to the evidence and circumstances of the case, they risk criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act".—[Official Reports, Commons, 1/8/80: col. 2012.]

  919
  The media are in danger and journalists would appear to be in danger. This is in regard to a clause which has slipped into the previous Bills dealing with terrorism and is now before us. I once again say, with the deepest respect, that if we are considering matters of misprision of offences, of criminal offences, let us do it properly, let us debate it properly and let it not sneak in, to the danger of the media and other people who are perfectly innocent, by a clause in this Bill.
  Lord Elton: May I start by saying that I should have acknowledged in my opening remarks the view of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in the valuable report which he made on the legislation at an earlier stage. I freely acknowledge the value of that and I am grateful that he has told your Lordships the grounds for his opposition to this power in the Bill. I read his report with close attention, but it seemed to me that he felt so hostile to it in his bones that it was valuable to have him elaborate his hostility now.
  As to the question of the press, I do not have much embarrassment in saying that the Government ought to have the power to act through the Law Officers where the activities of the press are such that they are seized of information which if given to the authorities would stop people from being killed who otherwise would be. I think the Government ought to have that power. I do not think that this is a question of a police state. The Government should have the power. We are not now talking about the effects of the media inciting violence—I have seen that in the Province myself. I have seen nothing on any form of media but people throwing petrol bombs at the forces of law and order on two or three acres of Belfast. We had an international pop festival in the city a mile or two away. We had a procession headed by the Lord Mayors of Belfast, Dublin, Wexford and other cities marching peacefully through the streets, watched by thousands, not two miles away. Need I go on? We had the final of the coarse fishing international on waters in the Province. We had a marathon. None of that was seen. All that was seen were the two or three acres. But that is not what this is addressed to. This is addressed to the journalist who is seized of knowledge that somebody is going to be killed and he does not give that knowledge to the authorities so that they may prevent that person from being killed. That seems to me a not unreasonable requirement and I make no apology for it.
  Briefly on the right to silence, I thought I had made it clear that the references to another person in paragraphs (a) and (b) meant that it was not an offence for a person to refuse to give information which would incriminate himself.
  Lord Mishcon: No—
  Lord Elton: The noble Lord shakes his head, perhaps I have him wrong.
  Lord Mishcon: I can understand why the noble Lord the Minister did not follow me. It may be my fault for not being as clear as I should have been. It is the same point I raised on Second Reading so, to some extent. I gave him notice of it.
  920
  I am proposing the point of somebody being required to give information which relates to some other person and would incriminate that other person, but would also incriminate himself. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, makes it absolutely clear in his report and his recommendation that legislation should make it abundantly plain that it was only when the information incriminated somebody else that the clause should apply. If there was any question of incriminating the person who was to give the information, it should not apply. He said that that should be clarified. I am pointing out as I did on Second Reading that that is not clarified in the clause. As it at present reads, a person would not be exempt from giving that information if it incriminated him as well as some other person.
  Lord Shackleton: Is the noble Lord still in the middle of his speech?
  Lord Elton: He was but he is very happy for an opportunity to digest advice with his eyes while he listens to questions with his ears.
  Lord Shackelton: I do not think that the noble Lord knows where he is living at the moment. It is inconceivable that there are not journalists and large numbers of people who know people who, under the Bill, might he prosecuted or convicted. I regard this as an undesirable development which will achieve awfully little except to frighten a few people off. It will not frighten many journalists. It may prevent a breach of taste and something which is objectionable to the British public. Then the whole panoply of the law comes in and the Attorney General threatens dire penalties. This is an undesirable conseqence of what was a well-intentioned clause, although I must again repeat what my noble friend has said. It was not in the original Act, and when I recommended against its use.—for it had not been used at all—almost immediately the police woke up and started making use of it. I still do not think that this clause is one that should remain in the Act.
  Lord Elton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that elaboration. There are points on which we have to disagree and I am pleased that this is one of them. I do not think that it is undesirable for members of the press to be under the same obligation to save life as anyone else, and this is what this is about. If one refuses to give information which saves life then one, in fact, contributes to loss of life. If I may revert to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Clause 11 has been amended following Recommendation No 59 of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe to make it clear that the information in question must be about a third party. We are agreed on that. The noble Lord is anxious about where that pulls in information about the person who gives it. There can be no general answer to the noble Lord's question. It must depend, as I said on Second Reading, on the facts and the court's application of the defence of "without reasonable excuse" in the light of their understanding of the facts. Another consideration is that. in paragraph 232 of his report, my noble friend stressed that arrest under Section 12 is and should remain perfectly lawful where the person believed to he in possession of information about

  921
  terrorism is also himself suspected of terrorist involvement. That is about arrest.
  I cannot do more to make clear what is intended by the Bill and I cannot usurp the function of the court in deciding what is a reasonable excuse. But we know that the courts do not expect people to incriminate themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others regard this as a matter of very great importance. I believe that it is necessary that the powers should be used with the greatest restraint and I have to ask your Lordships to recollect the figures that I gave a moment ago, which show that only 14 people have been charged and 10 found guilty since this section came into force in 1976. I think that that is evidence of restraint. I can do no more to convince your Lordships. I believe that this is a measure which on occasion saves lives. That is what we are about. If your Lordships want to vote upon it I should like to vote upon it on those grounds.
  8.11 p.m.
  Lord Wigoder: I should like to say at once that I accept that Clause 11 is a substantial improvement on its predecessor and the Government, I think, are entitled to credit for acting on the recommendations of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to that effect. I listened to your Lordships' observations with very great care. I want to make only one or two short comments. First, the points made about the press and the BBC I hope will not he misunderstood. I do not suppose for one minute that anyone was claiming that there should be a privileged position for journalists or broadcasters. The only point that was being made was that, if there is a section which obviously has an absurd consequence so far as they are concerned, then it must he an undesirable piece of legislation so far as the community as a whole is concerned.
  The other observation on which I should welcome the noble Lord's assistance in writing at some stage before we proceed further with this Bill is this. I asked him what had happened to the 22 or so people who were convicted in Northern Ireland under this section. The figures that he gave, I think, were for the ones convicted in Great Britain; and they were the same as the figures that I gave originally. I should like to reflect carefully upon what has been said. I would propose, if I may, to return to this matter at a later stage. Perhaps it might be a stage upon which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, might find himself with a pressing and urgent engagement elsewhere. At this moment, I would not seek to divide the Committee.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Powers of arrest and detention]:
  Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 10, line 28, at end insert—
  ("( ) No arrest by a constable is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment follows Clause 25(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is before Parliament. One would have thought that it was sensible that it should apply equally to this Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Elton: Under the common law, by virtue of the rule which is usually referred to, I understand, as Christie and Leachinsky, any person who is arrested is entitled to he informed, either at the time of the arrest or as soon as practicable after it, of the grounds of his arrest. That does not mean that he has to be given detailed reasons, for that would clearly be inappropriate, particularly where sensitive intelligence sources are involved. But he is enabled to hear the general grounds for the arrest. The principle embodied in this is an important one, as I am sure the noble Lord agrees, and we have taken the opportunity to codify it in legislation in Clause 25(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. The purpose of that clause is to codify the common law on this point.
  I am glad to assure your Lordships that it will apply to arrests under prevention of terrorism legislation in the same way as it applies to all other arrests under the general criminal law. I think it is more appropriate that that codification of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has so rightly said is of great importance should be in general legislation rather than in legislation that is both temporary in nature and limited in extent. That is why its proper place seems to us to be in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and not in this one. Given that the private citizen will receive exactly the protection that the noble Lord seeks for him by this means. I hope that the noble Lord will he content with what we propose.
  Lord Mishcon: In view of what has been said, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 10, line 33, after the words ("any other description") insert the words ("committed in the United Kingdom").
  The noble Lord said: Clause 12 is narrower than Section 12 of the 1976 Act because it excludes domestic terrorism not connected with Northern Ireland. It is our submission that it should he further specifically limited to acts of terrorism committed in the United Kingdom. I understand that, in practice, Section 12 of the 1976 Act has been so restricted by circular. When the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was addressing himself in paragraphs 76 and 77 of the report to aspects of international terrorism, he had in mind, as I understand the paragraphs, the threat in Great Britain from that source. I accept that the words "threat in Great Britain" do not appear in the hold print in paragraph 77, but they appear in the opening paragraph of Paragraph 76. He says:
  "I discussed in Part I the increasing threat in Great Britain from terrorism totally unconnected with Northern Ireland".
  But he said in paragraph 77 that it should be clear from reading the Bill and reading the clause that it was restricted and that the restriction should not be left to a circular from a Government department. Yet it appears to us that this is precisely what the Government propose. In our submission, it should not be possible to use the section against people living peacefully in this country who are not suspected of having committed any offence in this country. The section should apply only to acts of terrorism in this country.
  Organisations concerned with the well-being of refugees in this country fear that the section as drawn may be used against innocent refugees. The amendment now before the Committee gives the assurance which is required by all those who fear the abuse of the section. I beg to move.
  Lord Hylton: Your Lordships will no doubt have seen the letter which appeared in The Times this morning signed by the Bishops of Birmingham, Lichfield, Manchester and Southwark, which I think hears on this amendment. They in fact refer to Clause 12(2)(b), but I suspect that they got it wrong and that the noble Lord who moved the amendment has got it right. I share their concern and so, I think, do the British Refugee Council whose chairman, Sir Arthur Peterson, is a distinguished former civil servant whose work then lay mainly within the Home Office. The Vice-Chairman of the British Refugee Council is well known to your Lordships. He is Sir Leslie Kirkley, a former director of Oxfam. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
  Lord Elton: Perhaps I should begin by addressing myself to the letter written by the two right reverend Prelates who are Members of your Lordships' House and who sadly cannot he with us. I think in fact that they were misguided in more than the reference number that they wrongly attributed to the paragraph in the Bill. Their letter said that the clause now before your Lordships is drawn so widely that anyone who had been involved in the liberation struggle anywhere at any time could well be held for detention for up to seven days. It goes on to say that Britain has a long history as a haven for refugees fleeing from their own countries where they may have suffered repression, torture or murder. This country has a long history of providing neutral territory for the peaceful resolution of conflicts through negotiations. The letter goes on to say that if the Bill had been in force at the time of the Lancaster House Conference the participants from Zimbabwe would have found themselves liable to arbitrary detention.
  Of course, as your Lordships may remember, the power that we are talking about was on the statute book at that time but the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe was not detained under it. I think I can truncate a good deal of what I intended to say to your Lordships by saying that that power has now been slightly reduced under the Bill. If your Lordships compare the Bill with the print of the Act, you will see that the Bill is longer and the extensions are designed either to clarify the narrower scope than what was proposed in the original Bill appeared to he or, under subsection (3), to exclude certain forms of terrorism within the United Kingdom. Those are small reductions, but from that I hope your Lordships will draw two conclusions. The first is that the powers have been in existence in almost exactly the present form for a very long time and they have been only marginally reduced. Secondly, they have been curtailed in exactly the way that noble Lords want by exactly the device which we propose now to curtail the powers that we propose in the reenactment of these powers in this Bill.
  I understand the purpose behind this amendment and I think that what is proposed, on the face of it,
  924
  looks a great deal simpler and more desirable than what we have got. But the fact is that there are pieces of legislation now on the statute book which do create offences worldwide and which we would not wish to remove from it because they are there under international conventions. I refer, for instance, to Acts against hijacking and about protected persons.
  There are offences which can be committed by anybody anywhere in the world, which makes them arrestable under those Acts. We believe it is right that the powers of examination, and therefore the power of detention under the supervision of the Secretary of State, should be available to people suspected of those offences. I think it would look very odd in international law if we were to make this agreeable, attractively simple amendment, only to discover that we had deprived ourselves of a weapon against the worst forms of international terrorism—those which end up with perhaps 120 people lying dead in the smoking wreckage of a civil airliner—if we denied ourselves the same powers to fight that sort of terrorism as we have had to try to fight the terrorism which most closely affects us usually in this country—
  Lord Shackleton: I must say that I am more confused now than I was before we started this. We are well aware that there are certain offences, such as murder, where the individual concerned can he brought hack and tried in this country. I remember quoting an example—and I think that a noble and learned Lord was there—that you could commit a murder in Antarctica and be brought home to be tried; hut if you committed rape you could not he brought home and tried. However, there are better lawyers than I on this.
  The question I should like to put to the noble Lord is: why in fact is it thought necessary to give guidance to the police to ensure that the powers under Clause 12 are not used in relation to acts of terrorism unconnected with the affairs of Northern Ireland unless there is some prospect that a charge will he made before a United Kingdom court? Is it not the case—and I was referring also to the British Refugee Council—that under the Bill at the moment somebody who had been involved in an act of terrorism, whether it be in South Africa or in some other territory, could find this power being used against them? To that extent, how far would it strengthen the powers of the Home Office, which are already considerable?
  Lord Elton: If the powers were unrestricted they could he used against any person committing an act of terrorism anywhere in the world. There are differing opinions in this country and sometimes quite strong views as to the relative virtues or vices of those who pursue them. There are organisations which use acts of violence in causes which are so respectable and so well regarded by Members of Parliament as well as by members of society at large that they would not wish a power at large to he used against those people. So what we intend in this Bill is to make those powers available only where a charge could be brought in the British courts.—
  Lord Shackleton: But that is not in this Bill, is it?
  Lord Elton: Yes, I believe it is. If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, perhaps I might readdress myself to the other point which I am not sure that I made clear earlier. I am not at all clear on the matter of rape, and I am sure that the noble Lord, following his long investigation of these matters knows much more about them than I do. But I am advised that there are offences under the Hijacking of Aircraft Act and the Internationally Protected Persons Act which might be tryable. However, what we wish to extend to them by means of this Bill is the right to interrogate for an extended period of five days, which is not otherwise available.
  If we had the amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has it, then the power to extend the period of investigation and detention would not extend to anybody who was suspected of blowing up an aeroplane in Japan, Chile, Jamaica or anywhere else. They would have to be released after the normal period to be allowed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is much shorter and more frequently renewable. All we are seeking to do is to embrace those small number of offences which are internationally agreed to be the worst, in which we are internationally committed by conventions that we have signed to do our best. We feel that involves giving this extension to them.
  I was wrong about the reference to bringing before the courts to which the noble Lord referred a moment ago. The intention is that my right honourable and learned friend will send—in fact he has sent—a circular to chief officers of police.
  All this sounds very tortuous and involved, and I fear that I am not explaining it very well. But that is not surprising, because ever since the legislation was introduced, and before, people have been trying to find a way to put these parameters on the face of the Bill, and every solution that has been found has either excluded something that was wanted to be included or included something that was wanted to be excluded. Given that we have been trying to do this for a number of years with a succession of people of considerable intellect, we have to accept that, if we are going to achieve what I hope your Lordships agree we should achieve, it has to be achieved by circular and not on the face of the Bill.
  8.31 p.m.
  Lord Monson: Is it really the case that aircraft hijacking would be embraced by subsection (1) of Clause 12 as it stands, because subsection (5) of Clause 10 limits the acts of terrorism covered by this clause to acts of terrorism connected with Northern Ireland affairs? So unless the aircraft was hijacked by the IRA or the INLA, it would not be included in subsection (1)(b) of Clause 12.
  Lord Fitt: The Minister need not have any fear on this score, because most Irishmen, whether they be in the IRA or the INLA, are as frightened of aeroplanes as I am and it is unlikely that they are going to hijack anything.
  Lord Hylton: Reference was made at Second Reading to the circular to be issued to police forces and
  926
  the noble Lord mentioned it again this evening. There are two difficulties with this circular. First, as it stands now, it will go only to police forces and not to immigration officers. That seems to be one weakness. Secondly, I believe I am right in saying that the circular will be binding on this Government, but not necessarily on subsequent Governments. That, again, appears to be another serious weakness and I hope that these problems can be overcome, at least by the next stage of this Bill.
  Lord Shackleton: I am sorry, but I must go on pressing the Minister—this is the Committee stage. He is defending this power and resisting the proposals that it should be confined to offences committed in Great Britain, as I understand it, on the grounds that this is what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, recommended. He did not recommend that; it was quite clear from the context. Perhaps the noble Lord can ask Lord Jellicoe. He was referring to the dangers of terrorist acts in Britain, not terrorist acts throughout the world. Whatever the merits of his case, this was not part of the Jellicoe recommendations and the Government ought not to excuse what they are doing by saying that somehow it is part of Jellicoe. With a power of this kind, as the noble Lord has made clear, we do not know what may happen with future Governments. It will be something that ought to be contained and constrained in the legislation.
  Lord Elton: If I gave the impression that I was justifying this by Jellicoe. I apologise, because it goes beyond what Jellicoe recommended. I believe that the justification is entirely adequate. It is that these are very nasty offences indeed; that we are in treaty with numbers of other countries to make them offences under our law, as much as they may be under the law of the country where they are perpetrated and that means that they can be brought before our courts. If they are to be embraced in that system, given that the crime may have been committed, as the noble Lord said, in the Arctic or even further away, then it is not at all unreasonable to wish to be able to extend the period of investigtion and interrogation, while the person is detained for the greater period provided in this Bill than is provided in the existing Act.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, need make no apology for returning to this charge as often as he likes. As he said, we are in the Committee stage. I know that our first two debates took the form of Second Reading debates, but this is supposed to be an informal exchange and it is right that we should thresh the matter out.
  To recapitulate, I do not say that this is within Jellicoe; it is outwith Jellicoe. I do not seek to bring it in in any clandestine manner. I believe that it is a proper matter to legislate for and that this is a convenient vehicle. It is intended to give the extra time to interrogate in the sort of case I mentioned, Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will find the definition of the offence in Clause 14.
  Lord Mishcon: I am wondering whether this matter deserves much more and deeper consideration than we can give it tonight. I wish to make this respectful suggestion to the noble Lord, the Minister. There is a

  927
  great deal of worry, as he very well knows, among reputable organisations representing the rights of refugees in this country, and I suppose that many of us have also received literature from the anti-apartheid movement, who fear the consequences of this clause in regard to acts which may be perpetrated abroad and which we would have wished did not happen. But some of us wonder what alternative there is in some countries, although we all abhor violence.
  I wonder whether we are possibly moving into an area where we would find that, if we amended the Bill in this way, we were excluding acts of terrorism outside this country which we would want to deal with inside this country. That is the difficulty. It may be—I say no more than that—that there is a difference here between detention and arrest. After all, detention is for a limited period of time and might not be quite so alarming to the people concerned as the power of arrest. If we therefore considered the question of the power of detention and then, at a subsequent stage of the Bill, looked at the possibility of no arrest being possible after detention, and no charge being possible under this clause without the fiat of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, we might in some measure be safeguarding the interests of the people whom we have in mind.
  Undoubtedly, the difficulty at the moment is that we are considering acts outside the United Kingdom and are bringing in, merely because of an exceptional case, acts which we really would not want to happen by way of people being detained, arrested and charged. In those circumtances, I wonder whether the correct course is—if my noble friend agrees with me—to withdraw the amendment at this stage and to consider on all sides how we can meet the points which the noble Lord the Minister has made, which my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has made and, very definitely, which my noble friend Lord Shackleton has made.
  Lord Shackleton: Before my noble friend seeks to withdraw the amendment, if that is his intention, if we are to go more thoroughly into this matter—and it is clear that real difficulties exist—we may need to recommit in relation to this clause.
  Lord Elton: I should not want to advise your Lordships on that procedural point at this stage. I think I should say that the Government have responded to the concern expressed, in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, by my right honourable and learned friend giving an assurance that the guidance about the use of the powers will be issued to the police by means of a circular to chief officers. That is the first point that I want to put on the record. They will be advised that the powers in respect of international terrorism should be used only where there is some prospect that a charge will be made before a United Kingdom court or that the person will be deported under the Immigration Act 1971. That is the second point that I want to put on the record.
  We sought to draft an amendment to give effect to this assurance within the Bill, but, in the event, it proved impossible to do so without greatly weakening the thrust of the clause against international terrorism. We have therefore been forced to conclude that the
  928
  only way to protect the interests of the groups, to which I and other noble Lords have referred, is to proceed by circular. It is not the course advocated by my noble friend in paragraph 77, but he may well have had in mind the possibility that the existing practice of restricting powers which are otherwise entirely at large by circular could be adopted to deal with international as well as Northern Irish terrorism. The Bill goes much further than this.
  The extent of the powers in Clause 12 is clearly stated. The restriction to be embodied in the circular is on a point considerably more limited than the one which has depended on the circular until now. The Government accept that this method of proceeding, limiting the use of statute by means of circular, is not wholly satisfactory, but we take comfort from the knowledge that it has worked, and worked well, in the context of prevention of terrorism legislation since 1976. We accept that in giving these acts of international terrorism no territorial restriction we have gone further than Lord Jellicoe had in mind—I freely acknowledge that—in his recommendation in 1977.
  This amendment would go some way towards removing the anxieties of those who are concerned about their position, but it could be done only at the expense of removing from the scope of the clause people against whom we firmly believe that powers should be available. It is important that the United Kingdom should continue to take and should be seen to take a firm stand against terrorism in all its manifestations. Successive Governments have strongly supported, advocated and pursued a policy of close co-operation with other countries to stamp out international terrorism. It is for this reason that we attach so much significance not only to the extension of the powers in regard to international terrorism but also to the absence of the territorial restriction in Clause 12(2)(b).
  There are a number of precedents for measures related to terrorism to have extra-territorial aspects. A series of Acts have been passed during the last decade or so which enshrine in United Kingdom law the provisions of international conventions designed to deal with specific manifestations of terrorism by making them offences in the United Kingdom wherever in the world they occur—for example, the Hijacking Act 1971 and the Protection of Aircraft Act 1973. They provided that it is an offence under United Kingdom law for any person of any nationality anywhere in the world to hijack an aircraft or deliberately to take measures which would result in the destruction of or damage to an aircraft or which would otherwise endanger its safety. Similarly, the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 provides that it is an offence for anyone—but I need not quote these examples in extenso. These measures, and others like them, show the importance which we attach to demonstrating our commitment to this international approach to terrorism. It would be wrong if by restricting the application of Clause 12 to acts of international terrorism committed in this country we lost the opportunity to show that our concern with terrorism is not limited to those of its manifestations which take place on our own soil or which directly affect our own subjects.

  929
  I hope we can dispose of this matter this evening because the timetable is under considerable pressure. I do not believe that those of your Lordships with other business would welcome our recommitting on another day, but it is not for me to advise your Lordships on that point. That is for the usual channels. However, I leave with your Lordships that thought. We are wedded to the availability of this power. We believe that it is properly restricted by use of circular. That may be a distasteful way of doing it but it is a way of doing it that has worked without complaint since 1976. And it is now 1984. I hope that I have succeeded in reassuring your Lordships. If I have not, I suppose we shall have to put it to the test.
  Lord Shackleton: The noble Lord is now going entirely contrary to Jellicoe, who said that it should not be done by circular. That is precisely what the noble Lord is doing. Would not the noble Lord consider the possibility of incorporating in an order whatever is the requirement of the circular? It would mean a relatively small amendment to this clause. An order could be amended with a great deal less trouble. If it did not work satisfactorily, one could introduce a new order. Would the noble Lord give consideration to that point?
  Lord Elton: It looks to me like light at the end of the tunnel, but others have been looking for it for so long that I cannot encourage the noble Lord to think that it is likely to be successful. However, I shall look at the noble Lord's suggestion to see if it would be a way out of your Lordships' difficulty.
  Lord Mishcon: I believe it is appropriate for me to ask for the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment on the understanding, which I believe I have correctly, that this debate will be very carefully considered by the noble Lord the Minister—in particular the suggestion which my noble friend Lord Shackleton has just made and the rather inferior suggestion, compared with his, which I made earlier.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 10, line 39, at end insert ("where the initial arrest is lawful,")
  The noble Lord said: Again I can deal very briefly with this amendment, linking it with Amendment No. 6. The sole purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, where an initial arrest under Clause 12 is unlawful, the mere fact that the Secretary of State has agreed to an extension does not render that detention lawful. I believe that there has been some correspondence on this matter with the Law Society, and it can be put very simply in the way that I have: habeas corpus is perfectly all right but would be absolutely useless in a case where the person concerned was merely asking whether the Secretary of State had rightly extended a perfectly lawful detention, because the matter is very much at the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the point should be open that the Secretary of State cannot extend an arrest which has unlawfully been made and so proved before a court. I beg to move.
  Lord Elton: If my answer is brief, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will not think it disrespectful. It is a serious point. The first of these amendments would require the Secretary of State to decide whether or not a person's arrest had been lawful before extending for a period or periods specified by him a person's detention beyond the initial 48 hours. I should say, first, that a decision by the Secretary of State to extend the period of detention does not make lawful an arrest which was unlawful. More to the point, perhaps, a decision on the lawfulness or otherwise of an arrest must rest with the courts. It is to the courts that a person who feels himself to have been unlawfully arrested or detained should turn for redress, but the decision as to whether it was lawful or not cannot rest with the Secretary of State. Nor can he convert into lawful arrest what was before his action unlawful arrest.
  Lord Mishcon: I am afraid that the noble Lord the Minister has not quite followed the point that was being made. Quite obviously, the Secretary of State cannot be expected, usually within a very short period of time, to decide whether or not an arrest is lawful. I wanted it only to be made clear by this amendment, as do others, that when this matter comes before the court, the court is not faced with a difficult argument that this Bill gives to the Secretary of State a power to extend something, even though the original arrest was not lawful. That was the point I was making—not that the Secretary of State has necessarily to make that decision. I wonder whether the noble Lord will consider that point between now and Report stage and let me know whether or not the amendment is acceptable, because of what I have said, or not acceptable, in which case I can decide whether or not to put it down again at Report stage.
  Lord Elton: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I find that as the evening wears on. I need more and more frequently to be led by the hand through the thickets of argument. It is certainly not the intention of the Bill to create the suspicion that the Secretary of State might render something lawful that had been unlawful. I am advised that it does not. However, I shall read the noble Lord's illumination of his argument with care. If I find that it does illuminate it, obviously we shall, between us, have to find a remedy.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 11, line 1, leave out ("five") and insert ("two").
  The noble Lord said: Clause 12 confers the power of arrest and I understand that it does so in order to attract the additional powers of detention under subsections (4) and (5). This is one of the unusual features of the clause. But a week in custody is a very long week and it is a grave interference with a citizen's liberty. During that week the person in custody will not know when, if at all, he will have access to independent legal advice. There is evidence that the longer a person is detained the more isolated he becomes. It is evident that it is the long isolation rather than any force or brutality which does the damage and which breaks people down. The lengthy detention of up to a week equips the police with a psychological advantage by giving them time to question, to probe,

  931
  and to reflect—and to return and cross-examine even more extensively. Questioned under those circumstances, a detainee may well produce information—but whether he yields up the truth is another matter. He may be prepared to say anything in exchange for his freedom. We submit in this amendment that the period should be reduced from the additional five days to two days. I beg to move.
  Lord Elton: I quite understand that noble Lords opposite wish to ensure that, where the Government, and, through the Government, the police, are granted powers of detention that go beyond those normally available, they should only be used for the minimum period necessary. That is a very proper concern and one which we share.
  We have in fact demonstrated that already by changes we have made in this Bill. At present, it is true, the Home Secretary can authorise detention for up to five days beyond the initital period of two days, and that is the same period as is in this Bill. But the difference between that Act and this Bill is this: under the Act, if the Home Secretary authorised an extension of less than five days then when that lesser period has run out he cannot, for whatever purpose, extend it. In consequence the authorities have been very reluctant to ask for anything less than the full 5 days and the Home Secretary has very rarely granted anything less than the full five days.
  Under the Bill, on the other hand, we have been careful, in Clauses 12(4) and 12(5) to make it clear that he can authorise shorter periods and extend them if they prove not to have been long enough. My right honourable does intend to make full use of this increased flexibility, and the net result of that will be that many more persons who have been detained beyond the first 48 hours will be released in less than the extra five days that are now generally requested.—and that is one of the things which the noble Lord. Lord Prys-Davies, is seeking to achieve. It is against that background that I ask your Lordships to look at the noble Lord's amendment, which seeks to limit the extension beyond 48 hours to a further 48 hours in total. I have to say that I much regret that it simply is not enough. Two days or less will certainly suffice for many straightforward cases. The two days plus two days which he now proposes will doubtless suffice for a further number.
  But I ask your Lordships to remember that not all the cases we deal with are straightforward and not all our customers are prepared to give any co-operation at all. By that, I mean that some will not even vouchsafe their identity. These are hard men, some of them schooled by terrorist organisations in not giving anything at all away. In such cases, they have to be identified, as often as not, by their fingerprints. That alone can absorb the whole of the first 24 hours' detention and in some cases are longer. Thereafter, any questions may be met by a wall of silence. Such a wall may well last indefinitely, but experience suggests that skilled interviewers can very often build up a relationship over a period of several days that will lead all but the most determined and hardened cases to yield at least sufficient information to justify their detention and enable the police to form a judgment as
  932
  to whether or not they should be excluded or otherwise proceded against in the public interest.
  My noble friend Lord Jellicoe deals with this at paragraph 59, and everything he says there bears out the necessity of the full five-day period of extension to deal with difficult cases—cases that do offer mortal danger to some of our fellow citizens. In view of that, and of the much greater opportunity the Bill provides for shorter periods of extension in less difficult cases actually to be used—which is what the noble Lord is after—I hope he will agree to let us have the Bill as it is drafted.
  Lord Prys-Davies: Certainly I will not press this amendment, but, having regard to the Minister's reply, I hope the Government will have regard to the observations of Lord Jellicoe that inadequate attention is paid in some offices to the welfare needs of persons who are held in custody for seven days. There is no provision for that in the Bill. Indeed, the Bill is silent in regard to safeguards relating to persons held in custody. With that comment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 [Control of entry and procedure for removal]:
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 11 line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
  ("(a) The arrest by a constable of a person arriving in, or leaving, Great Britain or Northern Ireland on reasonable suspicion that he is

  (i) concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies:

  (ii) is subject to an exclusion order:

  (iii) has committed an offence under section 9 above:").

  The noble Lord said: One of the unprecedented features of the 1976 Act was the setting up of security controls over travellers entering or leaving Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This provision is reintroduced by Clause 13.
  The powers are in many ways wider than is realised at first because the detail is not in the Bill itself. The detail is provided not by the Bill itself but by delegated legislation. From reading the Bill, the security control may be carried out by constables, by immigration officers, and by certain officers of Customs and Excise. One part of the amendment will confine the exercise of this control to constables. Therefore, it would exclude immigrations and Customs and Excise officers as examining officers. But the other part of the amendment will replace the misnomer "examination of persons" with the more accurate word "arrest". This will limit that power to arrest on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism or breach of an exclusion order. Under existing legislation that power of arrest can be exercised without any suspicion at all. I beg to move.
  Lord Fitt: I am sure that the records at the Northern Ireland Office will confirm that over a period of years, almost every weekend during the football season I was making representations on behalf of people who had been arrested at ports of entry into Great Britain:

  933
  particularly Larne, Stranraer and Liverpool. Given the political history and political and religious divisions there are in Northern Ireland, it is fairly well recognised that the loyalist population in Northern Ireland would support Glasgow Rangers. They therefore travelled over at weekends to the ports of Larne or Stranraer. The Catholic population, on the other hand, were great Manchester United supporters and they would travel to Liverpool to see Manchester United play.
  Again, even this Committee can identify certain areas in Northern Ireland—particularly in Belfast —with a particular political complexion. It is understood that area such as the New Lodge Road, Ballymuiphy, Divis Flats, and Falls Road are all places with a Republican identification; and Andersonstown has that identification, too. The Shankill Road and the East End of Belfast are identified more with Loyalists.
  I have found that at weekends young people—and it is normally young people who make the journeys to see football teams of their choice—are arrested. I can only describe the arrests as being frivolous. I have experience of a number of cases of people who lived in Republican areas or in areas identified by the press as being Republican strongholds. There is no such thing as a Republican stronghold in the City of Belfast or anywhere else in Northern Ireland. Although there may be a lot of Republicans, the decent people living in that district are very resentful of being labelled as living in a Republican area. But it is my experience of the police at Liverpool and at Stranraer that once they had the name and address of these young people—many of them have long hair and wear dungarees, et cetera—they would detain them because they lived in a Republican area or a Loyalist area—not because they suspected them of being involved in any terrorist events; it is my submission that it was an information gathering exercise. After a person was arrested, either getting off the boats from Northern Ireland at the port of entry, or sometimes when coming hack after attending a match—it normally happened on a Friday evening or a Saturday morning—he was detained over the weekend.
  Once they were detained the police station to which they were taken would get in touch with their relatives in Belfast, the relatives would get in touch with me and I would get in touch with the Northern Ireland Office (as it was then); they would then get in touch with the police. Then they would say, "There is nobody in the police headquarters to deal with this; they have all gone away for the weekend and we will have a look at it on Monday morning". I think that is totally unfair.
  If there is the possibility that these people can be detained for information-gathering purposes, it should be possible to ascertain and ensure that there is someone in police headquarters in Northern Ireland who can give an answer on the telephone which would ensure earlier release than normally took place. I say to the Minister in all honesty that I have had a number of cases—I do not have the precise number with me at the moment. I am sure the Minister could look at the remarks I have made and then perhaps he could quantify the number of persons who were detained at these ports—Liverpool and Stranraer—to find out
  934
  how many were subsequently charged or served with exclusion orders.
  I find there is no problem at all at Heathrow; the police there seem to be very careful whom they detain. A very few, a minority, of cases I have had related to Heathrow, but the vast majority of cases were of young people going to football matches arrested either on a Friday evening or a Saturday morning and held in the police station and interviewed or interrogated until Monday or Tuesday. I think that is very unfair, and I think steps should be taken to ensure that there is always adequate RUC staff available in Belfast so that when inquiries are made from Liverpool or Stranraer they are there to answer.
  Lord Hylton: I am aware that the Standing Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland is concerned about people travelling to and from the two countries on perfectly lawful occasions, on lawful business. I did mention this at Second Reading. I would like to support this amendment because I believe it would give much greater certainty to the law. It would also, I suggest, make much more difficult the so-called fishing expeditiions for information where there is no reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.
  Lord Elton: The effects of this amendment can be fairly simply described and would dramatically reduce the level of security which present and proposed legislation offer to the peaceful citizens of this country. The arrangements for the port controls are set out in the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) Order which will be made by virtue of Clause 13. Except for the detailed changes recommended by Jellicoe, this will be drafted in exactly the same terms as the existing order. Your Lordships may find it useful to be reminded that that is printed in full as Annex B to the Jellicoe Report.
  What the Bill at present proposes to do in this section and Schedule 3 is to give to certain authorities the power to examine individual travellers arriving in or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland in order to ascertain whether they are terrorists, whether they help terrorists or whether they are guilty of offences against exclusion orders.
  The authorities in this context are the sort of people you would expect to find exercising control at ports of entry and to be interested in the threat posed against society by those who support political terrorism. They are set out in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 3, and they are constables, immigration officers and officers of Customs and Excise serving as immigration officers under special arrangements.
  I do absolutely understand the anxiety of noble Lords that this should not be used for what has now emotively come to be called a fishing expedition—the expression crops up on Bill after Bill. The power of these people to examine travellers are fundamental to the Bill. It is no good their standing staring at the great tide of passengers coming down the gangplank or into the departure lounge. They cannot detect a terrorist by extra-sensory perception. They have to be able to ask questions; otherwise they are entirely without power to protect us. They cannot tell by looking at somebody that that is the person who is going to be a threat; they

  935
  have to act on the skills and the experience that they have acquired in the course of doing their job. This is what the subsection does; it gives them power to ask questions, to make inquiries. If they cannot they are powerless to do their job and to defend the rest of society against terrorist incursion.
  What the amendment would do is to strike that power out of the hands of all of them altogether and to replace it with a power, not to examine, but to arrest, which is granted not to all of them but only to the police—a power. Incidentally, that the police already have under Clause 12.
  An examining officer is faced each time a boat or aircraft arrives or leaves with a large number of persons about whom he knows little or nothing, and he must decide in respect of every individual whether he wishes to detain that person, perhaps only to ask for identification, perhaps to ask for a letter addressed to him or a driving licence, or perhaps for more formal questioning. If his findings suggest a need for further examination the person may be detained under Article 10 of the supplemental order pending such examination.
  In contrast, an arrest under Section 12 is made on the ground of reasonable suspicion which is a prerequisite of arrest, as the noble Lord, Lord PrysDavies, has rightly said. The distinction between the power of detention conferred by Article 10 and the power of arrest and detention in Clause 12 was succinctly made by Lord Jellicoe in paragraph 119 of his report:
  "The [arrest powers] may be exercised only on a basis of reasonable suspicion … but anyone who has arrived in or is seeking to leave Great Britain … by ship or aircraft may be examined, and anyone liable to examination may be detained. Detention is lawful provided the initial examination is lawful, and there are far wider grounds for examination than for arrest under section 12.".
  I accept that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe was concerned about the breadth of this power and recommended that an examining officer should lose his power to examine and detain a passenger after 12 hours unless he had by that time formed a reasonable suspicion on one of the matters in Clause 12(1). The Government have acepted this and it will be incorporated into the new supplemental order to be made when the Bill becomes law, together with further administrative changes designed to bring the conditions of detention into line with those of detention under Clause 12. That follows a further recommendation made by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe in paragraph 142.
  With that assurance, I turn from the amendment briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who has a related concern. The best thing I can do is to look into what he said is going on in these ports, because it would appear that there is something that needs looking into, and it will be.
  Lord Mishcon: Having regard to what the noble Lord the Minister said, which we would all like to consider. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Supplementary]:
  9.10 p.m.
  Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 13, line 33, leave out ("or").
  The noble Lord said: We now come to Part V of the Bill, which contains extremely important provisions about parliamentary control. I am sorry that it is so late; but in view of the emollient noises made by the Minister earlier today perhaps the discussion need not he too prolonged. The Bill has in any case quite substantial parliamentary safeguards in that it follows the model of the Armed Forces Acts: that is, it has a life of five years and is subject to annual renewal by affirmative resolution of both Houses. The question is: are those safeguards sufficiently stringent? I suggest that they are not, and certainly not if one compares them to the only other civil legislation of this sort that I know—at least, civil not in time of war. They fall far short of the provisions for parliamentary control in the Emergency Powers Act 1920. In some respects they even compare unfavourably with those in the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts of 1939 and 1940.
  There are two groups of amendments to this Part of the Bill. I shall speak to the first group of amendments; and, if it is for the convenience of the Committee, we might take Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 to Clause 14, and Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, to insert new clauses after Clause 17, together.
  Amendment No. 8: Page 13, line 33, at end insert—
  ("( ) in the case of an order under section 17 below a Report has been laid before Parliament under section (Report by Commission) below at least one month before the draft of the order in paragraph (a) above is laid before each House of Parliament: or").
  Amendment No. 13: After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
  ("Report by Commission.
  . The Secretary of State shall appoint a Commission of Report three members of either House of Parliament who are Privy Councillors whose duty it shall be to monitor the operation of this Act and to report annually to both Houses of Parliament upon its working and effect.").
  Briefly, the purpose of these amendments is the establishment of a commission consisting of three persons. In the case of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, Amendment No. 12, they are to be of suitable qualifications and experience and in the case of my Amendment No. 13 they should be Members of either Houses of Parliament who are Privy Counsellors. The purpose of the commission is to monitor the operation of this Bill and to report annually to both Houses of Parliament on its working and effect. In addition, my Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to provide that the annual report of the commission should be laid before Parliament at least one month before the order is laid before Parliament for affirmative resolution.
  It clearly makes sense, I hope the Committee will agree, that if there is to be a report by a commission it should be laid in sufficient time for the debates on the affirmative resolution to be better informed, with up-to-date information about the working and effects of the Bill. I stress that to my mind this proposed commission is not—I repeat, not—a quango or anything approaching a quango. I envisage a

  937
  commission of three unpaid Privy Counsellors who are Members of either House and who would make a brief report to Parliament on the working and effect of the Bill for the preceding year. Their report would cover updated statistics as supplied, say, in Annex D of the Jellicoe Report. This would not require the setting up of an elaborate secretariat or infrastructure and so would cost relatively little money.
  What would the advantage be? It would achieve two main objectives which I think the Government should welcome; that is, better informed debates in both Houses and assurance for those concerned with the protection of civil liberties that the extraordinary powers granted to the Executive under the Bill are being monitored by experienced parliamentarians.
  The reasons behind these amendments are roughly these. First, as we have heard earlier today from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the Executive's extraordinary powers under this Act are not subject to due process of law, and clearly cannot be. The report of the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, clearly showed why judicial procedures are inappropriate. That is quoted in paragraph 192 of the Jellicoe Report.
  Furthermore, the provisions of this Bill when enacted may not even be subject to judicial review. Although judicial review has been dramatically developed since Liversedge and Anderson, in ordinary legislation it may not operate in time of war or grave emergency. This is what Professor Wade says:
  "It is unlikely that this theoretical judicial control will be able to come into play"—
  that is in time of war or grave emergency—
  "since the ingredient of policy is so large by comparison with the ingredient of ascertainable fact".
  So one must count out the due process of law. One must perhaps count out also judicial review which we know has been highly developed in ordinary legislation but may not be available in emergency legislation, which of course this is.
  The sole safeguard against abuse by the Executive falls on Parliament. The annual debates on the affirmative resolutions should be well founded, and each House would be better informed if it had a report on which to base its discussions and to reach its decisions. In my opinion, as the scrutiny is essentially a matter for Parliament, the commission should be composed of members of either House. Additionally, as this is a matter of security, it is appropriate that the members of the commision should be Privy Counsellors, as well as being parliamentarians. That is why, if I may say so, I prefer my amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder.
  The Jellicoe Report itself, by implication, reproaches Parliament for the inadequacy of its scrutiny. In paragraph 14 Lord Jellicoe states:
  "the renewal debates have not on the whole received the parliamentary time which they merit … in the Commons they tend to be held late at night and to last no more than ninety minutes … and in the Lords … can be even briefer and more perfunctory."
  Now there is a new situation where, for the first time, the Opposition have not supported the Government on what has hitherto been all-party policy. That is quite an important new factor; and it
  938
  imposes an added duty on Parliament to provide for informed debate, so that Parliament can genuinely decide annually whether each, all or any of these extraordinary powers should be continued. This, I believe, might help towards the restoration of bipartisan or all-party policy. It would also allay the fears of civil libertarians. Finally, perhaps it might be agreeable to give a 50th birthday present to the National Council for Civil Liberties. For all these reasons, I beg to move.
  Lord Wigoder: The proposal that there should be review on a regular basis by impartial people responsible to Parliament emanated from one of my honourable friends on the Liberal Bench in another place. If I may, I should like to put that fact on the record and support this group of amendments.
  Lord Hylton: As I asked at Second Reading whether there could be either a Standing or a Select Committee to review these Acts, I should like very strongly to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I am sure that his Amendment No. 8 is important in order to give a chance for a properly informed debate on the renewal of the Act. As to the proposal in his Amendment No. 13, I agree that it would be far superior either to a Select or a Standing Committee or to the formula put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I should like to support strongly what he said about the Privy Counsellor's oath and the possibility of giving Privy Counsellors confidential information that cannot be released to other people. Having said that, I should like to express the strongest possible hope that the Government will be able to accept this amendment and that, if they cannot, it will be pressed at a later stage.
  Lord Fitt: I should like to add a word of support to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in his promulgation of this amendment. I do so having had experience of another place. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has mentioned the criticisms that normally we were discussing this type of legislation late at night for an hour or for one and a half hours. It is fully understandable to me that there are many people in the other place and, I am certain, many in this House who find discussion of this type of legislation distasteful. They do not like to be here because the measure impinges on what they consider to be dubious law. I am certain that this is why many noble Lords are not here to take part in the discussions.
  It is not a matter of lengthening the time for debate. We have been discussing the legislation since just after 5 o'clock, and we shall probably continue for another hour. However, there are not too many noble Lords here to make a contribution. I feel that many of them are not here because they find the legislation distasteful and do not wish to make a contribution. That position could be improved if we adopted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that at all times, during the existence of this legislation, there were Members of another place or Members here whose sole duty it would be to monitor it. We could then be assured that, if an issue arose, those who were monitoring the legislation would be aware of its effect. This admirable

  939
  set of amendments should be taken on board by the Government.
  Lord Mishcon: As one of many of your Lordships who, over the years, has had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, it is a great pleasure for me tonight to be able for a change to support him.
  Lord Hylton: Before the Minister replies, may I throw in the suggestion that my noble friend's commission should be given in its terms of reference a further duty to report on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. There is such an interlocking and interrelationship between this Bill and the Act that it could perform a valuable function by covering both.
  9.23 p.m.
  Lord Elton: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will forgive me if I do not follow him outside the legislation we are looking at, although I see that what he proposes has attractions for at least one other noble Lord in the Chamber. The amendment seeks to achieve an increase in the means for parliamentary scrutiny of the working of this legislation. It is also intended to have the effect, which could well be beneficial, of ensuring that our annual debates on the legislation should be better informed than they have been in the past. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe addressed himself with some care to the question of Parliament's need to consider from time to time whether changing circumstances had resulted in a need to change the terms of the legislation and drew attention in the same passage to the fact that the renewal debates tend to be held late at night and to be allotted only a short time. I must say that the first of those prophecies is being more fully fulfilled this evening than I could have hoped. The last, on the other hand, is not.
  I know that this is an issue that causes concern to your Lordships as well as to Members of another place and which the Government do not regard with unmixed satisfaction. I am not certain that the amendment now before us would be the best way to improve the position. I was relieved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, say that what he had in mind was a brief report because what I had in mind was the scale of the other reports that have been required by statute. One was that of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. They are, of course, considerable documents. Leaving aside his own time and trouble, devoted by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, that report absorbed two-man years of support in the department and untold hours outside it from the police force and so on. But I rather understand from what the noble Lord says that he has in mind something more frequent but less thorough.
  In considering the question of reviewing the legislation from time to time, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe looked at possible precedents and concluded that a procedure similar to the one which enables possible amendments to the Armed Forces Act could appropriately be applied to this legislation. At this point I should acknowledge that in his study of precedents my noble friend was greatly assisted by the
  940
  noble Lord, Lord Henderson, himself in a previous incarnation, who originally drew the provisions of the Armed Forces Act to his attention. The Government accepted this recommendation, and Clause 17(3) provides that the legislation shall have a life limited to five years. Under this procedure it will be for the Secretary of State of the day to decide, when the time comes, how a review of the Act's operation can best be arranged. The report made no firm recommendation about the form of such a review, and we do not feel that we could commit a future Government to a particular method without knowing what the circumstances might be in four years' time.
  But your Lordships' anxiety about this Act is perfectly understandable. It touches on the liberty of the subject, and your Lordships are the proper watchdogs of that liberty and reflect an anxiety which is felt outside this House. Powers such as these should indeed be the subject of safeguards. Of course some safeguards do exist in the Bill as it is drafted—and they are not inconsiderable—and also outside the Bill at large. Examples are habeas corpus; the police complaints procedure (now the subject of examination elsewhere): and the access to advisers, which has been improved in our proposals over what it was previously. Moreover, the nature of the legislation is such that the Secretary of State must take a personal interest in it, and I can assure your Lordships that he will do so.
  Finally, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe recommended that Ministers should take an active part in ascertaining how far the specific purposes for which an extension of detention was granted had been achieved, and should satisfy themselves that people are not detained under the Act for longer than is absolutely necessary. We have accepted that recommendation and it has been implemented by administrative means and it is now in force.
  So there are safeguards, but I accept that your Lordships yourselves are the proper guardians and that your Lordships' should be properly informed when we come to consider a renewal. It is only right that those debates should be properly informed and not perfunctory, and the Government are therefore prepared to consider how best to provide Parliament with a more detailed annual analysis of the working of the Act in the period up to renewal, which would be the product of what the noble Lord suggests.
  As noble Lords know, we publish a quarterly statistical bulletin, which gives details of the numbers of detentions, exclusions, charges and so on. It was last published on 3Ist January, and your Lordships may feel that it provides a useful basis upon which to build. I should be very grateful for suggestions, not only across the Table but perhaps through the post, as to how this could be changed, elaborated or pulled about to make it more helpful to your Lordships.
  This is not the full panoply of the "three wise men" that your Lordships have variously proposed. I have genuine anxieties about that. There will obviously be a review. I do not think that I can give a guarantee by this Government, because this legislation will last beyond the longest moment that this Government can survive. But it is really not thinkable that there will not be a further review, as there always has been before, at the end of the time. I do not think that we can hind the

  941
  next Government as to the detail of how that is to be mounted, and that is not actually what your Lordships are seeking to do. What those noble Lords who have put their names to these amendments are seeking to do, is to have a type of invigilation from day to day, the detail of which is not clear, but the product of which would be material for use by your Lordships' House and another place.
  I hesitate to criticise another place because I do not have the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, of having being a Member of it, and convention requires me to regard it as perfect, as, of course I do. However, in your Lordships' Committee we require to inform ourselves properly so that we can properly decide what are properly regarded as exceedingly important issues. I have suggested to your Lordships the starting point for looking at how this might otherwise be done, and I hope your Lordships will regard that as a basis on which to reflect on this matter before the next stage.
  Lord Henderson of Brompton: I must confess that those words are very disappointing. As far as I can gather, the Minister is offering no hope of a commission of three parliamentarians who are Privy Counsellors. He is simply saying that he will buff up the quarterly statistics. If that is all he is offering, it is exceedingly disappointing and I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Wigoder, will also find it a disappointing reply. I do not think that it meets the case at all.
  Of course, I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but from the support which I have received throughout the House, from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others, I think that the Minister should inform his right honourable friend that the Committee wishes to have three parliamentarians who are Privy Counsellors who will monitor the workings of the Act and report to Parliament once a year in time for the annual renewals. Having said that—
  Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I say that I shall of course inform my right honourable friend not merely of the substance of what your Lordships have said, but also of the obvious way in which it has been received by your Lordships' Committee. I would not wish to commit the Government to the form of review which your Lordships have severally proposed.
  942
  I think that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is dismissing me as swiftly as he feels I was dismissing him by referring to what I suggested as merely "buffing up" the statistics. We have not actually arrived at the statistics or discussed how they might be acquired and validated. Your Lordships raised the point about the anxiety outside the Committee of this House: that there is a lack of confidence in the material on which your Lordships base your decisions. If I am right in that, the way in which the statistics are acquired is a matter of some importance. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, need not feel that I have treated his suggestions cavalierly—I am sure he did not wish to suggest that. I take them seriously and they will be brought to the attention of my right honourable friend in the context of the way in which they were presented and the support that they have received. However, I cannot guarantee that they will come back in the form which the noble Lord has suggested, and I do not think that your Lordships would expect me to give that guarantee.
  Lord Hylton: I should like to submit that this is a very much more important matter than one of mere statistics. On Second Reading we saw how the same statistics could be quoted as meaning two completely different things. Tonight we are asking for a review by people who can receive confidential information, and who therefore then come to a view as to whether or not it is still necessary and essential to continue the Act either in whole or in part.
  Lord Henderson of Brompton: I must not prolong this debate any more, but I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I envisage that the report of the three wise parliamentarians who are Privy Counsellors should be able to say whether or not they recommend that, for instance, Part II of the Act should still be in force after the end of the year in question. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, but without prejudice to tabling further amendments of the same kind on Report if the Government have nothing further to offer.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17 [Duration, expiry and revival of certain provisions]:
  9.35 p.m.
  Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 14, line 23, leave out ("an order") and insert ("orders")
  The noble Lord said: Might I, with your Lordships' leave, speak to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 at the same time. They all deal with precisely the same point.
  Amendment No. 10: Page 14, line 37, at end insert—
  ("( ) No such order shall affect the provisions of more than one Part of this Act.")
  Amendment No. 11: Page 14, line 37, at end insert—
  ("( ) There shall be two such orders affecting the provisions of Parts I, III, IV and V and of Part II of this Act respectively.")
  The noble Lord the Minister said in his answer on the last group of amendments that in some way or another there must be a more detailed annual analysis provided for Parliament. I share the general disappointment at his reaction as to how that was to be produced, and as to what should be done not merely in the way of producing figures but of analysing whether the Act is working satisfactorily.
  If there is to be a more detailed annual analysis presented to Parliament it is desirable that Parliament should have the opportunity of doing something about it. On the Bill as it stands at the moment this is not so. It is right to say that the Secretary of State has the power, if he wishes, under Clause 17 to abandon, or withdraw, any particular section of the Act; but if there is material to be debated and Parliament wishes to terminate the operation of one part of the Bill, there is no provision at all for that to happen.
  The only way that the Act can be reconsidered annually is the procedure we are all so used to where an order is laid for the renewal of the whole Act. That means no amendment: that means one must take it, or leave it, as a whole. Very few of us would want to leave provisions of this nature as a whole. On the other hand there may well come a time when, as a result of the annual review, however it is produced, strong feeling develops in the Houses of Parliament that a part of this Bill, or perhaps more than one part, should not be renewed.
  The purpose of these amendments is simply to provide, in one form or another—and I do not mind whether it is the formula I have used or the formula that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has used or some other formula—that instead of one order covering the whole Act being presented annually covering the whole Act there should be separate orders so that Parliament should, if it wished, come to a separate decision on each particular part of the Act.
  That would be entirely in accord with what the noble Earl. Lord Jellicoe, said in a passage I quoted in an earlier debate. Namely, in relation to the exclusion part of the Act that the possibility of abolishing it should be kept under regular review without prejudice to the Act's other powers. One or other of the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I have tabled would enable that to be achieved. I beg to move.
  Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should very much like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said. As there was an extensive debate on Part II and the exclusion orders I can be more brief than I otherwise would have been. I can see that the Government might have some objection to the form of amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in that it would have the effect of quintupling the time available in the House of Commons, and time is a scarce commodity in another place, whereas my rather more modest proposal would have the effect of only doubling the time from 90 minutes or so, to 180 minutes or so. To that extent I think that my amendment is perhaps more acceptable to the Government than Lord Wigoder's amendment; but I entirely agree with the general spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said.
  I would elaborate on the special reason for my singling out Part II exclusion orders but there clearly is no need to do so. The case is unanswerable, partly from Lord Jellicoe's own chapter on exclusion orders which was quite exceptional and read as a whole indicates that exclusion orders should clearly be the subject of a separate order distinct from the rest of the Act. I hope that the Government will take note of the feeling in this Committee on that subject and agree to that form of amendment.
  Lord Mishcon: May I associate my noble friends with this amendment? The Committee will not be surprised, having heard the views that we put forward in regard to Part II, that we support this amendment fervently. May I take up one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, just now when he said that the objection to a separate order in regard to each part of the Bill was that it might mean that Parliament had to find rather more time than if there was the dissection of Parts III and IV and then Part II? I can only say at the conclusion of this debate on this important Bill that, if parliamentary programming cannot find time for four separate orders to deal with a Bill which so limits the rights of subject and so impinges upon our ordinary criminal law, then something is wrong with parliamentary priorities.
  Lord Elton: Although this is a procedural point, it is an important one because it touches on the degree of supervision which your Lordships' House can give to the operation of a piece of legislation that is intended to be temporary and renewable, if necessary, in part rather than as a whole.
  The device proposed under Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 carries with it a rather formidable difficulty of parliamentary handling which has been helpfully reduced, but by no means eliminated, by the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in Amendment No. 11, as he has pointed out. Your Lordships will realise that, in amending the Bill to secure greater procedural control in your Lordships' House, we shall be affecting the procedures in another place as well. The implication for the other place of increasing the number of orders necessary to re-enact a piece of legislation would be very much greater than they would be for us in exactly the order of magnitude that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has pointed out.

  945
  Having said that, I must immediately say that I entirely understand and sympathise with the feeling of noble Lords that there is a real danger that, under existing procedures, when it comes to approving an important statutory order such as this, they are left with an extraordinarily small and completely frustrating amount of influence.
  Orders can be accepted or negatived but they cannot be amended and this is in itself a considerable inhibition. It was a desire to be able to amend a proposal of the Government to renew the whole of the Act so as to allow them to renew only a part of it that gave rise to these debates in the first place. I say that I sympathise with the feeling of frustration because I have myself felt it when in opposition. And I think that what makes it real and unacceptable is when, for perhaps perfectly valid reasons, a renewal order for an important piece of legislation is presented, unamendable, to the House only a matter of hours or a few days before existing legislation lapses. In those circumstances your Lordships can understandably feel that any pretence that their advice is heeded must be hollow.
  I therefore feel that we should take this anxiety on board, and I have sought to find a means to alleviate it. I hope it appeals to your Lordships. The central concern that your Lordships are expressing is a desire to be able to influence the Government, should they be susceptible to influence, to amend their proposals as they appear in a renewal order. The Government have the power to renew the powers in the Bill piecemeal. What your Lordships wish is an opportunity to tell the Government that they should so do and for the Government to have an opportunity to take that message on board and act on it if they are persuaded. I am, therefore, prepared to undertake that on any occasion when we lay an order to renew this piece of legislation, we shall do so in ample time for V our Lordships to be able to debate it at a date which will permit the Government, if they are moved to do so by the debate, to withdraw the order and to replace it with another drawn in the different terms in which your Lordships have persuaded them to draw it.
  On reflection your Lordships will see why I cannot add the phrase which I should like to add that I can guarantee that the order will be debated at such an early time as the early laying permits but I understand that the date of the debate is agreed between the usual channels and therefore it would be wrong for me to commit, as it were, an agreement before an approach was made.
  If your Lordships are content with that—I assume the usual channels would agree to bring the order in good time before the existing powers lapsed—your Lordships would have the debate and would be able to make it quite clear that the balance of opinion in the House was that either all or part of the order should be renewed. The Government would be apprised of the majority feeling in the House and would then be able, and have the time, to replace the order with another. It is not the same procedure as your Lordships are proposing, but in fact it gives the opportunity for exactly the same outcome. I commend that idea to your Lordships to consider. If you feel, as I do, that
  946
  procedural matters are intricate, it may be as well to consider it between now and Report and perhaps discuss the details further. It seems to me that there are grounds here where we could get round what I personally found intensely frustrating when I have been sitting on the other side of the House.
  Lord Wigoder: I am grateful to the Minister for reflecting on the problem and coming forward with some tentative suggestion. I find it difficult to see quite how it would operate in practice and I find it difficult to see how, for example, if this House at this minute were debating the renewal of the order the Government could go away and say that there was a quite clear majority feeling in your Lordships' House that this or that particular section should or should not be removed. It would not be possible for us to vote on it or on any particular section. My immediate reaction is that, although I see the Government are trying to be helpful, this may well not be a very practical method of achievement. Having said that, I accept that these procedural matters are intricate. I am happy to think that my fellow proposer on one of these amendments is the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, to whom I would have gone for advice on this matter even if he had not been the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I am content to try to reflect upon these matters as has been suggested and, for my part, to ask leave to withdraw until the next stage Amendments 9 and 10.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 10 not inured.]
  Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11:
  [Printed above.]
  The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move this amendment in view of what has been said. But I should like to register my disappointment that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has not seen fit to give any hope at all, so far as I can see, that separate orders might be introduced in respect of exclusion orders.
  [Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
  Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
  Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Supplemental provisions for sections 1 to 13]:
  Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 20, line 36, at end insert—
  ("(4) Where a person is so detained, the constable shall, as soon as is practicable, make a written record of the time of the arrest and of the grounds for the arrest, a copy of which shall be given to the person detained.
  (5) The Secretary of State shall include in the published statistics the total number of arrests under this paragraph and the time periods for which they were detained.")
  The noble Lord said: I promise to be brief. I see that the Opposition Chief Whip, for the first time, has beamed upon me with a friendly smile. I can be as brief as this. Paragraph 145 of the Jellicoe Report reads:
  "Finally, I should mention the desirability of ensuring that accurate statistics are provided on this particularly important part of the law. At present, published statistics on the use of those powers are based on the number of detentions. As I explained in Chapter 6, detention is considered by most forces to begin at the point of further examination. But since this view is not universal and since the period of initial examination is not prescribed this does not necessarily give an accurate picture of the number of people 'held for examination' at the ports. I recommend that the published statistics should include figures on the number of people examined at the ports for more than one hour—that is, the number served with the first of the notices I recommend above".
  It is quite obvious from that that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, found the statistics relating to port powers quite inadequate because, while some police forces assume that the period of detention begins at the point of arrest, others do not record those held only for initial examination. I beg to move.
  Lord Elton: I am not sure that I shall attract a similar beam myself from my noble friend. The first new sub-paragraph proposed in the amendment would introduce a requirement designed to apply to arrests under Clause 12 and to detainees under the supplemental order. The noble Lords are here concerned with issues of importance not only under the Bill but generally, and we feel they should be more generally applied than would be the case if they were simply inserted into this Bill. We have therefore addressed ourselves to this issue in the context of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is part of our general legislation on such matters, and I think your Lordships will agree that the arrangements set Out in the draft code of practice on the detention and treatment of suspects issued in conjunction with that Bill will go most of the way towards meeting the spirit of this amendment.
  Paragraph 2.1 of the code deals with the duties of a custody officer at a police station in respect of a person who has been arrested but not yet charged. This requires him to inform the person detained of the grounds for detention and to record those grounds and the time when detention commences. There is no requirement for the arrested person to be given a copy of the grounds for his detention, but paragraph 2.3 of the draft code does provide that at the time of his release or at any time in the next 12 months he or his legal adviser must, on request, be given a copy of the custody record on which those grounds are entered.
  I recognise that this does not go quite so far as the noble Lords have proposed, but I believe that it does meet the spirit of this part of their amendment so far as arrests under Clause 12 are concerned. Certain detentions under the supplemental order—those where the detainee is not in police custody but in the custody of an immigration officer or a customs officer—are not within the purview of the draft code of practice, which relates to persons in police custody. I can give an undertaking that we shall consider ways of bringing the treatment given to such people into line, so far as practicable, with that meted out to those who are in police custody.
  948
  I turn now to the second part of this amendment, sub-paragraph (5). This would require the Secretary of State to include in the published statistics the total number of arrests under paragraph 5 and the length of time for which the persons are detained. I take it that in tabling the amendment noble Lords were concerned to have statistics relating both to arrests and to detentions. I assume also that they have seen Tables 1 and 6 of the Quarterly Statistical Bulletin published by the Home Office, which contain respectively the total number of persons detained under the legislation at ports or elsewhere and, for persons who are not subsequently charged or excluded, the length of time for which they were detained. In future, in accordance with my noble friend's recommendation No. 32, the bulletin will also include details of the number of people examined at ports for longer than one hour, whether or not they were formally detained.
  I am not certain what information the noble Lords are seeking beyond that which is already published, but I should be happy to consider the possibility of providing it. As there is no requirement in the Bill or elsewhere to publish statistics, a requirement to include certain details in those statistics would not fit into the Bill, but I am quite willing to look into what the noble Lords want by other means if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would kindly give me a little more guidance as to exactly what it is.
  Lord Mishcon: At the end of the Committee proceedings tonight we meet with the most co-operative, helpful and kindly terms that the noble Lord the Minister had used throughout the whole of our deliberations. It would therefore be churlish of me to do anything other than thank him for his undertaking and thank him also for the consideration which he says he will give to these various matters. Upon that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

  Animal Health and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
  9.55 p.m.
  Report received.
  Clause 5 [Licences]:
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 3, line 45, after ("prescribe") insert ("subject to any exceptions")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, which follows an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, during Committee stage that I would ensure that the Bill gave powers to make exceptions to any licensing system that may be introduced under Clause 5. The amendment provides a general power to make exceptions, since until we have a clearer idea of the nature of the licensing system we will not know exactly what exceptions we ought to make.
  The noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot give a firm commitment here that the exception which he has sought will be made, though I can assure the noble Lord that we have taken note of his concern and will have it very much in mind in preparing legislative proposals. Our first concern, as many of your Lordships acknowledged during the Committee stage, must be the welfare of the birds. But I give the noble Lord an assurance that we shall be consulting widely before preparing new regulations, and I repeat that we very much have in mind the concern which the noble Lord expressed in Committee. I beg to move.
  Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, after a frustrating two hours earlier in the evening, it is a great pleasure that the noble Lord has at last given way on something, although in a small way. I quite see the point that he makes that adding the words "subject to any exceptions" is probably as far as he can go at the moment. But I am sure that when the time conies he will see the necessity, particularly in the case of small domestic killings of birds on a farm, of making an exception. I thank the noble Lord very much for what he has done.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I always want to agree with my noble friend and I do so on this occasion, though I hope that the Minister will not fall over himself to make exceptions. I uttered a cautionary word at the Committee stage on the possible size of these farmer slaughterings that might be undertaken. Having taken advice on the matter since, it is as well to say that these exceptions should be restricted to what is common sense and should not be given too freely.
  Otherwise, some farmers who are poulterers and slaughterers will be exempt from licensing, when other establishments slaughtering for commercial purposes—and we are talking of slaughtering for commercial purposes—might have to be licensed. So there is need to be a little careful about this. I agree that the Minister should have general powers, because at the moment it would be impossible to particularise the kind of point at which the licence might be dispensed with. So I am quite content with this and hope that my noble friend will agree with my comments on the Minister's pleasurable acceptance of the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Codes of Practice]:
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 4, line 34, after ("it") insert ("or on any matter relating to fire prevention or control on premises to which section 7 applies.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is merely a follow-up from another point which I mentioned on Second Reading—and probably in Committee, too—about fire precautions. One reads of some dreadful lire disasters in livestock rearing premises of one kind or another. I know that the code of conduct, which applies to other livestock rearing premises, probably does not apply to those places where birds and animals are kept temporarily for slaughter. This may be an oversight, or it may be that there is thought to be a reason for differentiating between livestock
  950
  rearing premises and slaughtering premises. However, I notice that in the guidelines on lire training and fire fighting in emergencies in livestock rearing premises there is also a recommendation that the livestock should be held in such conditions that they can quickly escape in the event of fire. I do not think that slaughtering premises are those from which live animals or birds could quickly escape, which is all the more reason why prevention should be the keynote in the approach to this hazard.
  I know that the Minister does not like too many additions to codes of practice. I am not sure why. Sometimes what he may do is particularised, while at other times it is either taken for granted or assurances are given that a particular matter will be covered. I should be satisfied if the Minister could say that special attention will be given to fire hazard in slaughtering premises which have to be licensed and where the birds have to come first. I hope that my suggested addition will be accepted or that the Minister will give an assurance that it will not be overlooked when the code of practice is drafted. I beg to move.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand entirely the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The noble Lord raised the matter at Second Reading. However, I understood that on that occasion his remarks were directed to the concern which he felt about fires in intensive poultry units. That is, I believe, what the noble Lord was mainly concerned about on Second Reading, and I share his concern. There is indeed a distinction between premises where poultry are reared and premises where poultry are slaughtered. So far as intensive units where poultry are being reared are concerned, the present welfare code for poultry makes recommendations designed to reduce the risk of injury to birds in fires, and the Farm Animal Welfare Council has put forward proposals for amending the code in order considerably to strengthen it. The Government are currently considering the amendments which the Farm Animal Welfare Council has proposed. We fully share the view of the Farm Animal Welfare Council about the need to strengthen the code in this respect.
  As for slaughterhouses, which is what this part of the Bill is about and to which I believe the noble Lord was directing his remarks on this amendment, fire prevention in those places is covered by the Fire Precautions Act 1971. Fire in slaughterhouses is, I am very glad to say, very rare. Of the three cases in recent years of which the Ministry is aware, none of those fires involved any live bird casualties. Therefore I feel that the noble Lord's concern expressed at Second Reading is covered by the Farm Animal Welfare Council's proposals for amending the code on fire precautions. I have given the noble Lord an assurance that we are considering these proposals and that we fully share the council's view of the need to strengthen the code.
  So far as slaughterhouses are concerned—to which this amendment is really aimed—they are covered by the Fire Precautions Act 1971, which requires fire departments to approve arrangements in those places—which is of course a very much stronger legislative precaution, if I may say so, than the effect of the noble Lord's amendment.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Probably I had become a little mixed up between the places where birds are reared and where they are slaughtered. It is not always possible to trace hack how different conditions affecting the same livestock are covered, in respect of some hazards, by different Acts of Parliament or by different regulations. I am quite content with the explanation which the noble Lord has given and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 4, line 35, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  ("(b) revise any such code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions of the code.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of my advisers are equipped with what is called a toothcomb. They tend to read through Bills and hark hack to previous legislation to identify any differences—and if there are differences, they study their meaning, if any. We all know that legislation is about words. More and more, legislation has come to be about forms of words. We see from different Acts of Parliament that certain words and phrases which have stood the test of time, which have been shown to be foolproof, to give the Minister all the protection he requires and all the elbow room he would like, are used time and again. That is done because advisers on legislation can then assure the Minister that the words are all right.
  When my advisers and I examined the Bill, we found on page 4, relating to codes of practice, the proposed replacement of a section of the 1967 Act. We noted that the Minister should have the time and the opportunity to change the codes of practice. But what made us reach for our smelling salts was the word "withdraw". We thought, "Good heavens! He now wants the power to withdraw a code". This is a new word in that context. Clause 6 states that there shall be inserted the words
  "withdraw any such code or revise it in such manner as the Ministers think fit".
  Some noble Lords know that the words,
  "as the Ministers think fit"
  always create some resentment in my mind, because I think sometimes that the words "as the Ministers think fit" are a concession to the belief that Ministers think.
  Actually, anybody who has been in the Government knows that the chief qualification for a Minister is not to think but to reach decisions. Very often, the decisions he reaches are not what he thinks. In this context, the programme "Yes, Minister"—a burlesque—pushes the truth far enough to make it very funny and even hilarious. But when I read C. P. Snow's Strangers and Brothers, I find that his conferences between civil servants and Ministers come much nearer to my own experience of what actually happens; they are very grim affairs. They are a different kind of civil servant altogether from "Sir Humphrey", I may say.
  That is an aside, and we would probably have enjoyed it more if the hour were not quite so late. I am now suggesting to the Minister that he has to explain
  952
  why in this clause of the Bill he has departed from a form of words, regarding his powers relating to codes of practice, which has appeared in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 for so long and which has evidently worked so well.
  I have just copied from the 1968 Act into the amendment the words that were put there at that time. That alone is, I think, sufficient recommendation; there is nothing like a precedent in all these matters, especially one that has stood the test of time, and here we have it. So I am asking the House to accept the replacement in the Bill of the shorter version, with its possibly startling implications, by the form of words used in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. I beg to move.
  Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I must admit that I looked at my noble friend's amendment and wondered what the difference was. The wording is different but the meaning seemed to me the same. I had not his line toothcomb to extract the word "withdraw". I should like to come to the Minister's help here, it I may, in that I can quite see there may be occasion when the Minister might have to withdraw a code. If the straw burning Bill sees the light of day again and we are forbidden to burn straw, there would he very little use for the straw burning code and it would need to be withdrawn. If by any chance we are stopped from keeping animals on slats—and there was a very strong move to do that—we should need to remove the code governing keeping animals on slats. I felt that my noble friend is going a little too far. I quite see the point that he wants to hamstring Ministers as much as he can. With those few words, I leave it to the Minister and will hear what he says.
  Lord Airedale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, must be absolutely right. If what you now mean has been expressed previously in certain words in legislation you ought always to use those very words, because the moment you depart and use different words you will have lawyers arguing that Parliament must have meant something different on this occasion because if they had meant the same thing they would have used the same words as they used before, You may, through not having used the same words as before, get futile arguments raised by lawyers when your meaning is the same as the meaning you were intending before.
  10.12 p.m.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, criticises the wording in this part of the Bill because the effect is to give a power of withdrawal of a code. But, of course, withdrawal may sometimes be necessary when a code is to he revised, and we should not normally withdraw a code without putting anything in its place.
  I should like to assure your Lordships that, in framing this provision slightly differently from the comparable provision in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, the Government were seeking only to simplify the drafting While retaining similar provisions. However, despite the help which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has so chivalrously offered, I think perhaps I ought to come

  953
  down on the side which is advised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, says that Ministers are paid not to think but to decide. I think nonetheless that there is advantage here in adhering to the precedent set in earlier legislation, and I decide that I have great pleasure in accepting the noble Lord's amendment.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I have now broken my duck on this Bill and my score is equivalent to that of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. We have not yet finished and one never knows, there might be more to come. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I am happy that the proposed new form of words will be included in the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 5, line 22, after ("printed") insert ("and distributed").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows my undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in Committee. Very simply it makes mandatory the distribution of codes of practice but leaves Ministers free to decide whether or not they ought to be put on sale. May I make it clear that the reason for this amendment came entirely from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, even though we are meeting it by putting down a Government amendment. I think that makes the score about oneand-a-half to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and only one to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
  Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. This clause adds to the criminal law and I think it is very important, whenever this is so, that people who are liable to be affected shall have access to information about it so that they can keep themselves out of trouble. This amendment ensures that people will have access to the information about this addition to the criminal law, and I am grateful that the Government have found my suggestion acceptable.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 5:
  After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
  ("Duties of official veterinary surgeon.
  ( ) The duties of the official veterinary surgeon appointed by the enforcing authority under this and other Acts shall include attention to the welfare of birds on premises to which section 7 of this Act applies, and shall require him to report to the enforcement authority any breaches of regulations made under section 5 or codes of practice under section 6 of this Act")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a little more substantial. It deals with the position and functions of the official veterinary surgeon. This was referred to by my noble friend on Second Reading, in col. 803 of Hansard. The noble Lord the Minister replied to it in the course of his speech later, in cols. 808–9. That was on 21st December and I think the impression that we gained from what the Minister said was that there was something happening and that we would probably hear more about it later. There has been a complete silence since then.
  I do not have a mole in the department; all I have is a little bird that flies about outside it and I am told that the Minister wants to make an announcement about this but would prefer to do it in another place. That might be quite unfounded, but I know that sometimes Ministers like to take the credit for things that they are proud of and reserve them for announcements in another place rather than leave it to one of their supporting Ministers in your Lordships' House.
  Whether that is so or not, probably something can be said by the noble Lord the Minister about the prospects of action being taken to implement the rather important Recommendation 37 of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. My amendment seeks to do what the Farm Animal Welfare Council suggested; namely, to provide for the official veterinary surgeon to have welfare within his terms of reference and not only the rather narrower scope or function of the present arrangements.
  I am advised that one of the drawbacks of my amendment is that it would mean that the official veterinary surgeon, the man or woman, would have to spend longer on the premises because of the additional and extended duties he or she would have to perform. This would impose an additional expenditure upon the industry. I was surprised to learn that, although local authorities are responsible for appointments, the cost of the veterinary surgeons concerned is borne by the industry, and probably by the enterprise. The longer the veterinary surgeon spends on the premises, the more expensive it will be. Indeed, I understand that in some cases it might mean the appointment of additional veterinary surgeons to carry out the wider duties that my amendment provides for. I always take the Minister at his word. At column 809 he stated:
  "our priority, first and foremost, must be the welfare of the birds", [Official Report, 21st December 1983; col. 809.]
  He repeated that only a few minutes ago.
  I would not wish to impose the additional costs of the veterinary services that might arise under this amendment on the industry. Cruelty to animals and birds comes under the criminal law as a matter of public policy. It is the duty of representatives of the public to carry out the wishes of the public in matters of this kind. When cruelty is outlawed, enforcement becomes all-important. Different forms of enforcement are needed to safeguard the interests of living things which are in the hands of people for one purpose or another.
  Any extension of the duties of the official veterinary surgeon under this amendment should fall on public funds. I hope that the Minister will look at the proposal in that context. Anyway, it is one of the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. I again stress that recommendations coming from such a quarter, after such lengthy consideration, should be fully respected when they come to your Lordships' House.
  That, I think, is all I can say in support of this amendment. I hope that it will commend itself to the Minister. If he could give an assurance that Recommendation 37 is not dead and is still under active attention, I should feel disposed to withdraw the amendment. I know that at the present time, when public expenditure is under great pressure and when local authorities are not all that kindly disposed

  955
  towards the Government, a matter of this kind may receive rather less than adequate attention for reasons other than the merits of the case. I beg to move.
  10.23 p.m.
  Lord John-Mackie: My Lords. I am afraid that I am not quite in line with my noble friend here. Whoever pays for the services of the veterinary surgeon, it costs money. I always remember the late Sir Stafford Cripps demanding an economic survey. He had a wad of stuff and he said, "For goodness sake, give me something that I can read quickly". It was reduced to four pages; and he said, "Can't it be on one page?". The desperate official then said to him, "There's no such thing as a free lunch". That is an economic theory that we should remember. Whoever pays for the veterinary surgeon, it costs money.
  Veterinary surgeons are scarce, particularly the good ones. I think that to give them this duty would be a mistake. The amendment states that the provision:
  "shall include attention to the welfare of birds on premises".
  That would mean a tremendous amount of work to go through poultry premises to find that out. It seems to me to be too much to ask busy veterinary surgeons or the official veterinary surgeon—whoever it is— to do that type of work. I am afraid I could not support my noble friend here.
  Lord Belstead: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said and also to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. I can perhaps steer a course down the middle which I seem to have spent most of this afternoon doing with some success. I shall try to do it again. May I first give an assurance to the noble Lord that we are indeed considering very carefully how best we might respond to the Farm Animal Welfare Council Recommendation No. 37. I can go further and say that we most certainly intend to table an amendment. The drafting of the amendment is not really a simple matter. As has become evident already from the discussion, there are different points of view. We feel that we must take account of the situation in the large number of poultry slaughterhouses that are not required to be licensed under the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations and do not therefore have supervision at the moment by an official veterinary surgeon.
  If I may say s, I do not think that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, quite fits the bill for some drafting reasons. For instance, it does not deal with the point that I have just mentioned. In addition, I am bound to say that we believe that if our guidance on time spent in the plant for hygiene purposes is followed there should be time for official veterinary surgeons also to attend to welfare. We shall wish very much to take account of the views of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, the local authority associations and the veterinary profession who have been consulted on the matter by my right honourable friend. If therefore I say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—as I do—that not only is this matter under active consideration but that we will almost certainly table an amendment—not necessarily in this House, because time may not allow, but before the Bill finally passes into law-I hope the assurance will meet the particular question that the noble Lord put to me.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am quite content with his answer and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 6, line 2, after ("situated") insert ("who may be a qualified veterinary surgeon appointed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to a clause in the Bill dealing with the right of entry. This is a very delicate subject in all cases where the right of entry is provided by Parliament, by statute. It is not a proposal for the right of entry of inspectors of the RSPCA but the right of entry of qualified veterinary surgeons appointed by the RSPCA. At this point, I should say that I have not been prompted by the RSPCA. It has not asked me to do this and I am not being sponsored by it. On the whole, the RSPCA does not like me. I am too militant for it, would you believe? I am doing this off my own bat because I think that it is something that the RSPCA, as a voluntary organization, should have in its armoury against undesirable practices in establishments where cruelty may occur.
  The amendment raises the old question of the care that must be exercised in adding to the growing list of the right of entry into premises in the name of the law. Attitudes towards rights of entry vary a great deal according to what the entry is for and what it is to discover. Some people would rush in if it is pornography. They would let other people go in if children were involved. They would hold you back where animals are concerned and say you were a lot of busybodies. In reading the account of the National Farmers' Union conference in the Farmers Weekly, I was rather distressed to read of the hostility of a number of members of the NFU towards what are scornfully referred to as welfarists. Welfarists are not some undesirable members of society. We are not crackpots or cranks. We are just people with normal feelings, who are trying to express them and to get them accepted as part of the attitude of the community generally and embodied in the law where it is suitable for that to be done.
  Nevertheless, the right of entry is a very important power to give to anybody, whether it be state officials, the police, officers of voluntary organisations or others. I have my reservations—and I have expressed them more than once, and I shall probably do so again—on the right of entry, because wherever the right of entry is given there should be a question mark as to why it is desirable and whether it is justified.
  I do not hold the view that some people hold that, if one resists the right of entry, one has something to hide. I do not believe that at all. Some people resist the right of entry on principle, because they say that it is an invasion of their privacy or their rights—especially their property rights. So those who say that they do not want the right of entry may not be hiding anything, but may be just old-fashioned liberals like me, and object on principle. I have always held the view that any incursion upon liberty, any intrusion upon privacy,

  957
  anything that interferes between the citizen and his freedom, should be examined and not taken for granted, and certainly not passed as a matter of course.
  Why, then, am I proposing that a veterinary surgeon appointed by the RSPCA should have the same right of entry as the veterinary surgeon appointed by the local authority? The reason is enforcement. The criminal law should be enforced by the police, but unfortunately—and I am not attributing blame to anybody—the laws relating to cruelty to animals are not enforced with the same vigour by the police as laws relating to other fields of criminal activity. That is why we have voluntary societies like the RSPCA which undertake prosecutions—as it is their right to do—in the place, in many cases, of the police. Frequently, when the public complain to the police about what they believe to be acts of cruelty, the answer from the police is, "Go and see the RSPCA".
  There was a case in my former constituency where a person observed something going on in the garden next door which he thought was very cruel to a dog. He telephoned the police and said that they ought to come and look at it. The police came to look and said, "You ought to call in the RSPCA". The prosecution was undertaken by the RSPCA and the evidence was given by the police. This is an extraordinary situation. No wonder the RSPCA spends over £100,000 a year on prosecutions. There are hundreds, if not well over a thousand, prosecutions every year and one wonders why they have to do it. They do it because the opportunity and, indeed, the duty to do it is there.
  I have tried on occasion to find out by questioning the difference between the prosecutions undertaken by the police and those undertaken by the RSPCA, but the figures are hard to conic by and the distinction between the two is very difficult to discover. So this amendment is put forward to supplement the enforcement of the provisions in Clause 7 of this Bill by permitting the entry, on equal terms with the veterinary surgeon appointed by the local authority, of an equally qualified veterinary surgeon appointed by the RSPCA. If this amendment gives rise to some attention being given to why the RSPCA should be called upon to undertake so many prosecutions and have an inspectorate going all over the place looking at cruelty cases, instead of the police whose job it is, then I shall be glad that this subject has been opened up because I think that it is a matter of some importance.
  The hour is late and I do not propose to occupy any more of the time of your Lordships' House on this amendment. I appreciate the difficulties of accepting the amendment right off the cuff tonight, but I hope that at least some of the points that I have mentioned will be borne in mind when looking at the adequacy of provision for enforcement in these very difficult cases of premises where animals can be knocked about and cruelly treated and where it is difficult to get inside to see what is actually going on. I beg to move.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, as a matter of principle the Government believe that powers of entry should be granted only to officers acting on behalf of central or local government. Naturally, we welcome the cooperation and advice of the voluntary bodies which are active in the field of animal welfare, including of course the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
  958
  to Animals, and the Royal Society's record in the field is an admirable one. However, I do not think that it would be right to break with such a well-established principle now.
  The local authorities and members of the State Veterinary Service make regular visits to slaughterhouses in the course of their work to check on compliance both with welfare and with hygiene legislation. It is in that context that the noble Lord is asking to have the extra power for RSPCA vets. It is the noble Lord himself who put the libertarian point—the Englishman's-home-is-his-castle point. I think it is a fundamental issue that central and local government are, of course, accountable for the actions of their officers to the elected authorities of Parliament or the district council, as the case may be. It is important in a democracy to ensure that those with a right to enter private property ought to be accountable in this way.
  Therefore, I do not feel very enthusiastic about this particular amendment. I do not depart at all from what the noble Lord has said about the important work of the RSPCA, not at all. However, we are dealing with this absolutely fundamental point of right of entry, and I think that there we ought to draw the line that the officers concerned are those accountable either to Parliament or to the council concerned.
  Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I should like to ask a question on this point. If I remember rightly, if something is reported to the RSPCA, that society then approaches the person concerned and if its officer does not gain entry by agreement, he then reports the matter to the police. Is that not the procedure?
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I rather think that that is precisely the procedure. The noble Lord is right.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, for the present I think that I am persuaded. I do not wish to pursue the matter further at this time of night or, indeed, in this particular debate. I believe that wider issues arc involved here which it might be more suitable to ventilate on another occasion. It would have to do with enforcement of the law in relation to cruelty to animals, which is not by any means as good as it ought to be. I shall not say any more, but beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 17, line 41, leave out first ("and")
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 8 standing in my name.
  Amendment No. 8: Page 17, line 41, after ("geese") insert ("and quails")
  Here I seek to add to the list of birds which are covered by this Bill. I am advised that quails are now in the area of being reared for slaughter along with geese, ducks turkeys, chickens and the rest. Therefore, I

  959
  hope that the Minister will agree that we can bring quails into the protection of the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have listened to the brief argument which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has put forward. I am convinced by his argument, and I have much pleasure in accepting the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 8:
  [Printed above.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  SIZEWELL PRESSURISED WATER REACTOR
  SIZEWELL PRESSURISED WATER REACTOR
  AGRICULTURAL COSTS AND INFLATION
  AGRICULTURAL COSTS AND INFLATION
  BADGERS: CONSULTATIVE PANEL
  BADGERS: CONSULTATIVE PANEL
  ANGLERS' LEAD-SHOT: DAMAGE TO SWANS
  ANGLERS' LEAD-SHOT: DAMAGE TO SWANS