Sitting of 18 May 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Portsmouth, South, in the room of Mr. R. Bonner Pink, C.B.E., V.R.D., deceased.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
NEW WRIT

  Animal Health and Welfare Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.36 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. With the leave of the House, I will try later to answer points raised.
  The Bill seeks in various respects to update or clarify existing legislation and introduces new provisions which reflect areas of concern that have developed since the original legislation was enacted. It covers such matters as the control of animal diseases, the welfare of poultry in slaughterhouses, artificial methods of livestock breeding and veterinary medicines.
  The first three clauses of the Bill provide for changes to be made to the Animal Health Act 1981. The first of these, in clause 1, extends the powers which exist for the seizure of material to prevent the spread of disease. The House will be only too well aware of the seriousness for agriculture should there be an outbreak of a serious animal or poultry disease in this country. Fortunately, overall, we have an excellent record in terms of freedom from disease and this is in no small part due to the framework of legislation upon which disease control work is founded. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. There is a continuing need to look at our controls and to adapt them in the light of changing circumstances.
  In this context, the last few years have seen significant technological advances which have led to an increasing use and movement of animal semen, embryos and ova. The House will fully appreciate that these can readily transmit disease. Because of that, it could be necessary to seize such material in the face of an outbreak of disease so that the risk of spread could be minimised. It is with that especially in mind that the wider powers are sought because, at the moment, they are not in existing provisions.
  Specifically, clause 1 extends the enabling powers for the seizure of material under section 35(1) of the 1981 Act so that it can include anything, whether animate or inanimate, by which or by means of which any disease might be carried or transmitted. Additionally, clause 1 amends section 36 of the Act relating to compensation for seizure, so that when the Minister seizes anything that is obtained from or produced by a diseased animal he will pay compensation if the Ministers have made an order to that effect.
  626
  Clause 2 extends the powers of entry in the 1981 Act. I am, of course, well aware of the sensitivity that accompanies the subject and the House may be assured that the Government would not propose increasing powers of entry without being completely satisfied that this course was necessary. I also emphasise that this is very much a back-up power as, in the vast majority of cases when members of the state veterinary service visit farms, there is full co-operation from farmers.
  Powers are currently available which allow veterinary surgeons of the state veterinary service to go on to farms to determine whether certain diseases exist without there being any previous suspicion of disease. This power relates only to foot and mouth disease, swine fever and pleuro-pneumonia. It does not extend to other diseases, some of which, particularly those which have emerged recently, are extremely difficult to identify. It is therefore important that, as part of the disease control and eradication measures, there are powers in certain circumstances to enter premises, without there having been suspicion that disease exists, to carry out investigations. Clause 2 therefore provides for the extension of powers of entry in section 63(9) of the 1981 Act to a wider range of diseases.
  Clause 3 simply makes it clear that orders made to protect the welfare of animals in transit to or from ports or airports in Great Britain may be made to apply to those parts of the journey which take place in or over our territorial waters.
  Clauses 4 to 7 are the result of recommendations made to the Government by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in its report on the welfare of poultry at the time of slaughter. Hon. Members will be aware that the council was formed by the Government in 1979 and has done a great deal of work, involving considerable time and effort. I should like to add my tribute to that paid by my noble Friend the Minister of State in another place to the members of the council for their devotion to their task. The report was concerned to improve the care of poultry awaiting slaughter and at the point of slaughter. Its recommendations, which the Government recognise as very important, will, through this Bill, result in amendments to the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967.
  The most fundamental change to the 1967 Act will be to extend the conditions applying to the slaughter of poultry to include all slaughter. In other words, it will no longer relate solely to slaughter for sale for human consumption. Sales of live poultry direct to the consumer in markets and certain shops have increased and even when such poultry are slaughtered on the retailer's premises they are, technically, slaughtered after sale. I hope that the House will agree that poultry slaughtered after sale should not be denied the protection afforded to birds that are slaughtered first and then sold.
  Of course, there are circumstances in which the methods of slaughter required by the 1967 Act would be inappropriate. For that reason, exemptions from section 1(1) of the Act are provided in the case of birds slaughtered to prevent the spread of disease, in the course of an authorised experiment or by a vet acting in his professional capacity. In these cases there are already safeguards that protect the welfare of the birds, so it is unnecessary and inappropriate for that section to apply. There is also provision for Ministers to approve special methods for

  627
  slaughtering day-old chicks, since the methods laid down in the Act are not generally suitable for the disposal of unwanted chicks in hatcheries.
  Sir Paul Hawkins: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, will she clarify the position on farm slaughter? The National Farmers Union has considerable doubts about whether regulations could apply to slaughter on the farm for sale at the farm gate.
  Mrs. Fenner: Regulations consequent upon the Act will always be made after close consultation with all organisations involved and the industry. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. The welfare of birds is of paramount importance here.
  Mr. Tom Cox: The Minister has referred to day-old chicks, but apparently the Bill can apply to 72-hour-old chicks. Will she give some detail about the method of slaughter that will be approved?
  Mrs. Fenner: We are awaiting the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendations on the slaughter of chicks. As I have already said, the 1967 Act is not suitable. We hope to receive the council's recommendations before the Bill is enacted.
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council considered it important that people carrying on certain activities in poultry slaughterhouses should be licensed, as has been the case in the red meat industry for many years. Clause 5 therefore provides for Ministers to make regulations that will require licensing and will lay down conditions for the granting of licences. This will enable us to ensure that appropriate training is given.
  Many of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's more detailed recommendations—especially those directed at slaughterhouse operators — do not lend themselves so readily to translation into legislation because of the need to provide adequate flexibility to deal with the range of practical circumstances in different slaughterhouses. The Government consider that the most practical way in which to meet those recommendations is by means of codes of practice on the humane treatment of birds in slaughter-houses. Clause 6 accordingly enables Ministers to prepare and issue such codes. The codes would not be directly enforceable in law since that would negate the value in their inherent flexibility. They may, however, in the event of any contravention of the Act or of regulations made under it, be relied upon by the prosecution as tending to establish guilt.
  I should like to assure the House that no regulations or codes of practice will be made under clauses 4 to 6 without, I reiterate for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins), full consultations with interested organisations including, of course, the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the poultry industry. As the House will be aware, the Farm Animal Welfare Council is considering all welfare codes to see whether any of the recommendations could more appropriately be made mandatory by being incorporated into regulations. We shall ask the Farm Animal Welfare Council to apply similar considerations to any codes that are made under these clauses.
  Clause 7 provides powers of entry enabling officers of the agriculture Departments or of the local authority to
  628
  enter premises where the commercial slaughter of poultry takes place. Many premises not at present covered by the Act will be brought within its scope by clause 4. These newly-covered premises differ in nature from those already subject to the Act, so a rather different power of entry is required.
  The House may also have noticed that a new species of bird has been added to the list of poultry covered by the 1967 Act. This is the quail, which was added to the list in the other place in view of the growth in quail production for slaughter in this country. I should perhaps remind the House that powers already exist in the 1967 Act to extend the list by order, so a new Bill is not needed every time.
  Before I move on to other aspects of the Bill I should like, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to expand on a point of concern expressed in the other place. It has to do with the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendation No. 37, in which the council sought to have the welfare of poultry in slaughterhouses made part of the responsibility of the local authority's official veterinary surgeon who is responsible in licensed slaughterhouses for supervising hygiene. I do not propose at this stage to discuss the detail of this recommendation or of the Government's proposals to meet it, save to repeat the assurance given by my noble Friend the Minister of State in the other place that we intend to table an amendment during the Bill's passage through this House.
  What I may add is that the Government's amendment will provide for properly qualified supervision in poultry slaughterhouses for all welfare matters relating to poultry awaiting slaughter and at the point of slaughter. As was mentioned in the other place, an official veterinary surgeon is not always required in poultry slaughterhouses and we have had to consider this problem in some depth with the interests directly involved. The amendment will take account of all the points raised.
  Next, I turn to the proposed controls on artificial breeding in clauses 8 and 9. Artificial insemination in cattle first became commercially viable in the 1940s, and Government controls date from that time. Section 17 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1943 introduced enabling powers for the agriculture Ministers of Great Britain to make regulations for controlling artificial insemination and also imposed control over imports of semen through a system of licensing. These were used to make a series of regulations relating to cattle and pigs. The principal purpose of the controls was to prevent the spread of animal disease through the distribution of semen and to limit the use of animals of poor or unproven merit in order to avoid diluting the quality of the national herds.
  In recent times, a number of other artificial breeding techniques have been developed, such as embryo recovery and transfer in cattle, and cloning. These have made great strides and are now well established, but there are no statutory powers available at present to control their use, even though the possibilities for the spread of animal disease and the use of poor quality donors are only slightly less than in the case of artificial insemination.
  In order to remedy that situation, clause 8 provides for the making of regulations to control the practice of artificial breeding of specified livestock. Such regulations may prohibit the carrying on of any specified activity in connection with livestock, semen, ova and embryos except under the authority of a licence or approval. Importation of breeding products may also be regulated. These

  629
  measures will enable the controls over artificial insemination to be maintained and extended to cover the use of ova and embryos.
  In addition, the clause provides for regulations to allow the payment of fees for the issue of licences and approvals. Over the years, the cost of the various tests and inspections required before a bull can be approved has risen considerably to the point where it is now estimated to be approximately £150 to £200. It is considered that in the future at least part of the costs should be recovered, although the exact level at which fees should be fixed will be a matter for careful consideration, following consultationss with interested parties.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: Clause 8(8) states:
  "'livestock' includes any animal or bird not in the wild state".
  Are domestic cats and dogs included or excluded?
  Mrs. Fenner: I shall take advice on that, but I think that the answer is that domestic cats and dogs are excluded, because they are generally a subject for the Home Office. I do not know about breeding, but they are generally a subject for the Home Office.
  Clause 9 supplements the provisions of clause 8 by providing for offences committed by bodies corporate, the repeal of section 17 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1943 and the saving of any regulations and import licences made or issued under that Act which could have been made under clause 8 or issued under any regulations made under that clause. As regards natural breeding, the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act 1931 and the Horse Breeding Act 1958 were passed to prohibit the keeping of bulls and stallions of a prescribed age for natural service unless they were licensed. The object there too was to improve the quality of stock.
  The operation of the 1931 Act in respect of bulls was suspended in 1976, as it was considered that the advantages of good husbandry practice were widely recognised and standards were considerably higher than in 1931. In the case of stallion licensing—the 1958 Act—the rising cost of licences encountered opposition from the horse industry. The horse breeding organisations themselves now strictly regulate the standards applicable to stallions accepted for registration in stud books and they do not oppose the ending of stallion licensing. An animal is very unlikely to be used for breeding purposes if refused entry to the stud book whether or not it is licensed under the Act. The age at which a licence was required was raised from 2 to 5 years in 1982, thus effectively suspending stallion licensing for a number of years. Clause 10 therefore repeals these two Acts and formally ends controls on natural breeding.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: Will my hon. Friend clarify the position of the do-it-yourself artificial insemination users, particularly as there are cutbacks in the dairy industry, as that practice may grow on farms?
  Mrs. Fenner: I am sorry, but I did not hear the first part of my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. Stewart: Will my hon. Friend clarify the position of do-it-yourself artificial insemination users under clause 9?
  Mrs. Fenner: As I have said, there are already regulations applying to artificial insemination. In the Bill, we are concerned with maintaining them, and extending them to include embryos, ova and semen.
  Clauses 11 and 12 amend the Medicines Act 1968 which controls production and supply of veterinary medicines as well as human medicines. Clause 11 is intended to resolve two distinct problems concerning medicated animal feedingstuffs which have arisen with the present section 40 of the Medicines Act.
  The first problem is the form in which instructions are given by veterinarians to manufacturers of medicated feedingstuffs. Prior to the Medicines Act 1968, medicated feedingstuffs were controlled under the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956. Under this Act, a veterinary surgeon's instructions to the feed manufacturer were contained in a "written direction" and specifications as to the content and period of validity of the written direction were laid down in subordinate legislation. With the introduction of the Medicines Act, however, the term "prescription" was substituted for "written direction" and no specific powers were taken to lay down matters such as the form and content of the prescription.
  The absence of a specified form of instructions has caused difficulties in the trade, and representative organisations have been unanimous in asking for a return to the use of a "written direction", so that manufacturers receive instructions in a clear and standardised form. The term "written direction" has therefore been used in the new section 40 contained in clause 11 and new section 40(2)(d) provides agriculture Ministers with the power to specify in regulations conditions relating to the form and content of the written direction.
  The second problem concerns the question of the general control of medicated animal feedingstuffs. Since the introduction of the Medicines Act, there has been a rapid growth in the administration of medicines through feed, which has made apparent certain weaknesses and ambiguities in the present controls. The Government have, therefore, decided that the time has now come to bring the medicated feeds sector under stricter control. The first step is to clarify exactly which products used in the manufacture of medicated feedingstuffs need to be licensed under the Medicines Act.
  Clause 11(2) provides agriculture Ministers with the power to prescribe by order those classes of medicated feedingstuff which are to be treated as medicinal products and therefore require a product licence. Such an order would be made, of course, only after consultation with all the appropriate interests.
  As for the strengthening of controls, clause 11 also provides for a system of registration for manufacturers and distributors of medicated feedingstuffs. Under this system, any manufacturer or dealer who wishes to register for the purposes of the regulations will be required to sign an undertaking that he will comply with a code of practice covering such things as record keeping, storage of medicinal products and the avoidance of cross-contamination. It is the Government's intention that the code of practice should be drafted by a group representing the trade associations whose members are involved in the medicated feed sector and then be formally adopted by the Government. By this means we hope to achieve an improvement in the standards of manufacture and distribution of medicated feedingstuffs without imposing requirements which are unrealistic or unworkable.

  631
  I should also mention that, in conjunction with the regulations which will be made under the new section 40, we shall be reviewing, under powers already available to the Government, the licensing of medicinal products used in the feedingstuffs sector with the aim of ensuring that those with a high level of medication are incorporated into feed under carefully controlled conditions — in other words, by those who can comply with the code of practice.
  Anyone who cannot comply with the code of practice will be able to obtain products only with an appropriately lower level of medication, which do not require such careful mixing to ensure that they are safely and evenly distributed through the finished feedingstuff.
  Finally, on clause 11, I stress that there will be full and detailed consultation with all interested organisations before any new arrangements are introduced, whether under existing powers or those that are being sought under clause 11. Our objective is not to place burdens upon the feedingstuffs or farming industries which are excessive or unnecessary, but rather to ensure that everyone involved in the production and distribution of medicated feedingstuffs observes the procedures which are already good manufacturing practice in this sector.
  Clause 12 clarifies Ministers' powers to require the registration of agricultural merchants selling veterinary drugs and enables fees to be charged for registration.
  The Medicines Act requires that all medicines not on the general sale list have to be sold through registered pharmacies. An exemption from this requirement allows agricultural merchants to sell certain veterinary drugs, known as merchants' list products, to farmers. The operation of the arrangements for the sale of merchants' list products has recently been reviewed and we have decided that agricultural merchants should continue to sell these products to farmers, but that there should be some improvements in the handling and distribution of the products through agricultural merchants' premises.
  A code of practice is the method by which these improvements will be achieved. This is being drafted by the Animal Health Trade Associations Group, which represents the trade organisations involved in the distribution of merchants' list products, in consultation with the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the agriculture Departments, and is almost complete. An undertaking to comply with the code of practice will be one of the conditions for registration which Ministers will impose in regulations under the new section 57(2A) contained in clause 12.
  I shall deal now with the financial implications of the Bill. With the exception of the compensation provisions under clause 1, it is not likely that there will be any significant extra call on the public purse. Where other costs arise — for example, from the licensing of slaughterhouse employees — they will in the main be recovered by means of fees and other charges.
  The financial implications of the extension of powers under clause 1 depend on our ability or otherwise to maintain disease freedom. However, for the diseases for which these additional powers of seizure are likely to be sought, the United Kingdom record is very good. Any increase in public service manpower as a result of the Bill is expected to be minimal and will be met within planned manpower provisions.
  Sir Paul Hawkins: A note on page ii of the explanatory and financial memorandum states:
  "It is possible that regulations made under Clause 5 may have manpower implications for local authorities, but these are expected to be minimal."
  We know how things grow.
  In my area there are many slaughterhouses for poultry and so on. The burden on local authorities has grown because of the many Acts and regulations. This could be the last straw. Already, district councils are protesting at the increases in their spending which lead to further rates being imposed upon people and industries in the area. I urge the Minister to give careful consideration to the matter and to ensure that no cost will be imposed upon local authorities by the Bill.
  Mrs. Fenner: I take my hon. Friend's point. As I have said, the manpower implications should be minimal. Local authorities already have responsibility in that area, and any additional burden should be minimal. However, Government must always watch closely when they place additional burdens on local authorities, especially as the House has been concerned about expenditure at that level.
  Mr. Tom Cox: The point made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) is important. The Minister knows that during the past few weeks the House has discussed, and again next week will discuss, many aspects of local government. High on the list is the rate-capping legislation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's area faces many problems, as do many other parts of the country. I do not question the responsibility of local authorities in this matter, but to expect them to carry out additional duties without financial help from the Government is wholly unrealistic, especially in view of the legislation that the Government are imposing upon them.
  Mrs. Fenner: I have made the point already that much of the cost will be recovered through fees and other charges. Local authorities have that method at their disposal.
  I trust that the House will forgive my taking a long time to explain the varied purposes of the Bill, and accept that as a sign of the importance that the Government attach to them.
  10.11 am
  Mr. Robin Corbett: The background to the debate this morning is the sustained and growing public concern about how we treat those all too many species of animal that we farm for food or clothing. The introduction of extreme systems of production has caused great and justifiable anger to many millions of people, because many of those involved are seen to put profit before proper husbandry practice. It has become a case of forcing farm animals into systems that are foreign to them. We need to develop systems to suit the animals that we farm, rather than the other way around.
  Whatever is eventually done in welfare, there is an economic imperative that will force more and more producers into more traditional systems that have greater respect for the behavioural and ecological needs of animals, and that is the sharp rise in the cost of oil-related imports. There is a limit to what consumers can be expected to pay, so economics may well speed the changes for which so many of us have campaigned for so long.
  Almost 20 years ago the Brambell report said in paragraph 28 that

  633
  "it is morally incumbent upon us to give the animal the benefit of the doubt and to protect it as far as possible from conditions that may be reasonably supposed to cause it suffering, though this cannot be proved."
  I wholly support that.
  The first report of the Select Committee on Agriculture, in 1980–81, on animal welfare in poultry, pig and veal calf production dealt with the assertion that profits take priority over welfare. That report rejected any bid for the chase after so-called cheap food taking precedence over the welfare of farm animals. It said in paragraph 27:
  "We do not accept the contention, frequently stated or implied, that the public demand for cheap food decrees that the cheapest possible methods of production must be adopted. As we have said above, society has the duty to see that undue suffering is not caused to animals, and we cannot accept that that duty should be set aside in order that food may be produced more cheaply. Where unacceptable suffering can be eliminated only at extra cost, that cost should be borne or the product forgone." I echo that, as do millions outside these walls.
  In many ways, 1979 was a landmark in animal welfare. For the first time the three major political parties were persuaded to include commitments on animal welfare in their election manifestos. Just before that election the then Prime Minister—my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan)—announced on 23 March, in a written reply to me, the setting up of a body to deal with animal welfare. Because of an unhappy slip in the voting here, followed by similar action by the electorate, it fell to a Conservative Government to establish the Farm Animal Welfare Council, to which the Minister paid tribute, and I join her in that.
  Labour is pledged to extend the membership and scope of the council, to lay down clear conditions for the freedom of movement of animals in line with Brambell and to ensure that all our legislation at least meets the requirements of the European convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Extreme systems will be phased out and legislation will require animals to be slaughtered as near as possible to the point of production.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman referred to the slaughter of animals close to the point of production. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what should happen for Halal and Schechita meat?
  Mr. Corbett: I shall not do so this morning, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I say that with great respect, because the matter is under'consideration by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. It would be in the best interests of everyone to wait for its report.
  There is great disappointment that the Bill has taken so long to come to the House following the council's report on the welfare of poultry at the time of slaughter. That was published in January 1982, just two years and four months ago. It is such snail-like progress that so angers animal welfare campaigners. I hope that the Minister will act with better speed over the red meat slaughter report, which is due to be published soon.
  Clause 4 extends the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967 to cover the slaughter of all poultry, not simply that for human consumption. As the Minister implied, it is known that some traders slide around the present law by selling live birds and then killing and dressing them as a service. That loophole must be closed.
  I want to ask the Minister about the exemptions in the proposed new section 1(2A) to the 1967 Act. Are they
  634
  meant to cover mass destruction on the farm following outbreaks of diseases such as foul pest? Would destruction because of Newcastle disease also be included?
  The 1967 Act lays down that methods of slaughter must be "approved by Ministers", and that requirement is repeated in new subsection (2B). Can the Minister confirm that birds being slaughtered because of outbreaks of Newcastle disease have been slaughtered in accordance with the approved methods? New subsection (2A)(b) provides an exemption for experiments and cites the wretchedly inadequate Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. Can the Minister assure the House that the slaughter methods are those of which she approves? I accept that that may be a matter for the Home Office, but the birds do not know that.
  Can the Minister confirm — or will she at least discuss it with the Home Secretary—that vets and others carrying out research do not use methods of destruction that have not, in the words of the 1967 Act, been "approved by Ministers"? New subsection (2B) includes an unhappy qualification. The word "unnecessary" is put before the word "suffering". Surely that is not necessary. It is not possible for farmed animals, however carefully and humanely handled during slaughter, to be killed without any suffering. Why do we not acknowledge that for millions of poultry and hundreds and thousands of pigs, sheep and cattle, suffering is an integral part of slaughter on a commercial scale?
  Clause 5 is fine as far as it goes, but it runs out of breath before the end. It rejects, in essence, the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendation, which said about supervision, training and the licensing of poultry slaughterhouses:
  "Managements should ensure that supervisory staff are suitably trained and made specifically responsible for the welfare of the birds from the time of their arrival at the processing plant to the time of death."
  New section 3(1A) and (1B)(b) as drafted are too permissive; (1B) needs to spell out more clearly that the staff should have an acceptable minimum level of knowledge of what they are doing to the animals—for example, when using electric stunning equipment to be able to recognise immediately whether the animal has been stunned, killed, paralysed or merely given a nasty shock.
  The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that better training was needed at poultry houses, but the Government have not gone far enough, particularly as it is the practice for those who work in many of them to be on piece rates, which put the emphasis on quantity rather than on the quality with which the job is carried out. The first people needing better training, in my view, are the local authority officers responsible for issuing slaughter licences. As the British Veterinary Association rightly comments:
  "Many of the shortcomings in poultry slaughterhouses are attributed to lack of training."
  I believe that that is generally accepted.
  On one interpretation, the wording of new section 3A (1) (a) is too restrictive. The Slaughter of Poultry Act lays down approved methods of slaughter and provides for the registration of premises. The codes of practice—I retain doubts about their effectiveness and should like to see more of their provisions in our law — need to cover every aspect of the places where birds are slaughtered, from their welfare at the time of arrival, right through to the moment of death.
  Would it not be better for the Minister to have power to prepare and issue codes of practice for the purpose of

  635
  providing practical guidance covering the welfare of birds awaiting, and during, slaughter? Or should we leave this enabling provision as part of the Bill and not as an amendment to the 1967 Act? Perhaps the Minister will mull over that and write to me.
  I wonder whether it is right, under new section 3A (1) (b), for the Minister to have power to "withdraw any such code" without parliamentary approval. At present, under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 the Minister can revoke only individual provisions, not sweep away entire codes.
  New section 4, with its powers of entry—I agree entirely with the Parliamentary Secretary's comments on this—is important, and subsection (1) is especially so, as it will bring with it the code of practice. I was pleased to hear the Minister repeat the promise given in another place that in schedule 1 the Government will add quail to the list of other table birds.
  I have three other points to make, all relating to other recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in its report on poultry slaughter. When will action be taken on recommendation 6, which says:
  "The period between loading the first bird of a consignment into a crate until the last one is unloaded at the processing plant should be limited by law to 12 hours"?
  The hon. Lady will be aware of the great public concern about the way in which those wretched birds are transported. We have all driven behind lorries and seen the birds exposed to winds and all weather on their way to have their throats cut.
  The Parliamentary Secretary referred to recommendation 37 and undertook to table an amendment in Committee, but I thought that we should not infer from what she said that she is minded to go along with both the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendations and those of the British Veterinary Association and make sure that the supervision is carried out by qualified vets. Her reference was to "properly qualified supervision", which to me suggests that they could be people other than vets.
  Public anxiety on this subject was summed up by the BVA, when it said:
  "There is an undoubted need for improvement in welfare standards for poultry at slaughter: this can be achieved only by better training of slaughterhouse staff and by supervision of their activities by nominated local authority officials"—
  and it added, crucially—
  "who are well versed in the physiological and behavioural requirements of poultry."
  Those last words make the case for veterinary supervision unanswerable. It added:
  "The BVA believes that all local authorities with unlicensed poultry slaughter premises in their areas should appoint a nominated veterinary surgeon to supervise animal welfare requirements and to provide support for any non-veterinary officials who may be nominated to assist."
  I wish to associate with those comments of the BVA the Farm Animal Welfare Co-ordinating Executive, which links 13 caring societies and which I have the pleasure to chair.
  I have some other weekend chores for the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. When is it proposed to take action on other recommendations in its report, particularly as they relate to research and specifically recommendations 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 28 and 31? Has any research been
  636
  started, has any been finished, how long will the rest take and when will the results be known? Perhaps the hon. Lady would prefer to answer in writing.
  There is a need for urgency in dealing with these and other animal health and welfare matters. That view is shared in the House and especially by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am aware of the interest that you have taken in these matters.
  Great cruelty can and does exist as a result of present practices and we have a duty to acknowledge and respond to the concerns of many people outside the House. I and many others are angry at the tardy response of successive Governments on animal welfare matters generally.
  I end with a quotation from a book written by my good friend and effective animal welfare campaigner, Clive Hollands, who wrote in "Compassion is the Bugler":
  "What do we mean by animal welfare? … It is not conservation … Neither is animal welfare being an 'animal lover' … Nor is it kindness to animals … animal welfare is dignity—according to animals the natural dignity which is due to them as living sentient creatures … My only concern is the suffering we inflict on animals, whether it be for food, clothing, knowledge, sport or pleasure."
  He added:
  "If we could learn to respect and accord to animals the dignity which is their due as living beings, pain and torment would end."
  It is to that honourable goal that I hope this slim Bill will make a small contribution.
  10.30 am
  Sir Paul Hawkins: Like everyone who has the welfare of farm livestock and the prosperity of the livestock industry at heart, I am pleased that my Government have introduced this Bill. I hope that the Minister will stress to her colleagues that many hon. Members believe that far too many Bills are being introduced this Session. We have high hopes that there will be a reduction next Session. The large number of Bills introduced so far this Session has necessitated the Second Reading of this Bill taking place on a Friday morning, with very few hon. Members in the Chamber. The only part of the House that is full is occupied by my good friends from the Ministry. There seem to be an extraordinary number of secretaries present, but I am always glad to see them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I cannot see them.
  Sir Paul Hawkins: I am sorry if I have seen things that I should not.
  I welcome especially the clauses dealing with the spread of animal disease. Anyone who has seen the terrible results of the spread of foot and mouth, as I have on a few occasions, will not forget the great clouds of smoke rising in the countryside, the smell of burning animals and the distress of those who have carefully built up stock through the generations by means of hard work and loving care, only to see it lost through disease. Apart from the loss of stock, there is a loss of jobs and enormous human distress. There are few outside the livestock industry who realise how farmers, stockmen and all connected with cattle, sheep, horses and other farm animals are emotionally bound up with their livestock.
  The stockman always refers to "his" cattle and "his" sheep and not to his master's cattle or sheep. He takes personal responsibility, and the skill and care of the young stockman or the old-fashioned stockman today is just as good as it was in the past, although conditions have made their jobs much more difficult.

  637
  Though I love to see beautiful pictures and lovely cities, to me the most satisfying sight is a field full of grazing cattle which, as is said in the area that I represent, are "doing well"—in other words, cattle that are happy and contented. Of course, people might argue as to which breeds satisfy them the most. Lincoln Reds were my first love but now I think that the black-and-white-faced cross-Herefords are my favourites. I make these remarks because I fear that too many people outside the industry — this appeared to be the note struck by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) —approach livestock welfare as if they must protect stock from cruel people.
  I accept that there are those in every area of the country who do not care about their stock, who cannot understand the feelings of those who do and who do not do their job properly, but the majority love their stock and are determined to ensure that it is better than their neighbours.
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that sensible regulations are to the advantage of the wise and careful stockman as they protect him from the unfair competition of those who are more ruthless?
  Sir Paul Hawkins: Yes, I agree that that is so, and I do not object to the proposed regulations. I welcome the majority of them. However, it must be remembered that those in the livestock industry depend on their stock for a living. Therefore, it would be crazy if they knocked it about or subjected it to ill treatment. I have run markets all my life. I have been leading cattle through the streets of a large town from the age of 10. In those early days I used to lead them from the trains which brought in the livestock to the lairage point. The skill that is needed in every aspect of looking after stock—for example, the stockman's eye that spots an animal that is going sick—is probably the most valuable thing that any farmer or stockman can have.
  Let us not have the idea that the livestock industry is something that must be protected from everyone in it and that in the absence of that protection they will treat their animals cruelly. I agree very much with the final words of the hon. Member for Erdington. The phrase which he used should be in all our minds.
  The stock of those who are engaged in the livestock industry is their living, and if bruising is caused in a slaughterhouse or market on any part of the livestock the carcase will be less valuable. Anyone who has anything to do with livestock will know that the buyer will be anxious to see that the stock is properly handled. He will be the first person to object if anyone starts knocking livestock about.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to acknowledge the dedication, care and exceptional skills of those in the industry, not forgetting the farm veterinary service which is so closely involved in the industry. Unfortunately, she did not do so while introducing the Bill. It should be acknowledged that farm veterinary surgeons will come out at all hours and in all weathers to remote areas. They have great skill and dedication. I make a strong plea to all Governments to reduce the number of Bills that are being pushed through the House and to avoid burdening the industry with unnecessary costs, rules and regulations. I stress the word "unnecessary", because many rules are not needed. I believe that the Bill will tidy
  638
  up many of them. For instance, it will do away with the necessity to license bulls and stallions, a regulation which has been on the statute book for a long time. The scrapping of that regulation is obviously long overdue.
  As I said in an intervention, additional inspectors would add to the costs of the farming industry, especially at a time when it is under great pressure and must cut its costs. Inspectors should not be present when they are not necessary. The introduction of more inspectors must be considered carefully before they are introduced. Some rules are very necessary but others hamper the development of initiative arid enterprise.
  I do not like the note at the end of the explanatory memorandum. There should be no increase in Civil Service manpower and no additional costs imposed on local authorities. The Ministry has determined in another Bill—it is a long time since it had two Bills passing through the House at the same time, and I hope that this means that it will not have a Bill at all next year—that there should be no increase in manpower. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will welcome my words on Bills for which the Ministry is responsible. If the present level of manpower is not increased, there may he some additional work for the present staff, but I do not think that that will do any harm.
  I cannot give my support to the British Veterinary Association's request to have its members made responsible for the full supervision of poultry. I agree that veterinary surgeons should be enabled to give spot checks, but to have them present throughout all the processes, as I understand is suggested, would be an unnecessary burden on the industry.
  I have great pleasure in welcoming the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will make it clear that the vast majority of people in the industry have the welfare of livestock at heart, not only because they have an affection for the stock they look after but because they will lose money if their animals are ill treated. I hope that the Bill proceeds rapidly through the House.
  10.40 am
  Mr. Tom Cox: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I believe that all hon. Members will agree that this is one occasion when we seek not to make debating points or score political points but to show, whatever our political views, our general concern about the overall welfare of animals. I am sure that all hon. Members know, from the letters we have received, that this is an issue of ever-increasing importance in the minds of the general public. The public want to know what is happening in relation to the keeping and slaughter of animals. It is a sad fact that the existing laws are hopelessly out of date.
  Experimentation on animals — that subject is often discussed in the House and will be dealt with in a major Bill—causes great worry to the general public. Over the years, farming practices have cmpletely changed, and some hon. Members know far more about that matter than I do. Extensive factory farming occurs, and people are worried about the conditions under which animals are kept. I have visited many kinds of units breeding different types of animals, and often I am filled with great disquiet about the conditions under which animals, especially poultry, are kept.
  The Parliamentary Secretary has replied to many questions on that matter, incuding one I asked some time

  639
  ago about legislation on the keeping of poultry in battery cages. Many people are worried about that. There is something very unreal about the conditions under which poultry are kept because of factory farming methods. In some cases, the poultry have little freedom of movement and rarely see daylight. They depend upon specially prepared foods. We are repeatedly told that there is an enormous demand for cheap food produced as quickly and as economically as possible. Many of us are committed to ensuring the rights and dignities of the animals bred under those conditions, and this debate provides an opportunity to make comments on those matters.
  During an intervention, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary about the reference in clause 4 to the slaughter of poultry chicks. The clause deals with the slaughter of birds that are not more than 72 hours old. Under what conditions can those small poultry chicks be slaughtered? Sadly, in some cases, small chicks up to 72 hours old are put in a crusher and then pulped dead. Many people would be filled with absolute disgust at that idea. If that is the means of slaughter, the House should be told more about the conditions under which the young animals are kept and the types of inspection used.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, in responding to my intervention, referred to the review being conducted by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and I welcome that inquiry. I hope that the council's recommendations for improvement will come quickly and that we shall have the opportunity of discussing them in the House. We are entitled to be told about the exact procedures followed in the slaughter of very young poultry chicks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred to the transportation of livestock. He rightly said that many of us have travelled along the motorways in other parts of the country and seen large lorries loaded with poultry crates. At times, I have felt extremely sorry for the birds that are destined for slaughter. The contractors at the pick-up point who transport the birds and the people who sell and buy them do not appear to show a great deal of concern for the conditions imposed during the movement of the poultry. We are entitled to be told about the actions the Government seek to improve those conditions.
  What is the hon. Lady's view about the time during which the poultry can be in transit? Many years ago, the House discussed the export of animals to the Continent, and I am sure that many hon. Members were disgusted on learning that often animals could be in transit for two or three days. I am not suggesting that we are talking about two or2 three days in this case, but we could be talking about a day or more. What regulations is the Parliamentary Secretary seeking to bring about a general improvement in those conditions?
  We are entitled to be told about the conditions that apply after the poultry has been moved to the slaughterhouses. Because of the type of weather experienced in this country, poultry may be moved during changeable conditions. In what state does the Parliamentary Secretary wish poultry to be kept once they have arrived at the slaughterhouse prior to the slaughter? Will the poultry remain on the lorries? What will be the procedure if, for whatever reason, a lorry arrives late at
  640
  night at a slaughterhouse. Are we to be told that, sadly, the crates remain on the lorry until the following day when the poultry are slaughtered?
  Reference has been made to the method of slaughter of poultry. There is an immediate awareness, when discussing other animals—for example, cows, pigs and sheep—that the slaughterer has to have certain skills; but there is a tendency when discussing poultry to think that the animals are only small and will soon be killed. We cannot be satisfied with such an explanation. We are entitled to be told by the Minister who will train and what training there will be of the people who will be involved in the slaughter of poultry.
  The Minister has said that her Department is awaiting a report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council. I, like many other Members on both sides of the House, await its recommendations with great interest. I hope that the hon. Lady will give the House an assurance that her Department will consider them and present them to the House for debate as soon as possible.
  Unfortunately, many of us know that we often receive promises from Government Departments about legislation for which we have to wait a long time. On a completely different matter, I have been campaigning on an issue since I became a Member of the House. I have been told this year that the Government may be in a position to consider legislation to deal with the problem that affects many of my constituents. I have been told, however, that although the legislation may be discussed, "We will not be in a position to introduce the legislation that we and you believe will improve the conditions under which your constituents are living."
  I hope that after the recommendations are received from the Farm Animal Welfare Council they will be presented to the House and that we will have an opportunity for an early discussion on them, and that legislation will then be introduced on a subject for which there is widespread support on both sides of the House.
  I welcome the opportunity to take part in a debate on this important issue. Unfortunately, as on many other occasions when we discuss important issues, attendance in the House is not great. Those of us who are here are present because we are interested in the matter. I listened to what the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) said, and many of us agree with him. Many people who breed animals have a high regard for their welfare, and we applaud those people. Unfortunately, other people involved in the movement and slaughter of animals do not have the same interest. It is our duty as Members of Parliament to bring such cases to the attention of the Minister and her Department, so that they can respond because we know from our postbag that increasing numbers of people would like to see an early response to this matter.
  10.52 am
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter, and I hope that I shall win a little gratitude from hon. Members for keeping my comments as brief as possible. I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins). I very much welcome the Bill.
  As the Minister of State said in another place, in some respects the Bill simply brings existing legislation up to date; in other areas it clarifies existing legislation and

  641
  introduces new provisions to reflect anxieties which have developed since the original legislation was made. I would label this Bill as "a good thing", but, having said that—I do not act as devil's advocate for the sake of it—I would point to three features of the Bill that worry me. I came here hoping for clarification and comment from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. She has gone some way in reassuring me, but I hope for yet more.
  The first matter that concerns me is the licensing for the slaughter of poultry—and, in particular, clause 5. I am concerned about the on-farm, small-scale, often seasonal, slaughter of birds. This point was made briefly in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West, but it is so important that I do not apologise for stressing it again. I should not be representing the interests of the poultry farmers in my constituency if I did not stress it.
  If, in small-scale poultry farming where only a small staff is employed, the licensed slaughterer was unable, through accident or illness, to work, one of two things would happen. There could be enormous on-farm problems while someone else obtained a slaughter licence. Alternatively, the birds might suffer while urgent new arrangements were made for off-farm slaughter.
  The Official Report of the Second Reading in another place revealed anxiety about this question. An amendment was tabled there to give the Ministers the power to waive the need for a licence for certain small amounts of on-farm slaughter. I am not sure that that is the right way to tackle the problem. I feel that it would be better if the licensee could, in some circumstances, delegate the act of slaughter while retaining the responsibility for the action of those to whom the task is delegated.
  Let us not forget that the report on the welfare of poultry at the time of slaughter, to which many hon. Members have already referred, does not mention on-farm slaughtering. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I conclude that the Farm Animal Welfare Council is satisfied with the current controls and procedures. At all events, I hope that the Minister will agree that this should be, and will be, considered carefully during the passage of the Bill.
  My second general area of concern arises from clauses 8 to 10, and involves the proposals which deal with the artificial breeding of livestock. Three points worry me. The first is basic, and it may be somewhat heretical. My interest in animal welfare is as great as anyone else's, but I wonder whether a new system of licences and approvals in this area is necessary. What will we have under this Bill that we do not already have under the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act 1931, section 17 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1943, albeit amended if necessary, and the Horse Breeding Act 1958? I ask—as the saying goes—only because I want to know.
  My second point on clauses 8 to 10 may be a little weightier, and is about the rumours of a possible licence fee of between £200 and £300 a bull. That would be a substantial burden on the industry. The fanning community, as I know from my contacts with it in my constituency recently, is anxious to know how the fees will be charged. It is felt that the details must be clarified to assess their effect, especially on milk producers.
  My third point under this heading has been voiced by the National Farmers Union. It is the fear that secondary legislation covering the detail of controlling artificial
  642
  breeding may create an effective monopoly for the qualified vet. Would it not be preferable, it may be argued, to extend the present system for artificial insemination, and permit technicians to carry out the work rather than to confine all duties to the qualified vet? I hope that all these causes of anxiety can be ironed out during the passage of the Bill.
  My last general point arises from clause 11, which gives Ministers powers to provide, in regulations, for control of the manufacture and sale of medicated feeding stuffs. The fear that the Bill might pave the way for discrimination against on-farm mixers led to an amendment being moved in Committee in another place. Some assurances were given, and the amendment was withdrawn. I hoped that the assurances would be repeated today, and the Minister largely gave them, but we must not lose sight of the potential economic advantages of on-farm mixing. These are generally acknowledged. Restrictive registration measures in the future could have a detrimental effect on farm economics. It is so important that there is the fullest consultation with the industry, not least in clarifying the various ways in which it is intended that the registration fee be used before additional controls are finalised. I hope very much that we can take the Minister's words as an unequivocal reassurance on that point. I overwhelmingly welcome the Bill, but, as I have tried to show, I seek clarification, comments and, perhaps, correction on several points.
  11.1 am
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I should like to echo some of the questions that he asked.
  I welcome the Bill, both for the breadth that it covers and for the succinctness of its phrasing. We all know the difficulty in raising the quality and quantity of farm production while limiting the short-term rise in costs that legislation often brings. That the Bill both raises the quality and quantity and keeps the phraseology short is to be welcomed. That it goes further and seeks to alleviate the distress caused to animals in the normal process of husbandry is also praiseworthy.
  I congratulate and thank the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Its almost quixotic reward for its diligence is a widening of its powers of remit, its responsibilities, and, consequently, its work. I shall make a few remarks about individual clauses in the order in which they appear.
  Clause 1—the seizure clause—is to be welcomed. For the sake of one of the most important of our country's industries, it is imperative that the clause be instituted, with its wider powers. My only query is whether the compensation powers may for the persistent offender—whether by negligence, incompetence or idleness— be too generous. On the other hand, I recognise the need to encourage farmers to notify the authorities as soon as they suspect any disease, but I wonder whether the Minister can tell me whether she wishes or intends to penalise those who constantly offend.
  My only comment on clause 2, on the power of entry, is that I wonder why the extension of the rights of entry has had to wait until now to be codified. Perhaps I can answer the question myself. Perhaps it is because officers of the veterinary service, farmers and food processors have a good relationship. While codification of the right of

  643
  entry is useful, it might not alter what veterinary officers do. However, it will strengthen their hand in the face of the rare case of intransigence.
  Clause 3—the territorial zone clause—is a sensible and compassionate measure. It is long overdue, for we have a duty to curb cruelty to animals in transit and to limit their distress. We know only too well that other countries do not always maintain the same high standard of care for animals that this nation does.
  Clause 4, the slaughter clause, is a proper extension of control over the slaughter of poultry and birds. As a decent society, we need to be ever vigilant in discovering ways of limiting animal distress, even when that may mean a marginal increase in cost. In this case, I do not believe that there will be. However, I should like to deal with two other points on the clause. The first concerns Islamic and Jewish ritual slaughter, Halal and Schechita. The Bill does not seem to deal with that form of slaughter. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that people who carry out Halal and Schechita are highly trained. The declaration issued by the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities of Great Britain makes it clear that those who carry out ritual slaughter do so only after the most careful training. They state:
  "Schechita is carried out by men who have undergone several years of religious training and study who scrupulously apply the rules and rites governing this sacred ordinance, thus ensuring the swift and painless death of the animal."
  Mr. Greg Knight: Is it not true that in the form of slaughter that my hon. Friend is describing the animal is not stunned before it is slaughtered, so it must suffer some pain?
  Mr. Sayeed: I agree with my hon. Friend. However, I suggest that a highly qualified person using a very sharp knife causes less distress to an animal than even a moderately competent person using a stunning rod.
  I have a second query on the clause. I was rather perplexed by what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said. He referred to unnecessary suffering. He said that he did not understand why the word "unnecessary" was included, yet he went on to say that all slaughter must cause some suffering. I should have thought that the word "unnecessary" was germane to the clause because we want to stop unnecessary suffering. We recognise that some pain, suffering and distress will be caused in any slaughter procedure but we must ensure that it is rigorously limited.
  Clause 5, the licensing provision, is self-evidently sensible, although I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister can provide any guidance to the small producer, on whom the licence cost will be a particular burden. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins), and I am grateful for the reassurances that the Minister gave him.
  Clause 6, on the code of practice, is the right way to set about instituting humane slaughterhouse procedures. The flexibility engendered by not statutorily codifying the procedures to be used means that adherence to the spirit of the Bill will be enhanced.
  Clause 7, dealing with the powers of entry under the 1967 Act, is obviously a logical extension of current powers. The final clauses—8 to 13—are in many ways some of the most important clauses. They deal with the
  644
  improvement of the quality of stock, controlling the spread of disease and the control of the amount of medication in animal feed. My only queries are these. First, what will be the cost to farmers who do their own artificial insemination or, in years to come, use other sophisticated techniques? Will my hon. Friend please ensure that they are not priced out of helping themselves to keep their costs down?
  Secondly, referring to clause 11, while I generally welcome both the clarity of the provisions and the controlling of unnecessary or too great an amount of medication in animal feed, I should like to be reassured that the provisions also deal with hormone additives or, if they do not, that there are other provisions which do should hormones be added in this manner in the future. As we know, these are used not as a medicament but as a method of assisting in the fattening of calves and other livestock. The properties of hormone additives are passed on to humans, with well-known results.
  This is a most welcome measure and I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing it before the House. I hope that it will have a very swift passage.
  11.9 am
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for her helpful explanation of the Bill. Listening to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), however, I was reminded of the chicken beheaded in 1979—I think that it was stunned first — whose headless body is now running around the country while the bodiless head sits here talking to itself.
  I should declare an interest, as I am involved in the supply of refrigeration equipment for the chilling and freezing of poultry for consumption. I am not directly concerned with the slaughtering process, but the quality of the final food product depends on proper care throughout the whole process from farm to consumer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) made clear.
  In answer to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) the hon. Member for Erdington said that he did not intend to comment at this stage on the Moslem Halal and Jewish Schechita methods of ritual slaughter, as a report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council is awaited. Nevertheless, there is growing concern in many parts of the country, not least in my constituency, about the supply of ritually slaughtered meat. The Moslem community are calling on education authorities to supply Halal meat to Moslem schoolchildren, while animal welfare groups are calling for an end to ritual slaughter without pre-stunning.
  This country can be proud of its long history of religious tolerance. This is reflected in slaughterhouse legislation dating back many years which has allowed exemption from pre-stunning for religious ritual slaughter. Various veterinary experts, including Professor Burrows and Sir Lovatt Evans, state that, carried out properly, such methods are not cruel. In this context, I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) to the publications of the Board of Deputies of British Jews showing the Jewish method as humane and to the Council of Christians and Jews publication by Joan Lawrence

  645
  which confirms that, if carried out properly, Schechita involves no more cruelty than the usual methods of slaughter.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give an assurance, however, that the training requirements for licensed slaughterers under new section 3(1A) will extend to religious ritual slaughterers. Conditions in ritual slaughterhouses should be no lower than those in other slaughterhouses. Indeed, many people would wish to feel that even higher standards prevailed so as to ensure that the animals experienced the minimum distress during the brief period of consciousness before death.
  It is a shocking and damning deficiency of the present legislation that the sale of live poultry for slaughter after sale is outside the scope of the law. Hon. Members on both sides will have been appalled by paragraph 56 of the 1982 report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which said:
  "At businesses we visited where slaughter was carried out by the Moslem method for the food of Moslems, the birds were kept on the premises and slaughtered in the most squalid conditions. Nothing can apparently be done about it by the authorities as the birds are sold to the customer live and slaughtered for him immediately afterwards. We understood that this type of trade is outside the scope of the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967, which relates only to poultry slaughtered before being sold for human consumption."
  That state of affairs is due to a technical loophole in existing legislation. I welcome the fact that new section 1(2A) provides protection for poultry irrespective of whether they are slaughtered before or after sale. That is a substantial and much-needed improvement to the present, deficient legislation.
  I note that the Farm Animal Welfare Council has yet to report on red meat slaughter methods and that the Government have commissioned research into humane methods of religious slaughter. Cruelty to animals undoubtedly arouses even more emotion and distress to people in this country than cruelty to birds, so I hope that the report will not be long delayed. I hope also that the Minister will tell us today how soon we may have a code of practice to cover both poultry and red meat and whether RSPCA inspectors will have rights of entry.
  I am interested to know that some Moslem groups in the West accept pre-slaughter stunning as being within their religious code and are happy to adopt this practice, which accords with accepted standards in this country. I should be further interested to know what steps the Government are taking to encourage traditional Moslem groups to examine alternatives of that kind. I accept that strongly-held beliefs are involved, but no doubt films and visual aids can be produced to promote greater awareness of different views on both sides of the controversy.
  Last month my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) sought to bring in a Bill requiring a code of practice to be added to the Slaughterhouses Act 1974. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke against the proposal and it was defeated by a majority of 101, which I believe reflected the desire of the House to maintain the long-standing tradition of religious tolerance in this matter and to study the report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council before discussing the matter further.
  I support the Bill and I trust that it will complete its passage without delay so that the conditions in which birds are kept before slaughter will be subject to proper regulations. I commend the Bill to the House.
  11.18 am
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I welcome the Bill. I wish to comment briefly on clauses 4 to 7, dealing with the slaughter of poultry. The Minister is to be congratulated on the presentation of the Bill to Parliament, but I join other hon. Members in expressing appreciation of the work of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, as it was originally the initiative of the council to seek to bring the slaughter of poultry within the ambit of the law and to extend to poultry the protection now provided for red meat animals, in response to strongly held feelings outside the House, which cut across party affiliations.
  I believe that the vast majority of the population believe that there is a world of difference between the production of animals for food and a production line in a factory. In the debate in another place attention was drawn to the danger that in the factory farming and slaughter of poultry the birds might be regarded as "raw material". I am sure that this House and the people of this country would find such an attitude utterly repugnant.
  Poultry production has led the way in intensive farming methods and I should be the last to call for any reduction in the efficiency of food production in this country. My hon. Friend the Minister could not possibly remember this, but I well recall the days when chicken was regarded as a great luxury that one could afford at Easter but certainly not as a regular part of one's diet. Nowadays poultrymeat is one of the cheaper forms of meat protein and I certainly welcome that. We should be careful to ensure that the efficient and cheap production of food does not take place at the expense of potential or actual cruelty to animals.
  In an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins), I said that I believed that regulation was not to be feared by those who are careful animal husbandmen. I do not accept the view that there is necessarily a clash between cheapness and care of animals. The efficient, careful and properly regulated operation may well be more effective than the squalid operation. There is no doubt the poultry requires protection in the same way that the animals that have provided red meat in the past have been protected.
  I referred earlier to the time when poultry was less commonly and readily available because of its price. In those days, poultry was often purchased in the state where it had to be prepared by the consumer, and the condition in which the bird had been slaughtered was obvious. Poultry purchased today is often already prepared for the oven, prepacked and perhaps frozen, and the fact that it may have suffered debeaking at an earlier stage will be unknown. That it may have suffered mutilation as the result of an accident during transport will not be known by the customer. The customer cannot be assured that the kind of protection exists to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West referred when he said that the quality of the meat would be the deciding factor.
  I am sure that the poultry producers, like those who are raising cattle, are kindly, and that they wish to ensure that their birds are kept in the best possible conditions.
  However, conditions during transportation and slaughter raise a different question. The emphasis is on speed, which will occasionally bypass the care that we would want exercised at all times. Hon. Members who have seen birds hooked on to the shackle line, struggling

  647
  as they go on the way to slaughter, will realise that we must recognise that an inevitable amount of stress and necessary suffering is involved in the process.
  What the Bill seeks to do, and does well, is to avoid unnnecessary suffering, and the ancillary stress to which the bird may be subjected. I welcome the introduction of the phrase "whether for immediate sale or not". There has been a loophole in the past in that birds that were not to be slaughtered immediately for use as food were likely to remain unprotected. The closing of this loophole will be widely welcomed.
  I welcome the introduction of licensing for those who work in the poultry business. The people who supervise this process must be properly trained, and such training should be recognised by a licensing authority. I see no reason to believe that this requirement will place an unnecessary burden on the poultry production industry.
  Mr. Hunter: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the difference between factory slaughter of poultry and on-the-farm slaughter of poultry? Will he take that distinction on board?
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes, indeed. If my hon. Friend suggests that an increased cost burden may be placed on the small-scale slaughterer, I would say to him only that I must be one of many people who have been prepared to pay a premium for items purchased at the farm gate, such as free-range eggs and chickens raised in the traditional manner. One is prepared to pay a premium for such items. If this involves a cost for the small-scale slaughterer, I do not think that the purchaser would object to meeting that cost.
  I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that the administrative problem might be greater than the cost problem. I hope that the Minister has also taken it on board. One would not wish to place an unreasonable administrative burden on the small-scale producer who does not have a large staff that he can use flexibly.
  I welcome the Bill as a measure of animal protection, and as an expression of the concern of the House that we do not wish cheap food, which we all accept is desirable, to be obtained at the expense of suffering to the animals concerned.
  11.26 am
  Mr. Mark Hughes: May I embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) by welcoming his first speech from the Dispatch Box? We appreciate very much what he has done in the House and, in his regrettable period away from the House, what he has done for the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the co-ordinating executive, and for the farm lobby.
  As a member of the Select Committee, to which reference has been made, I regret the delay between the publication of its report nearly four years ago and the coming into force of the codes of practice envisaged under the legislation. Those codes take too long to come into force. I understand the need for extensive and careful consultation with many interests and bodies outside the House. When the Ministry receives the report on red meat
  648
  slaughter in the course of the next few weeks, I hope that it will be able to act with expedition in bringing the regulations and codes of practice to the House.
  I anticipate a major difficulty remaining between those areas where statutory regulation is desirable and those where codes of practice give a desirable flexibility that would be denied under statutory regulation. With regard to the length of time for which the poultry can be in transit, particularly prior to slaughter, I believe that the code of practice may be too weak, and that some statutory limitation should be imposed.
  I have a number of specific points to put to the Minister. On clause 1, is he satisfied that the movement of infected feedingstuffs, such as occurred in the recent outbreak of Newcastle disease in the Liverpool warehouse, will be adequately covered, or is that already covered under the regulations, which, curiously enough, I gather do not require to be laid before the House?
  On clause 2, why are the powers of entry not applicable to poultry? Does not the history of the recent outbreak of Newcastle disease show that there may be need for powers of entry to infected poultry farms? Clause 2 specifically excludes poultry. I hope that we shall consider that matter in more detail in Committee.
  I totally agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) that the role of the stockman is crucial to animal welfare on the farm. Equally, the role of the slaughterman is crucial to animal welfare in the slaughterhouse. It is essential that they should both be trained and should not be asked to cope with too many animals. On the farm, the stockman may be asked to look after more and more birds in larger and larger houses. His seeing eye may be called upon to oversee far too many poultry. Again, the slaughterman may be paid on piece rates. The quicker he slaughters the birds, the more he is paid.
  I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and others who have said that we must look closely at the period of up to 72 hours for destroying young chicks. I hope that we shall be able to consider that point in more detail and more effectively in Committee.
  Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 amend the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967. I have little to add at this stage to the remarks that have already been made, but we will consider the provisions in more detail in Committee. In particular, we must consider the problems of on-farm slaughtering, which can involve great suffering. There is no reason to believe that on-farm slaughtering is automatically more humane. Frequently it may be, but I speak as one who as a little boy tried to chop the head off a chicken and missed. I hasten to say that I have a scar to show for my pains. Such incompetence can cause suffering to the chicken as well as to the lad wielding the axe, and it should be covered in the Act in some way.
  I have a number of questions to ask about the control of medicated feedingstuffs. First, although this is not the hon. Lady's responsibility, can she tell me what consultations have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland? This part of the Bill is the only part that applies to Northern Ireland, yet there is likely to be trade in medicated feedingstuffs over the land border. I should be grateful to know what the relationship is between the Republic of Ireland and Ulster on these clauses, what consultations there have been and whether there is analogous legislation in Eire.

  649
  Secondly, what controls are envisaged on the importation of pre-medicated feedingstuffs? Is it adequately controlled by the clauses?
  Thirdly, will the regulations and other matters arising from the clauses cover the need for adequate and clear labelling of the medication included in the feedingstuffs? That is important from the point of view of public health. There is much public concern about the possible presence of residues. I had assumed that the medications referred to would not include hormones, but I may be wrong about that, and the public are concerned about the use of hormone additives in meat. There was the problem with pigs' ears, and so on. There is also the problem of the build-up of resistance to antibiotics given in animal food. They are passed on to man, who builds up a resistance to them. I should be grateful if, now or later, the Minister could give some thought to those problems.
  I welcome this modest but important Bill. We will study it in detail in Committee, but I hope that my hon. Friends will give it every assistance on its way to the statute book.
  11.34 am
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I apologise for entering the debate late. I have been detained elsewhere, but I have a strong interest in the matter. My speech will be brief.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said, every possible effort should be made to avoid stress in poultry and animals on their way to slaughter. Perhaps a special study should be made of this matter. We know from the whole attitude of animals and birds to slaughter, and from the condition of their meat after slaughter, that they suffer greatly at that time. We should do all that we can to reduce the suffering.
  A casualness creeps into the way in which people handle animals—particularly birds— before slaughter. With more thought, much suffering could be avoided. For instance, baskets of poultry on their way to slaughter may be thrown out of trains and bounce off the station platform. That is very unpleasant treatment, and it could be avoided with more careful handling.
  I am in touch with various members of the veterinary profession, particularly the British Veterinary Association, which has given a warm welcome to the Bill. The association says that it
  "welcomes the presentation to Parliament of the Animal Health and Welfare Bill. The Bill contains several valuable provisions which, directly or through subordinate legislation, will improve the legal safeguards on which the health and welfare of animals depend."
  The legal safeguard is what counts. The association continues:
  "Of particular value … are the provisions for raising welfare standards for poultry at the time of slaughter and the proposed powers to apply more stringent control over the production and distribution of medicated feedingstuffs."
  Clauses 4, 8 and 10 are particularly interesting to the veterinary profession. Clause 4 amends section 1(1) of the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967, which prohibits
  "the slaughter of poultry … for human consumption, except by one of the methods mentioned".
  I note the comments of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes). We must be careful about the way in which we approach the slaughter of poultry. People are terribly crude and casual about it. It is said that poultry can be killed quickly by wringing their necks. However, that is a job for the expert. Amateurs can cause tremendous
  650
  suffering. That is shown by the way in which poultry react after being half-killed. I believe that the Bill will put an end to that suffering.
  By removing the words
  "for the purposes of preparation for sale for human consumption,"
  the Bill extends the protection of the law to all poultry slaughtered. There are certain specified exemptions controlled by other legislation, and an order-making power is proposed, which I welcome. It would will Ministers to prescribe other methods of slaughter for poultry chicks. This extension of control of slaughter implements a recommendation of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Such a provision has long been advocated by the Select Committee and other bodies, notably the BVA. The Farm Animal Welfare Council is also currently studying methods of slaughter for chicks. During the Committee stage in the Lords the Minister said that the Government were awaiting the advice of the council before approving new methods of slaughter. I hope that it will be forthcoming before the Bill becomes law.
  Clause 8 empowers the appropriate Minister to regulate the practice of artificial breeding of livestock, which is widely defined, to include
  "any animal or bird not in the wild state".
  Such a wide definition should be studied carefully. Clause 8 will replace existing powers to control artificial insemination and introduce new powers to cover other forms of artificial breeding, such as ova and embryo transfer. The control of artificial breeding is welcome—it is essential to prevent the spread of animal disease and to curtail the use of poor quality stock. We get poor quality stock because of a failure to control breeding. Haphazard breeding leads to a deterioration in livestock and should be controlled.
  Clause 10 repeals the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act 1931 and the Horse Breeding Act 1958 and so formally ends controls on the natural breeding of cattle and horses. Bulls have already been mentioned, but controlling the breeding of horses is extremely important. I should like to pay tribute to the horse and pony breed societies, especially the Hunters Improvement Society which has produced admirable horses which have won gold medals and fame for the United Kingdom in the Olympic games and other competitions all over the world. It is important to ensure that such successful breeding policy is not adversely affected by the repeal of the 1958 Act. The horse and pony breed societies are too numerous to mention, but through careful breeding practices they have done much and will do still more to raise the standard of British ponies.
  Can my hon. Friend assure us that her Ministry will be pleased to see control over the breeding of horses that will encourage the breeding of a suitable and practical riding horse? Bearing in mind that riding is the fastest growing sport in Britain — about 2 million people ride every week — it is surprising that we do not have many suitable riding horses. The British Equestrian Federation and the British Horse Society have worked closely and are attempting, by careful registration and breeding policies, to produce a sound and sensible riding horse. My hon. Friend could help greatly by encouraging her Ministry to assist those societies in that important work.
  11.42 am
  Mrs. Fenner: With leave of the House, may I say that, although attendance at the debate has been rather thin, I agree with those who have spoken that these are important matters. I have observed that three Opposition Members have had to carry the burden for their right hon. and hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) has been courteous enough to send me a note saying that he has to leave. I have also noted that not one Liberal, Social Democratic or other Opposition party member has been here to debate the Bill, the central part of which exercises the minds of many of our constituents.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) that training in farming methods is important. The care and skill of the stockman is much to be appreciated and admired. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the care that is exercised in looking after animals on farms. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said, we are also considering poultry farming and intensive systems. We therefore need to take precautions such as are set out in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), whose care and concern in these matters is well known, mentioned unnecessary suffering. I do not know who said that all life is suffering, but I am sure that death is as well. It is right to curb unnecessary suffering and to make imposition of it an offence. I remember having a jab for hepatitis. It was certainly suffering but I am sure that it was necessary. I take the point about our slow progress in introducing recommendations, in clauses 4 to 7, on the slaughter of poultry. I have listened to the injunctions that have been made but await the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council on red meat slaughter.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham asked whether the slaughter of poultry in connection with Newcastle disease was carried out humanely. The slaughter was as humane as possible and carried out under the supervision of vets. I remind him that when there is an outbreak of a serious disease, it is essential to carry out the necessary work with the minimum delay to prevent its spread. Welfare is assured by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972, which prohibits the infliction of unnecessary pain or distress. Slaughter in Home Office establishments is not subject to approval by Agriculture Ministers by virtue of clause 4, but other legislation exists to control it.
  Clause 6 provides power to include in the code of practice provisions relating to the welfare of birds awaiting slaughter. Recommendation 6 of the Farm Animal Welfare Council concerns transport time. Consideration is being given to updating the Conveyance of Live Poultry Order 1919 in that context.
  Several hon. Members have referred to training and its importance. The training of slaughterhouse staff will be a condition of licensing. It is intended that licences should be subject to veterinary control.
  Mr. Greenway: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Will she consider the importance of training for those who handle animals in transit to the slaughter house? There is no question but that much cruelty occurs then, and the Farm Animal Welfare Council is not considering the matter. Will she give me some comfort that she will ask
  652
  her Department to consider the transportation of animals and the way in which they are handled, as there is a complete lack of training of those responsible?
  Mrs. Fenner: I have just said that consideration is now being given to up-dating the Conveyance of Live Poultry Order, which involves transit. Clearly, the ability of those handling the conveyancing will form part of that consideration. However, I take note of my hon. Friend's comments.
  The hon. Member for Erdington also asked about the sections of the FAWC's recommendations that refer to research. Research has been commissioned with the Agricultural and Food Research Council. No results are yet available, but I note inquiries about the current state of progress, and if the hon. Gentleman does not mind I shall write to him on that point.
  I was asked about FAWC's recommendation No. 37. I have said, as promised in the other place, that I will introduce an amendment. The elements of our proposal are that local authorities should have a duty to enforce the legislation. At present they have only a power to institute proceedings. Furthermore, local authorities should appoint, for each slaughterhouse, an officer or officers, with qualifications that are approved by Ministers in regulations, to be responsible for ensuring compliance with the legislation. Finally, Ministers will be empowered to give guidance to local authorities on the arrangements for enforcement.
  That arrangement will enable local authorities to appoint another suitable officer, such as an environmental health officer or the poultrymeat inspector, to be responsible for welfare in those slaugherhouses that are not licensed under the Poultry Meat Hygiene Regulations 1976, and where there is no requirement for an official veterinary surgeon. However, we intend to require that in licensed plants the official veterinary surgeon should always have responsibility for welfare.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West was not very happy with my immediate response about costs. We believe that if the guidance that we have given to local authorities on official veterinary surgeon attendance for hygiene supervision is followed, there will be no need for the official veterinary surgeon to spend additional time at the slaughterhouse for welfare work, and no additional cost will arise. In the case of unlicensed slaughterhouses, local authorities already have general responsibility for hygiene and we do not anticipate any substantial increase in their cost as a result of our proposal. I can only reiterate that we expect that the cost in manpower will be minimal. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that reassurance. However, I can also assure him that I have noted his concern.
  The hon. Member for Tooting, who has regrettably had to leave the Chamber, and other hon. Members were concerned about the provision on chicks. The effect of clause 4 would be to make the slaughter of chicks subject to the slaughter requirements of the 1967 Act as soon as the Bill comes into force, unless we have by then approved special methods. However, it will probably not be possible in practice for us to approve those methods of slaughter for chicks by then, since the FAWC is currently considering the slaughter of chicks. Until it has reported it would be inappropriate to take action.
  Therefore, the Bill provides that the slaughter of chicks will not become a subject to the provisions of the

  653
  legislation until a day appointed by the Minister. But, of course, I reassure the hon. Member for Tooting that until then chicks will continue to have the protection that they already have, in that it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering under the other two Acts. Commercial hatcheries have to dispose of large numbers of unwanted chicks, and hitherto the 1967 Act has not applied, since they are not slaughtered for sale for human consumption. Therefore, the effect of the legislation—and the effect when we have the FAWC's recommendations—will be to bring chick disposals within its scope. Thus I hope that the hon. Member for Tooting will be reassured about the slaughter of chicks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) expressed concern about those who rear and slaughter poultry on a small scale. We are aware of the concern expressed that exemption from licensing should be made available to people, and particularly farmers, who slaughter a small number of birds. The Bill has therefore been amended in the other place to enable exemptions to be made to the licensing system, to be introduced under clause 5. The amendment makes it clear that there will be a general power to provide for exemptions since, until we have considered further the details of the licensing system and taken account of any representations that may be made during consultations, we shall not know what exemptions we may wish to make.
  Furthermore, we would lay ourselves open to all sorts of requests for exemptions to be provided in the Bill if we attempted to be specific. Therefore, I cannot give any firm commitment that the specific exemptions sought will be made, although I can assure the House that we have taken note of the concern and will bear it in mind when preparing the proposals. However, our first concern must be the welfare of the birds. If we make exceptions, they must be carefully drawn so as to ensure that welfare is not prejudiced and loopholes are not created. We shall, of course, be consulting widely.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also questioned the effect of clause 11 on on-farm mixers. The important parts of the clause for on-farm mixers are new section 40(1) and (2). Subsection (1) gives Ministers power to prohibit incorporation unless the conditions specified in the regulations are satisfied. The conditions are then set out in subsection (2). However, subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) will not necessarily all apply in every case. The regulations will be drafted in such a way that an on-farm mixer will not have to be registered with the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain under subsection (2)(c). He will, however, have to comply with the conditions specified in subsection (2)(a) or (b) which, of course, are already contained in the existing section 40.
  Some on-farm mixers may, however, choose to register. We intend to include, as a condition of registration, a requirement that registered dealers and manufacturers may sell or supply products with a high level of medication only to other registered dealers and manufacturers. On-farm mixers who can meet the conditions for registration, which will be contained in the code of practice, will be able to register if they wish, and so obtain these products. Those who do not register will have access to products with a lower level of medication which can safely be incorporated into feed with fewer controls on the mixing process.
  I should explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke that if highly-concentrated medicinal
  654
  products are not properly mixed into feeding stuffs, there is a risk that an animal may receive an excessive amount of the medicine, and that residues may remain in the meat which could be harmful to the consumer. Therefore, we felt it right that these potentially hazardous products should be available only to manufacturers who can incorporate them into feed under carefully controlled conditions — in other words, manufacturers who are registered. If on-farm mixers can meet the conditions for registration, it is for them to choose whether to register and so obtain those products.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also asked about the use of technicians in embryo recovery and transfer. Embryo transfer involving surgical techniques falls within the scope of the Veterinary Surgeons Act. However, non-surgical procedures are not restricted in that way. Indeed, I understand that embryo transfer by this method is already conducted by people other than veterinary surgeons. Whether that should continue, possibly subject to some form of veterinary supervision, is a matter for subordinate legislation, on which there will be full consultation.
  Several of my hon. Friends referred to religious slaughter. The Bill will improve the slaughter of religiously slaughtered birds. In some shops birds are sold live to the intending consumer and are then slaughtered. The Bill extends the protection of the 1967 Act to such birds. However, the Bill does not remove the exemption from the preslaughter stunning requirements. The Farm Animal Welfare Council is examining religious slaughter and will be making a report to Ministers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) asked about hormone medication, as did the hon. Member for City of Durham. Hormones are not normally administered through feedingstuffs, but as implants. I can assure my hon. Friend that hormone products, like all veterinary medicines, are subject to the licensing provisions of the Medicines Act. Safety for the consumer of animal products is carefully considered before a product is licensed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) also asked about religious slaughter, and I hope that my answer reassures him. He also referred to power of entry for the RSPCA, for example. We believe that powers of entry, as of right, should be limited to those who are publicly accountable to Parliament or to the local authority. Advice from the RSPCA is always welcome, but I do not believe that it is right to give its inspectors a power of entry since they are not answerable to hon. Members or local councillors.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham talked about several aspects. If I do not reply to them all, I shall deal with them in Committee. The hon. Gentleman asked me about other animal species. We have drawn the definition of livestock widely because we want to ensure that adequate powers are available to control as necessary animal species that might be subject to artificial breeding in the future. That is especially important in relation to disease and animal welfare. The control of individual species will require subordinate legislation on which there will be full consultation. We do not intend at this time to include species such as dogs and cats in such legislation.
  The Bill is one of some diversity. I trust that I have not stretched the patience of the House in introducing it and trying to answer the many queries posed by hon. Members. We regard the Bill as important. I understand

  655
  the criticism of the time that it takes to bring desirable legislation before the House. We shall be examining the problems of red meat slaughter shortly. Hon. Members have today contributed to another important advance in the welfare of animals and poultry at slaughter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Animal Health and Welfare Bill (Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.

  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into the Consolidated Fund under any other Act—[Mr. Lang.]

  FOREIGN LIMITATION PERIODS BILL [LORDS]
  Queen's consent on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent having been signified—
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  SOMERSET HOUSE BILL [LORDS]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

  FOSDYKE BRIDGE BILL [LORDS]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  Milk Production
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjoum.—[Mr. Lang.]
  12.5 pm
  Mr. Peter Hordern: I have a book at home by Arthur Young, the celebrated agriculturist and traveller, called "The Agriculture of Sussex". It was written, he said, for the Board of Agriculture, which then, as now, was an advisory service for farmers. The book was published in 1793.
  The Weald of Sussex, where my constituency is, was once a forest. Arthur Young said that the soil of the weald
  "is an excessve, stiff calcereous loam on a bottom of clay: it adheres so much to the share and it is so very difficult to plough that it is not unusual to find ten, twelve and, sometimes, fourteen oxen at work upon it".
  The clay of the weald remains just as difficult now as it ever was. It is no good for cereals. It is good only for grassland for dairy herds. What is more, the dairy farmers on the weald are often tenant farmers, some of them having farmed there for generations. They have gained nothing from the increase in the price of land. It is not open to them, therefore, to sell out if prospects look grim, for they have only their stock to sell and the value of their stock is diminishing fast.
  In this House we deal with large questions. We debate the future of the European Community, and we talk about butter mountains and wine lakes. Many of us who are warm supporters of the EEC deeply regret that it seems to be concerned only with farm prices and regional support rather than with defence and education, for example, which would benefit from a European Community approach.
  As it is, the common agricultural policy is the major form of common expenditure in the Community and its excesses have deeply damaged the perception of the Community both from within and outside.
  There is no doubt that something has to be done about these excesses. The Minister of State told us the other night that the cost of dealing with the dairy surpluses amounted to £3,000 million last year and that the savings introduced this year would amount to about £1,000 million. He told us that we are fully self-sufficient now in dairy products—which will come as a surprise to many dairy farmers.
  The cuts are expected to reduce milk production from 106 million tonnes to 100 million tonnes, but consumption within the Community looks like being only 86 million tonnes. There will still be a substantial surplus to finance.
  The surpluses have increased considerably recently, but they have been around for many years. Our dairy farmers are now told that they should have seen the crisis coming and that they must have known that their position was too good to last. But I do not not think that that is so. What the farmers saw was that the net price to the producer was consistently increased year after year. In 1981 the price for milk was 12·7p per litre. In 1982 it was 13·7p, and in 1983 14·8p. Indeed, the campaign guide issued to all Conservative candidates a year ago claimed that we had maintained the level of milk production by ensuring regular price increases.
  In our election manifesto we said:
  "We have launched successfully the 'Food from Britain' campaign, which should help us sell far more of our products both at home and in the rest of the Community".

  657
  Not every farmer reads our election manifesto, but we do. In view of what we said less than a year ago, I have no doubt that we have an obligation to our dairy farmers which we must properly discharge.
  I have yet to meet any farmer who does not admit that excessive agricultural surpluses in the EC must be dealt with by one means or another, but he is entitled to expect that the terms of the CAP—which aim to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, while also ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices— are kept. Therefore, the recent agreement in Brussels must meet certain tests. Given that the excesses must be reduced, is the agreement fair between one product and another? Is it fair between one farmer and another? Is the method chosen the best that can be provided?
  I need hardly say that any criticism of the agreement is criticism of the farming Ministers as a whole, and not especially of my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is abundantly clear that each Minister was pursuing his national ends rather than those of the Community as a whole. I understand that my right hon. Friend was satisfied with the agreement he reached, and I am sure that there must be some farmers — notably cereal farmers and, possibly, beef producers — who have reason to be grateful to him.Was the agreement fair between one product and another? It was certainly very generous to the cereal farmers. While the cost of supporting cereals is nothing like as high as supporting milk, there is a greater proportionate surplus in cereals than in milk. Net farm income for British cereal farmers in real terms, taking 1977–78 as 100, is forecast to be 160 in 1983–84. That is allowing for the increase in the cost of living. It is clear that the price of cereals is much higher than it should be and that cereal farmers are better able to stand a cut than dairy farmers. Indeed, perhaps the reason why pigs and poultry farmers have done so poorly—their income in real terms is only 25 per cent. of what it was in 1977–78 —is precisely that they have had to pay so much for their feedingstuffs.
  The dairy farmer's income in real terms in 1983–84 is forecast as 65, as against 100 in 1977–78. That figure disguises the effect of favourable price increases in recent years. Thanks to those price increases, for which we took full credit at the time, the dairy farmer's net income in real terms rose from 65 in 1980–81 to 93 in 1982–83. It is the speed of the fall from 93 to 65 in 1983–84 in one year that is so damaging, and it is upon that figure that the new and drastic cuts in quotas have been imposed.
  I have asked to see the accounts of some of my farmer friends. I have sent some of those to my right hon. Friend the Minister, and shall shortly send more. He will then see the losses being made by the farmers. He will also see how some of them applied for and were given substantial farm and horticulture development scheme grants in exchange for an undertaking that they would expand their herds. They signed a contract, but the Brussels agreement means that they will not be allowed to produce the milk that they undertook to do in the agreement. I am sorry to say that I think that is an intolerable intervention.
  I know that the Government have set aside 2·5 per cent. of the quota for compensation, but that is nothing like sufficient. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary
  658
  Secretary to comment on the quota and how far she thinks it will go, given the number of schemes that have attracted the FHDS grant.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister believes that there has been an advantage to those whom he describes as efficient farmers. I remind him that the position of those farmers very often is not only that they have taken advantage of the capital grant through the FHDS, but on the back of that grant they have gone to their bankers and borrowed a great deal of money for a specified investment scheme. The bankers have seen the schemes properly set out and have approved them on the basis that expansion would follow. That is the serious nub of the problem. Those farmers have undertaken a commitment to expand, on a settled scheme approved by both a Government body and their bankers. Any scheme set out in that way, which is then upset by an outside event or by intervention, must be treated seriously, especially if the body responsible for that intervention is the Government, through the European Community. I am blaming, not the Government, but the European Community. But a special responsibility bears upon the Government for the consequences that will fall on those who have undertaken expansion.
  What about the farmers who have not expanded their herds? If there is to be a cut, why was it not done by price rather than by quota? Given the need to cut Community surpluses, this is an inept way of doing it. My strictures apply to all the European Community farm Ministers—I am not singling out my right hon. Friend for special treatment. I have no doubt that he has done a great deal for Britain, especially for beef producers. He has played his part for the cereal farmers, to such an extent that they might collectively be described as the fat farmers' friends.
  The Germans have a national scheme to support their farmers who wish to leave the industry. I understand that the French have a similar scheme for their wine producers. We must do the same—we must have a national scheme that will allow dairy farmers to leave farming without loss if they wish to do so. That is the least we can do. For the dairy farmers of the Weald of Sussex, it is an essential requirement which, I trust, the Government will meet.
  12.17 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) on choosing this subject for the Adjournment debate. I am grateful to him for making it possible for me to intervene briefly. I warmly support what he said.
  As a co-opted member of the east Sussex National Farmers Union executive, I hear about farming at first hand from the farmers. The public should not be misled by the beauty of the countryside, which too often they take for granted. It is very beautiful in the weald. It may look lush, but it is not easy farming country.
  The backbone of agriculture in east Sussex is dairy farming, which, as my hon. Friend said, has been dealt a body blow by the EC's decision. We must give dairy farmers a fighting chance to survive. If we do not, two things will happen. First, we shall find ourselves importing other countries' surplus milk. Secondly, the beauty of the countryside — which our dairy farmers have done so much to conserve at their own expense—will be grievously harmed.

  659
  Therefore, we look to our Government to help that dedicated and hardworking section of our community through these difficult times.
  12.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I welcome this opportunity to discuss the milk industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) mentioned cereals as well as milk. He also said that price would be a preferable alternative to quota. He will be aware that a few years ago we tried—but were outvoted —to secure a lower price for cereals. My right hon. Friend has often said from the Dispatch Box that he would have preferred the price alternative.
  In another Adjournment debate earlier this week the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) raised the question of milk quotas and the supplementary levy system. This subject, not surprisingly, also figured in my hon. Friend's speech this afternoon. In responding to the various points that he raised, my remarks will inevitably tend to repeat what the Minister of State said on Tuesday. I shall also try, in the time available, to comment on the special factors affecting dairying in the weald, which are of particular concern to my hon. Friends the Members for Horsham and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).
  I should begin by setting out the key facts which the Council of Ministers had in mind when it decided to adopt the quota system. First, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, it was faced with a large and growing bill for the disposal of dairy surpluses. Last year the cost of that was £3 billion, reflecting the fact that surpluses can be disposed of, whether at home or abroad, only by means of subsidies at the expense of the taxpayer. The new arrangements will reduce these costs by cutting back deliveries over the next 12 months from an estimated 106 million tonnes to approximately 100 million tonnes. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we consume about 86 million tonnes. So that although this will save the taxpayer £1 billion, Government support for dairy farmers will continue at a high level.
  It is also necessary, as part of the factual background, to bear in mind that the United Kingdom industry has been so successful in increasing its production in recent years that we are now contributing to the Community's surplus problem on a significant scale. For example, last year, and taking New Zealand imports into account, we were 103 per cent. self-sufficient in butter fat, and this year we shall be almost self-sufficient in butter fat without New Zealand. For solids—not fat—we are already 131 per cent. self-sufficient. Moreover, our surpluses are contributing to the level of intervention stocks. We have 144 days' supply of butter at intervention stores and 692 days supply of skimmed milk powder, which is growing daily. These are the hard and uncomfortable facts against which the Council of Ministers had to reach its decision.
  These figures have not emerged overnight. The writing has been clearly on the wall for a long time. Last October my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that EEC farmers could not go on producing more and more food. Before that the Commission had tabled its quota proposal, which has since been debated at length in public and in the Council of Ministers. It is simply not the case that these restrictions have come out of the blue.
  660
  I recognise that, although the principle has now been agreed by the Council, there are various detailed aspects still requiring clarification. We have pressed, and shall continue to press, for early resolution of outstanding questions, in particular in relation to direct sales.
  On other fronts, the situation is already becoming clearer. Producers selling to the milk marketing boards have been told their provisional allocation and we are now engaged in discussions with the industry on the arrangements for allocating additional quotas from the 2·5 per cent. reserve which has been set aside. We are also considering, in consultation with the various interests, the possibilities provided for in the regulations of giving additional quota or financial aid to certain categories of producer, including smaller producers.
  In particular, we are considering carefully the possibility of assisting producers who wish to give up milk production. This is provided for in the regulations in the context of restructuring the industry. We are discussing urgently whether any such arrangements would be suitable in our circumstances. I cannot say more about that at present, but we shall announce the outcome of our deliberations shortly. We are also discussing arrangements to apply after the system has started to operate, including reallocation arrangements.
  We are having to conduct these consultations, and make the necessary arrangements, at great speed, and this imposes its own problems, but I am sure that the industry as a whole wants these crucial decisions taken quickly so that it can plan ahead.
  My colleagues and I are grateful for the helpful and constructive attitude that has been shown by leaders of the industry during these difficult discussions. I hope that we shall be able to continue to keep in close touch with them and that they will help to ensure that the industry's response to the system is sensible and constructive. I am sure, in particular, that they will wish to ensure that there is no threat to liquid milk supplies as a result of the quotas, which are set at a level far in excess of current liquid consumption.
  The special considerations affecting dairy farmers on the weald were examined in a recent report by the Ministry's agricultural development and advisory service, and if my hon. Friends wish I shall send them a copy of the report. The weald's problems arise particularly from the effects of soil type and climate, which sometimes, though not always, combine to shorten the grazing and growing season. In particular, the risk of poaching of the land in the spring and autumn means that cattle must be turned out later in the spring and brought in earlier in the autumn than is the case on lighter soils. In addition, the wooded nature of the countryside makes it difficult for dairy farmers to diversify into other enterprises.
  Despite those factors, there are a number of examples in the weald of large successful dairy enterprises which have developed efficient low-cost systems based on silage. These enterprises are run by farmers of proven management ability, and I know that they are already making plans to deal with the quota system.
  Indeed, one such herd featured in an ADAS promotional event last week, when a number of approaches to the quota system were demonstrated to a large and appreciative audience of local dairy farmers. The demonstration covered possibilities such as two-year-old calving, sward management, paraploughing to aerate the heavy wealden soils and various aspects of cow feeding.

  661
  I am sure that the dairy farmers of the weald will continue to respond positively to the challenges which they currently face and will thus set an example to dairy farmers elsewhere as we enter this necessary period of adjustment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Overseas Expenditure
  Overseas Expenditure
  Maryhill Community Business
  Maryhill Community Business
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Distraint and Poinding
  Distraint and Poinding
  Revenue Departments (Enforcement Powers)
  Revenue Departments (Enforcement Powers)
  Value Added Tax (Listed Buildings)
  Value Added Tax (Listed Buildings)
  GROUP 8A—PROTECTED BUILDINGS
  GROUP 8A—PROTECTED BUILDINGS
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Domestic Animals (Mutilation)
  Domestic Animals (Mutilation)
  Police National Computer
  Police National Computer
  Heroin
  Heroin
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Retail Premises (Fires)
  Retail Premises (Fires)
  James Farrell and Others
  James Farrell and Others
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Misuse of Drugs (Report)
  Misuse of Drugs (Report)
  Drugs Offences
  Drugs Offences
  Prison Discipline Inquiry (Chairman)
  Prison Discipline Inquiry (Chairman)
  International Fire Conference and Exhibition
  International Fire Conference and Exhibition
ENERGY
  Houses (Energy Labelling)
  Houses (Energy Labelling)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
DEFENCE
  Burtonwood Military Base
  Burtonwood Military Base
  Royal Observer Corps
  Royal Observer Corps
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Christian Aid
  Christian Aid
  Joint Funding Scheme
  Joint Funding Scheme
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Co-operative Education
  Co-operative Education
  International Youth Year
  International Youth Year
WALES
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Health Education Advisory Committee
  Health Education Advisory Committee
  Dairy Farming
  Dairy Farming
  NHS (Privatisation)
  NHS (Privatisation)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Teachers (Assaults on Pupils)
  Teachers (Assaults on Pupils)
  Industrial Diseases (Deaths)
  Industrial Diseases (Deaths)
SCOTLAND
  Freeway Acoustic Ventilators
  Freeway Acoustic Ventilators
  Single-parent families
  Single-parent families
  Dairy Farming
  Dairy Farming
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Home Improvements (Report)
  Home Improvements (Report)
  Merchant Shipbuilding
  Merchant Shipbuilding
  Retailers (Cash Payments)
  Retailers (Cash Payments)
  Concrete Roofing Tiles
  Concrete Roofing Tiles
  Television Licences (Hotels)
  Television Licences (Hotels)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Policy Achievements
  Policy Achievements
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Foreign Ministers
  Foreign Ministers
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Water Restrictions
  Water Restrictions
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Housing Departments (Employees' Interests)
  Housing Departments (Employees' Interests)
  Rent Assessment Committee (Islington, North)
  Rent Assessment Committee (Islington, North)
  Biddlestone Chapel
  Biddlestone Chapel
  Liverpool Council
  Liverpool Council
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Wages Inspectorate (North-West (West) Division)
  Wages Inspectorate (North-West (West) Division)
  European Council of Ministers
  European Council of Ministers
  Asbestos Regulations
  Asbestos Regulations
  Mines and Quarries Inspectorate
  Mines and Quarries Inspectorate
  Health and Safety Inspectorate
  Health and Safety Inspectorate
  Trade Unions (Contributions)
  Trade Unions (Contributions)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Mr. D. Watters
  Mr. D. Watters
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Fertility Operations
  Fertility Operations
  Newspapers Stories (NHS Operations)
  Newspapers Stories (NHS Operations)
  Drug Addiction (Yorkshire)
  Drug Addiction (Yorkshire)
  Drug Abuse Prevention (USA)
  Drug Abuse Prevention (USA)
  Drug Misuse (Merseyside)
  Drug Misuse (Merseyside)
  Drug Dependence
  Drug Dependence
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
  "Children in Care"
  "Children in Care"
  Butane Gas (Inhalation)
  Butane Gas (Inhalation)
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Department Overtime Ban (Pensioners' Payments)
  Department Overtime Ban (Pensioners' Payments)
  World Health Assembly
  World Health Assembly
  Ancillary Services (Privatisation)
  Ancillary Services (Privatisation)
  War Pensioners Mobility Supplement
  War Pensioners Mobility Supplement
  Maternity
  Maternity
TRANSPORT
  Motorways (Contra-flow Systems)
  Motorways (Contra-flow Systems)
  M40 Extension
  M40 Extension
  Ship Registration
  Ship Registration
  Marine Wrecks
  Marine Wrecks
  London Transport
  London Transport
  General Council of British Shipping
  General Council of British Shipping
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Departmental Telephone Inquiries
  Departmental Telephone Inquiries

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Peace Proposal
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 what is their attitude to the proposal of the Warsaw Treaty powers for an agreement with member states of NATO on the mutual non-use of military force and the maintenance of peace.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact are already committed in the United Nations Charter and the Helsinki Final Act not to use force except in self-defence. In the Bonn Declaration we and our allies again pledged never to use any of our weapons except in response to attack. It would underline the commitment to non-use of force if all states at CDE Stockholm were to agree concrete confidence and security building measures on the lines proposed by NATO.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that, in spite of this, there has been a serious deterioration in international relations, and that some action is called for in order to endeavour to move the situation in the direction of peace? For example, will the noble Baroness say whether it would not be desirable at this point to approach the Soviet Union on the question of the Gulf war before the situation deteriorates further?
Baroness Young: My Lords, a number of measures are being taken, and at the CDE conference in Stockholm we have a new approach to security issues. We seek to build a climate of confidence in which force limitations and reductions would be easier to achieve. We are doing this by trying to promote increased transparency of military activities, thus making it more difficult to mount a surprise attack. As far as the Soviet Union are concerned, the best thing they could do would be to return to the negotiating table.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the proposal of the Warsaw Pact powers mentioned in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, includes an undertaking to cease using military force in Afghanistan?
Baroness Young:My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has raised a very important point. Those who seek to see that these commitments are re-affirmed should, of course, be the first to abide by them—and the situation in Afghanistan illustrates what is currently happening.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Government have said, in response to the Soviet idea of no first use of nuclear weapons, that they are prepared to say there will be no first use of any weapons, cannot an agreement covering both those elements be reached?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have made it clear repeatedly that no NATO weapons, nuclear or conventional, will ever be used except in response to attack.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Question as it stands could be looked upon in the minds of some as a libel of the NATO powers in its suggestion that the proposal as to the non-use of military force and the maintenance of peace comes only from the Warsaw Treaty countries? Is it not the decision of this country and all NATO members not to use force and to maintain peace, and not the suggestion or idea of only one side?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to confirm to my noble friend that NATO is a defensive alliance.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while acknowledging the responsibility of our Government for the total defence of this island and for working sensibly in collaboration with all our NATO allies, but nevertheless bearing in mind some of the intransigencies of the United States of America in South America, which equates with the misbehaviour of the Russians in Afghanistan, ought not our Government, with their wide experience, to keep a cool head at all times and not get a built-in anti-Russian attitude, because their endeavours could perhaps bring world peace and stave off the ultimate holocaust?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated in my answer to the first supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, we are actively pursuing measures at the Stockholm Conference, and at the MBFR meetings we shall again be actively seeking to promote constructive measures on disarmament.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would it not be a great contribution to world peace if the Russians were to abandon this insistence on always having superiority over everybody else combined?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords; this would be helpful.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps the Americans could learn to do the same. Will the noble Baroness not address herself this morning to the most immediate threat to peace, which has arisen since this Question was put down—that is, the threat of escalation of the Gulf war into an international conflict? Will she not say, as I suggested in my earlier supplementary question, whether it would not be a very good idea to approach the Soviet Union on this question before the situation gets completely out of control?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that a supplementary question on the Gulf war is wide of the

1603
Question that is down on the Order Paper, but as a Government we do take the situation in the Middle East very seriously.

Civil Defence: Drug Supplies
11.13 a.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 plans they have to stockpile medical drugs in preparation for a nuclear war and what is the estimated cost.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a supply of drugs is just one of many matters taken into account by those who are developing plans for civil defence in the health service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Earl on his new post and hope that he will have at least a very interesting time? I am sure that we on this side of the House will bend every endeavour to make his job at least interesting. Is he aware that what is causing great perturbation is the view of the British Medical Association's Scientific Committee, which is appalled, worried and anxious about the proposal of the South West Regional Authority to spend £3·2 million on a drugs build-up? In the view of the British Medical Association, which I submit should have full cognisance taken of it. this is a reckless and complete waste of time and money.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord in the initial part of his supplementary question. With regard to the BMA's report, the Government do not accept the view that civil defence planning is pointless or that it can be interpreted as a preparation for war. We believe that the country should have the capacity to respond to the threat of war. So far as the DHSS and the NHS are concerned, that means making plans, among other things, to meet the needs of the casualties of war, both nuclear and conventional.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that, in the event that the views of the party opposite were accepted and the nuclear weapons of all countries were got rid of, history would show that, without doubt, that would inevitably be followed by a conventional war? In that case, would he say whether there are enough medical supplies available for a conventional war?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we do not believe that a nuclear war will happen, but I can assure the noble Lord that there are adequate supplies of drugs available.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Earl confirm that much of this equipment and many of these drugs have a limited shelf-life? They could be buried somewhere and forgotten for a month or two,

1604
or even a year or two, and they would be completely useless. Is the noble Earl further aware that the Government have promised to issue a statement about this entire question and that the BMA feel a sense of outrage that one authority has not waited for that review, as they have, with other health authorities? This should be a combined effort, including the BMA and the Government, so that all of Britain is involved and not just one part of it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a number of questions. With regard to the restricted shelf-life, we are aware of the problems associated with that in respect of certain essential drugs, but separate stockpiling may not be necessary. It really depends on what you call a stockpile. There are a number of supplies of drugs held by manufacturers and hospitals. There is also some reserve in the distribution chain which, by its very nature, is widely dispersed throughout the country and involves hospitals, wholesalers, retail pharmacists and family doctors, who dispense medicines for their patients. There are no specific stockpiles in bunkers and warehouses.
With regard to the report of the South West Regional Health Authority, that was a natural progression of work by the authority as a result of Circular HDC/77/1. Steady progress has been made in revising and updating that circular, and other Government departments with similar responsibility for civil defence are being consulted. I can assure the noble Lord that the British Medical Association and other interested bodies will also be consulted and that the revised circular will be issued with the least possible delay.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is there any evidence that the report of the BMA, which was made by a specially appointed committee of the association, has been supported by the thousands of its members? May I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that it is right in civil defence to prepare for not only a vast holocaust—which was the underlying assumption of the BMA report—but also any eventuality, perhaps of a lesser kind, which might occur and from which there would be millions of survivors?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the first point, I do not have an answer. I shall of course check it out and let my noble friend have an answer. With regard to the second point on civil defence, of course Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of all the things that could happen under civil defence, and the appropriate measures are being taken.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his final answer to me, in particular the point that other people, including the BMA. will be consulted, and that the revised circular will be issued as quickly as possible, will be very much welcomed by the BMA and other responsible people who are concerned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I am sure he will also draw this point to the attention of the BMA.

Double Glazing: VAT
11.19 a.m.
Lord Dean of 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 whether they will reconsider their proposal to charge VAT on the installation of double glazing in domestic properties in the light of their declared policy of energy conservation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, value-added tax was designed as a broad-based tax. It is not therefore an instrument designed to assist every aspect of public policy. Successive Governments have not seen fit to introduce a relief for energy-saving work as such. There is no justification for excluding the installation of double glazing from the proposed application of standard-rate VAT to building alteration work generally.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that rather unhelpful reply, but may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware (as I am sure he will be) that double glazing installed in domestic property produces a saving in heating costs of approximately 10 per cent. or upwards? Is the noble Earl aware that on the basis of present figures the introduction of VAT on Ist June will increase the cost per house, depending on the type of job done, by between £225 and £450? Does the Minister not agree that that will be a disincentive to people to involve themselves in double glazing, and that it will cut across the very policy that the Government have on energy conservation?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying. We in the Department of Energy believe that tank jackets, draught proofing, loft insulation and cavity insulation are all good energy savers, as is some double glazing, particularly in dwellings where window frames have deteriorated to the point where there is no alternative but to replace them, and in dwellings undergoing general rehabilitation. But the effects of the new tax are limited. New construction will continue to be zero-rated. Both repair and maintenance work and supplies for DIY installations are already taxed at the standard rate.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that quite a number of young people who have already entered into commitments with double glazing firms find that, following the Government's policy, and because of the imposition of value added tax, they are no longer able to go forward with the work?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I should be very sorry if that were the case. On the other hand, this is a tax which has been imposed in order to correct distortions.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how often there has been a revision of the application of VAT on other items in

1606
the past? If ever there was a need for sensitivity and flexibility, it is here. Does the Minister not take fully on board the nonsense of the conflict between the Government's policies, which on the one hand are determined to conserve energy, and on the other hand are setting out to clobber the consumer?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, may I first say that we are still encouraging people on all the various propositions that I suggested earlier. These will still be encouraged, as they are still energy-conservation-effective. So far as the current tax position is concerned, it discriminates in favour of manufacturer-installed double glazing and against both contractor and DIY installation. That is why this change is being made.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not the noble Earl's answer completely unsatisfactory? Is it not a fact that the Government have been telling Parliament for a long period of time that they are interested in conserving our energy resources, which are in the long-term likely to be in short supply, and that the building of new power stations and new installations is very expensive? Is it not a crazy policy that we should now be imposing a 15 per cent. tax on insulation measures which will save an enormous amount of energy? Will the noble Earl make represent-ations to his colleagues, particularly in the Treasury, in order that this tax can be repealed or, at least, not proceeded with?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I should just like to say that I cannot accept the word "enormous". The savings in this field are not as great as the ones that I mentioned earlier, but I shall not go through the list again. However, there are savings from double glazing which, as I said, we recognise. I do not think that the noble Lord's exaggerations will help the situation. As I said earlier, we are still encouraging energy efficiency, and the methods which I have been talking about and the paybacks remain very good.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is true that, when householders install double glazing and other methods of insulation, they are liable to have their house rerated to a higher value?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, so far as I am aware, there would be no change in the rateable value for double glazing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the authority for the extension of the scope of VAT referred to in this Question? Has there been any specific legislation, or is this just a decision of the Board of Customs and Excise?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it was in the Budget.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in one of his answers today he referred to loft insulation and cavity wall filling? Is he aware that by combining those two with double glazing there can be a 30 per cent. saving on heating bills and energy costs? Is the saving not so significant that it ought to be

1607
looked at again? Finally, does the noble Earl agree that the imposition of this 15 per cent. VAT will have yet another adverse effect on the building industry, which has been massacred over the past five years?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I again think that the noble Lord exaggerates somewhat in trying to make his points. Of course, I understand what he is talking about, but I said in earlier answers that the energy efficiency paybacks, particularly on the subjects he mentioned of loft insulation and cavity wall insulation, are still extremely good in spite of the imposition of VAT.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, in the context of the question from the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, relating to any possible effect on revaluation and my noble friend's reply thereto, may I ask whether this does not supply further evidence of the imperative need for an urgent acceleration of the processes of reviewing and revising these complex, and sometimes incomprehensible, rules?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, but I do not much wish to be drawn into that field.

Mr. Dennis Skinner
11.27 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: 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 action they propose to take following the jury's verdict of unlawful killing concerning the death of Mr. Dennis Skinner in Moscow.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have called for the transcripts of the inquest which we shall be studying.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, when the noble Baroness's department are considering these matters, which have been widely publicised in the press in the past few days, will they then consider making any representations to the Soviet authorities about this whole matter, particularly in the light of the decision of the jury? Secondly, may I ask her whether her department will, in particular, consider the allegations made at the inquest that the embassy in Moscow did not take with sufficient seriousness the suggestions made that Mr. Skinner was under severe pressure from the KGB? Lastly, may I ask her whether she will ensure, in so far as we can, that the Russian Government is made absolutely aware of the fact that, if anything is done to harm Mrs. Skinner in this country in the way that Mr. Markov's life was extinguished by the Bulgarians not so long ago, this will in itself do great damage to relations between this country and the Soviet Union?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in response to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I

1608
should like to say that the matter is under consideration. In response to the second part as to whether the embassy did enough to help Mr. Skinner, I can confirm that I am confident that the embassy did everything in their power to help Mr. Skinner. They had thorough discussions with him, they provided him with safe accommodation and repeatedly urged him to stay with embassy staff until his departure. On the question of Mrs. Skinner, the police have been informed of what the coroner said about this and are taking appropriate action.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us what the law is in regard to inquests held on British citizens killed abroad? Who decides that they shall be held, and who decided in this case? Further, in view of her last answer, are we to take it that there are to be no further inquiries as to the allegations that the embassy did not take sufficient notice of the danger in which Mr. Skinner apparently alleged he stood?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the second part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I can only refer to what I have already said. We are confident that the embassy did everything in their power to help Mr. Skinner. In fact, an embassy official could not—and indeed would not—keep him in the embassy against his will. On the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I understand that, as it has been in this case and in other cases, it is possible to hold an inquest in this country following a death abroad.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in view of the anxieties that have been expressed in several quarters of the House about our Embassy in Moscow and the care that was taken, can the noble Baroness assure the House that a very full and detailed report has been received as to all these matters, including the opportunities that the embassy had?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have indicated already that we believe that the Embassy in Moscow did everything that they could to help Mr. Skinner. He was offered safe accommodation and was repeatedly urged to stay with embassy staff until his departure.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will a further Statement be made on this most unhappy matter after the examination of the evidence and the transcripts of what went on in the Coroner's Court has been completed?Will this not be desirable from the public's point of view and from the Foreign Office's point of view?
Baroness Young: My Lords, that would be a question that would have to be determined in the light of developments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I follow up the supplementary question of the noble and learned Lord? He asked whether there would be a Statement after the Foreign Office had considered these matters in detail. Is that not a reasonable request? Can we not receive an assurance from the noble Baroness that a Statement will be made when that review has been completed?
Baroness Young: My Lords, if there is a request for a Statement in his House or any matter governing parliamentary business, this is always a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness consider whether it might be possible to set Mrs. Skinner's mind at rest to some degree by pointing out that there has never been any previous case in which the Soviet Union has harmed any individual or attempted the assassination of any individual in this country? Certain other countries have indeed done that, but the Soviet Union, in all the years of our relationship, have never done anything of the sort.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has said; but I think that I have said enough on the subject of Mrs. Skinner to make quite clear what is the Government attitude on this matter.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, as Mr. Skinner represented one of our major banks while in Moscow, and since presumably a successor will be appointed, will my noble friend the Minister give an assurance that extra precautions will be given to his successor and also to the many other British representatives of major firms in Moscow in view of this very disturbing incident?
Baroness Young: My Lords, successive British Governments have published security advice about visits to communist countries, most recently our predecessors, in 1977. We see no reason to alter the advice that has been given.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, the noble Baroness has said that it was possible to hold inquests on British citizens killed abroad. Can she tell us who decides to hold an inquest, and who so decided in this case?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that this is a matter on which I should write to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. It is a legal point and I should not like to go into it on this occasion without taking further advice.
Lord Wigoder: Would the noble Baroness reconsider her observation that whether the Government makes a Statement is a matter for the usual channels, my Lords?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I was not aware that I had made that statement. I said that if there was a request that there should be some business in the House, this is usually a matter for the usual channels; but of course, as I indicated originally, the Government would consider these points.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, as I should have thought, that in a case as sensitive as this, it ought to be sorted out through the usual channels? I do not believe that the matter ought to be left open for any kind of ill-thought-out or mischievous intervention in something which may be, as I say, so sensitive and important. This is a matter where the usual channels, with their

1610
special responsibilities—most of them are Privy Counsellors—ought to make this decision in view of what would flow from it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, surely this is a matter for the Government's judgment. There has been this request from the House expressed very strongly. Surely it is not a matter to be negotiated through the usual channels. If the Government think it a suitable occasion to allay the public concern then the Government surely have a duty to make a Statement.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord should be so very concerned about what I have said. I made it quite plain that, if we consider it to be appropriate, we will make a Statement. At present, we have asked for a full copy of the transcripts which we shall consider. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would recognise that it would be very unwise in the present situation to make a commitment in advance of finding out what has been said. We would use our judgment, of course, as to whether we thought this to be appropriate. If the noble and learned Lord puts down a Question or asks for a Statement, that is his prerogative, and these matters would always be determined in the way they normally are in the business of the House.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government do not have to accede to a PNQ; so that, in the long run, we have no guarantee of a Statement on this matter?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I simply do not understand what lies behind a supplementary' question like that. I have been very careful in what I have said to the House because we are in a situation in which we are still considering a matter. When we have considered it, if it is appropriate, we will make a Statement. But when we have not considered it, I think that it is unwise to make promises in a situation like this.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, reverting to the supplementary question as to the principles governing whether an inquest is held on a British citizen who dies abroad, having regard to the fact that this is a permissive and not mandatory procedure, would my noble friend (in addition to writing to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, as she has very properly undertaken to do) disseminate this information in some more public way as it is clearly a matter of some general interest?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am very glad to give the assurance to my noble friend, Lord Broxbourne, that I will find a suitable way of publicising this matter.

Stock Exchange (Listing) Regulations 1984
11.37 a.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Stock Exchange (Listing) Regulations 1984 be approved. I can tell the House that these draft regulations have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments who have not called the attention of the House to any matter. The

1611
draft regulations are laid before Parliament under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the European Committees Act 1972. The regulations implement three related European Community directives adopted by the Council between 1979 and 1982. They can most conveniently be labelled as, first, the admissions directives; secondly, the listing particulars directive; and. thirdly, the interim reports directive. The last is little more than an amplified article of the first.
In broad terms, the listing particulars directive lays down the documentation which must be made available to the public by a company seeking to have its securities admitted to the official list of the Stock Exchange. In effect, it is about the prospectus. The admissions directive deals in essence with the powers of the competent authority for listing. If Parliament approves the draft regulations, this would be a role that, I am glad to say, the Stock Exchange has agreed to assume. It also deals with the duties of listed companies. One of these duties is the publication of half-yearly reports. This is the subject of the interim reports directive.
Taken together, the directives establish a common system covering the admission of securities to Stock Exchange official lists and the behaviour of issuers of listed securities. They form part of the Community's continuing programme for the harmonisation of company and related law. Stock Exchange listing in this country has not hitherto been subject to statute law, except to the extent that any prospectus published in connection with the listing has had to comply with the relevant provisions of the Companies Acts. Whether or not a security is listed is a material fact for the purposes of a variety of statutory provisions. But admission has. of itself, been a private act of the Stock Exchange Council, and the Stock Exchange has, over the years, developed considerably higher standards of disclosure to investors than those enjoined by law.
The reason for legislating is that a number of decisions of the European Court since the directives were adopted make it quite plain that de facto compliance with a directive is not sufficient. Implementation has to be by a legislative means, and our compliance in practice would not, without legislation, fulfil our Community obligations. Quite apart from any infraction proceedings against Her Majesty's Government, the existence of directives with no backing in domestic law would face issuers and their advisers with a whole range of quandaries and expose actions taken by the issuers in good faith to challenge. The draft regulations are designed to provide the statutory backing in domestic law which is needed without fettering the Stock Exchange's established discretion any further than is necessary to achieve compliance with the directives. This accounts for the fact that the draft regulations "let the directives speak", merely incorporating them without adaptation.
There may be a disadvantage in this approach, in that directives do not always speak clearly, nor always in language familiar to us. But there is a great offsetting advantage in letting such uncertainties be resolved pragmatically, rather than setting particular solutions in statutory concrete. The regulations necessarily make the Stock Exchange a more public body than it

1612
has been, at least legally, in the past, but I would not expect this—or, indeed, anything in the draft regulations—to have nearly so much impact on the Stock Exchange's operations as the developments it is considering of its own volition. I quote from the preamble to the Admissions Directive, which noble Lords will note is on page 7 of the draft regulations:
"This co-ordination should be sufficiently flexible to enable account to be taken of present differences in the structures of security markets in the member states and to enable the member states to take account of any specific situations with which they may be confronted."
Perhaps I may now turn to the regulations. Regulation 1 provides for these regulations to come into operation fully on 1st January 1985. By deferring entry into force until this date, we are providing a reasonable period for familiarisation and for the Stock Exchange to complete the adaptation of the Yellow Book to the directives. In the case of Crown issues, however, the Listing Particulars Directive is to apply immediately the regulations enter into force, otherwise it might have been argued that the directives were directly effective against the Crown and therefore that anything done by the Crown which did not comply with them was not lawful.
Regulation 2 simply defines a number of terms. Regulation 3(1), with Regulation 6, to which it refers, gives legal effect to the directives, including such national options as they allow and we wish to exercise. Paragraph (2) of Regulation 3 makes companies and other issuers subject to the appropriate obligations—again similar to those incumbent upon issuers under the present listing agreement. But they have to become statutory rather than contractual. Paragraph (3) of Regulation 3 requires any powers of the Council of the Stock Exchange to be exercised consistently with the directives.
Regulation 4 designates the Council of the Stock Exchange as the competent authority prescribed by the directives. It confers upon the council all the powers the member states are required or permitted to bestow upon the competent authority. It enables the council to devolve the administration of its functions as the competent authority to subordinate bodies and individuals. I believe noble Lords will not mind if I anticipate their approval of these draft regulations to the extent of wishing the council well in its competent authority role.
Regulation 5 makes incumbent upon issuers and their advisers the obligation under Article 4 of the Listing Particulars Directive to ensure that investors are provided with all necessary information to enable them to make an informed assessment. Paragraphs (2) and (3) make provision as to liability for non-compliance or contravention of this obligation, to as nearly as possible the extent that they would be for a prospectus under Section 38 of the Companies Act 1948.
Regulation 6 gives effect to Schedule 2, which in turn makes provision for the exercise of various options conferred by the directives on member states. Where no provision is made, the option is not exercised.
Regulation 7 is perhaps the most technical and difficult. Its object, in broad terms, is to avoid incompatibility or duplication between the directives'

1613
requirements and those of domestic prospectus law in the Companies Acts. In the United Kingdom an application for securities to be listed almost always coincides with their being offered to the public, which in turn normally requires the issue of a prospectus giving the information stipulated by Schedule 4 to the Companies Act 1948. The directives envisage that there will be a considerable interval between the public offering and listing, such as is common in other member states.
Regulation 7 also provides that documents required or permitted to be published under the directives are not to be treated as prohibited circulars under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Acts (Great Britain and Northern Ireland). I should point out that paragraph (7) of Regulation 7 does not mean that the Community has moved into the criminal law area. It merely transposes to this new context the appropriate Companies Act penalties.
Regulation 8 excludes liability for damages, except in respect of obligations imposed by Article 4 of the Listing Particulars Directive and, in the case of the council, actions or omissions done in bad faith.
This is a very brief account of the provisions, which in some cases are far from simple. However, I hope that I have given your Lordships' House at least a broad understanding of the purport of the draft regulations. In conclusion, it is fair to look beyond the inconveniences of putting a well-proven system into a statutory framework to more welcome possibilities.
A more positive way to regard the directives and their implementation is as applying our standards more widely, thus increasing the attractions of becoming listed upon what is, by general consent, by far the best stock market in the Community in terms of depth, liquidity and regulatory standards. Implementing the directives is a step towards bringing the Community's capital markets closer together. That is a process from which our own stock market stands to gain much. Accordingly, I invite your Lordships to approve the draft regulations.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st May be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
11.49 a.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord for having briefly taken us through the provisions of this quite important series of regulations. Some of your Lordships may consider that their importance merits more than a short discussion on a Friday morning in your Lordships' House. The matters raised in the regulations are of significance and importance, technical though many of them may be.
In this series of regulations certain amendments are carried to the Companies Act 1948. I am well aware that there are precedents, in comparatively insignificant circumstances, for Acts of Parliament to be amended by regulation. However, in a case of this importance—which affects, among other matters, the conditions for listing and regulations governing the approval of prospectuses—it is undesirable that the position should be left in this way, rather than having

1614
a debate take place on amendments to the Companies Act itself.
One point which the noble Lord has touched upon is the appointment of the Stock Exchange as the competent authority for carrying out the supervisory functions and, in some cases, derogation from regulations, in substitution for what would normally be the functions of the Department of Trade and Industry. If the noble Lord reads through the schedules, from pages 13 to 20 of the order itself, he will find that there are no fewer than 29 occasions where authority has been delegated to "the competent authorities". This puts the Stock Exchange in a position of considerable power. As the noble Lord is well aware, the Stock Exchange is not accountable to the public in any way—save, of course, by its reputation, which I should not wish in any way to underrate. Nevertheless, I do not consider that this is the manner in which it should have been done.
We have had the Gower report on the working of the City's institutions and, more particularly, in regard to the necessary amendments to the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act. This is the subject of considerable controversy in the City at the moment, as to what kind of supervisory functions should be exercised and, if necessary, by whom. There is a growing consciousness in the community at large, and among the investing public in particular, that the investor needs a far greater degree of protection than is afforded him at the moment by statute.
This brings me to the question of the EEC directives themselves and the schedules and annexe to them. It will be immediately apparent—and the noble Lord himself has hinted at this—that the EEC directives paint with rather a broader brush from time to time, and are rather less meticulous in defining what is lawful and what is not lawful, compared with our own legislation, which, I am happy to say, passes through both Houses of Parliament before it becomes law.
The ambiguity of the directives bothers me. If the noble Lord will refer to the accounting particulars set out in Chapter V, in Schedules A and B to the directive of 17th March (I believe it is) he will find that the accounting requirements are far less onerous than those already imposed by the Stock Exchange. If the noble Lord will consult Chapter III of the famous Yellow Book of admission of securities to listing, he will find that there is a whole section there on accountants' reports. It is couched in very precise terms. It is thoroughly endorsed by all the reputable accounting bodies in this country. To the best of my knowledge, it is very stringently enforced.
It is quite clear from even a superficial examination (and a detailed examination would confirm it) that the requirements of the directive which, by this regulation, will be written into British law are far less exacting than those imposed by the Stock Exchange at the present time, with the full approval and endorsement of the accountancy bodies of the United Kingdom. Those bodies are also required to conform with various standard practices—the breach of which can result in disciplinary measures against the member concerned. Therefore, at the moment the require-ments are very stringent—and very rightly so.
The noble Lord said that some time has to be allowed for the adaptation of Stock Exchange

1615
regulations to those which are now to be enforced by this regulation. I therefore have to ask the noble Lord for a categorical assurance. It may not be convenient for him to give it today. He may seek, and quite properly so, to reply by letter. But I give him notice that if he does take this course, I shall be bound to give immediate publicity to the detailed reply that I hope he will be able to give to my question.
The assurance I require is that the existing provisions of Chapter III for the admission of securities to listing will not be watered down by the passing of this particular series of regulations, in so far as accounting particulars and other information lawfully required for the protection of investors in this country are concerned. It is well known—and I do not wish to be in any way derogatory to our partners in the European Community—that accounting standards are far higher in this country and in the Netherlands than in any of the other countries of the Community, where accounting and reporting standards are unfortunately not quite as high as they are in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. I do not believe that the investing community or the City would regard with any favour any series of regulations which water down what has hitherto been a characteristic of the code enforced in the City of London.
That brings me to another point. I thought that the noble Lord was a little disingenuous, if he will forgive my saying so. when he came to the explanation for Regulation 1. If your Lordships will refer to Regulation 1 (2), you will find that these regulations will generally come into operation on 1st January 1985. But so far as the Government are concerned, in relation to any securities owned by the Government or by any corporation under the Government's control, these regulations will come into effect after 10 days. I thought that the noble Lord's explanation of the reason for that was a little disingenuous.
The reason is perfectly clear. The noble Lord and the Government really want the British Telecom issue and all the prospectuses and documents connected with it. and all the disclosures which are required at present by law, to be governed not by the provisions of Schedule 4 to the Companies Act but by this new regulation—which, as I have said, is in many respects much more lax than the law of this country at the moment.
We have made one point many times before in relation to the British Telecommunications Bill, which will divest the Government of a substantial proportion of their shares onto the public sometime later this year. We have already described this in terms which I need not repeat to the House today. In the British Telecom Bill they sought to exempt themselves from certain prospectus provisions which are not applicable to other companies in the United Kingdom. This exemption of the British Telecom issue, although supported in the Division Lobby on the basis of party loyalties by Members on the Government Benches, nevertheless still left a degree of disquiet in the House as a whole from the Benches opposite.
The House is entitled to have the assurances for which I have asked. I should also like the House to be informed whether, in the light of these regulations,

1616
when we come to the British Telecom issue and its application for listing the Government intend to work within the Companies Act 1948 as amended by them in one respect on the British Telecom Bill, or whether they will seek to take advantage of the more relaxed requirements (to put it at its highest) which are envisaged in these regulations. The time for frankness in regard to this matter has come. If the noble Lord cannot give detailed replies today perhaps he will give the appropriate information in such correspondence as he may care to enter into with me on the subject.
At the moment, we are very suspicious of this—particularly its application to the Government after the next 10 days. At the time of Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia before the war some gangsters in Chicago discussed the merits of the matter and said, "It is a swell racket as long as you can keep the boys in line". I hope we never have to remind the noble Lord of that, particularly within the context of what may develop in amendments to the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I join the noble Lord. Lord Bruce, in thinking the Minister for his brief outline of this very difficult and complicated matter. I am sure all Members of the House will agree with two things he said: first, that these draft regulations are far from simple; and secondly, that EC directives generally are not written in a language that we can understand, and are certainly very complicated. I have the same anxieties as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and as he promulgated his anxiety so fully I shall be fairly brief. I support him in his request for some kind of an assurance—not necessarily today—regarding the effect of these regulations on the accounting standards for the protection of investors, which is a matter on which he elaborated.
The second point I should like to develop, and upon which the noble Lord to ached, is the effect of these regulations on the proposed flotation of British Telecom. I must take up a few minutes in indicating where my anxieties lie. Of course, I am not asking for an answer today. I have looked at the explanatory note on page 55 of this document—carefully tucked away right at the very end. I note, of course, that it is not part of the regulations. It is on paragraph 5 of that explanatory note that some of my anxieties are founded. I say at once that it may be I am inaccurate in my submissions, but I have not had the opportunity to examine these regulations in the full detail I should have liked. I apologise to the Minister if I have mis-understood any part of his brief, the explanatory note, the directives or any part of the regulations.
The explanatory note states:
"In particular the Regulations"—
and then, in paragraph 5—
"make provisions to avoid duplication between the directive requirements and the existing requirements of domestic prospectus law in the Companies Acts".
That is the object of the regulations: to avoid duplication between the directive requirements and the existing requirements of British domestic law in the Companies Acts. Perhaps the noble Lord can at some stage clarify what kind of duplication this explanatory note has in mind, particularly in the context of British Telecom.

1617
Paragraph 5 goes on to say that the provisions are intended,
"to disapply the restrictions"—
"disapply" seems to be a somewhat unhappy word, but nevertheless it is there—
"on the distribution of circulars contained in the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Acts in relation to listing particulars and ancillary documents required or permitted by the directives (Regulation 7)".
If your Lordships then follow the suggestion to look at Regulation 7 of the draft regulations, it will be found on page 4. But the paragraph to which I draw attention in the context of British Telecom is on page 5—paragraph 7 (4). This cites the Companies Act, the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) and the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act (Northern Ireland) 1940. It seems to me that what is stated in this paragraph is not consistent with what we heard in the course of the British Telecom Bill, when this matter of the publication of a limited prospectus was dwelt upon at some length.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, quite rightly indicated that there was some anxiety about this matter. It went to a Division and the Government were able to get it through. Therefore, in this complicated matter, and in the possible convolution of my submissions, I should like to know whether the Minister can at some time give me his views on the matters I have adumbrated.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for their receipt of these regulations. I agree with them both that they are very important. If I fail, in their view, to answer fairly their various and different questions, I hope they will forgive me because it is a complicated matter. Both noble Lords know that I am not as familiar as either of them with the detail of this measure. Therefore, if I do not answer them adequately they can be quite sure I will seek further advice and communicate with them. The noble Lord sought a categorical assurance which I shall touch on later and I certainly understand that he may wish to give any response full publicity. There would be no hedging the bets there.
The date of implementation of the directives was in fact 30th June 1983, but since they were adopted variously between 1979 and 1982, some very detailed discussions have been taking place with the Stock Exchange. These discussions have, in effect, culminated in the publication of the draft regulations and their presentation before Parliament. I think that there would be something of a nonsense of conflicting requirements if the Companies Act prospectus provisions were not amended. The functions vested in the authority are those which the Stock Exchange has been carrying out for years. They are not, I believe, administrative matters of a familiar kind. It was always the intention—and I include in that the last Labour Government—that the Stock Exchange should be a competent authority.
That takes me on to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, which implicitly suggests that the regulations are complex.

1618
They seek to make certain changes. Why are we doing it through this measure? He referred to Professor Gower's report on investor protection. The short answer is that the regulations deal with matters which, compared with the Gower report, as he will well know, cover a very small and special field. Moreover, they give effect to a Community obligation. Apart from the fact that a future financial services Bill would enable Parliament to consider again the subject matter of the present regulations, the Government do not see these regulations as foreclosing any options at all in regard to the Gower report. The present rate of change in the City is, if anything, an argument against rushing legislative fences at this time.
That is the short answer in one part, but I think it may be helpful for noble Lords to appreciate the Government's other view. In the first place the directives are an accomplished fact. They are not open to national legislation. We cannot amend them. Implementing them by means of a Bill would not alter that. Secondly, the directives are already in force as Community law. If they were not also clearly in force in domestic law, there would certainly be conflict between the Community and existing domestic arrangements, and there would certainly be doubts cast on the validity of flotations. It is surely in the interests of all that these uncertainties should be resolved. Subordinate legislation is the quickest means, and it is an entirely proper one. Moreover, the Government, as I say. are currently considering the Gower report and a possible financial services Bill. I repeat that if there are any matters arising from the regulations that require looking at again, such legislation might prove to be the right opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked me in particular about accounting requirements in Chapter 5, on page 44 of the regulations. I am advised—because I do not know Chapter 5 intimately—that the accounting requirements are no less onerous. They require all accounts to be set out. In addition, Article 19, on page 28, gives power to require a further report. Both noble Lords spoke—
12.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he said just now, but I wish to draw his attention to one particular matter. If he will turn to Chapter 3 of the Stock Exchange regulations—and not Chapter 5—at paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 he will find certain stipulations that reporting accountants are required to deal with certain extraordinary matters; for example, a change of the basis on which accounts are prepared and changes in continuity of assumptions previously made in accounts which may in some years be out of line. I cannot find in these regulations anything which requires the provisions of paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of Chapter 3 of the Stock Exchange regulations to be carried into effect.
The gravamen of my point is this. I do not complain in any way if the regulations fall short of what is established practice in this country, but what I want an assurance on is that, notwithstanding the regulations, the Stock Exchange and the accounting bodies will be

1619
entitled lawfully to insist on standards even higher than those contained in the regulations.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, your Lordships will accept that I am not going to engage this morning in any exchange with so distinguished a member of the accounting profession as the noble Lord. May I take note of what he has said, look at it and, frankly, be advised. I can say this to the noble Lord. I do not know whether he is right, but certainly there is no intention at all in these regulations to dilute in any way the very high standards that we in this country enjoy by virtue of the practices of the accounting profession and, indeed, the Stock Exchange, which in my earlier remarks I said were somewhat superior in a number of respects to those in other markets.
I was about to turn briefly to the question that both noble Lords raised with regard to the British Telecom provisions. Although the regulations change certain elements of the situation that previously applied, the Government are satisfied that overall the requirements as set out in these regulations are as stringent as those we have at present. We do not believe that they are more relaxed.
The last point I ought to mention covers the non-adaptation of the directives. I referred to this briefly in my earlier speech. Noble Lords will know that European Community directives are, in reality, heads of agreement negotiated in seven languages and drafted by a multinational secretariat. Accordingly, the normal practice is to render them into our own usage and give them the certainty of meaning expected of United Kingdom statutes before giving them the force of law. That is the course we embarked on when it became clear from decisions of the European Court that the de facto application of directives by the Stock Exchange would not suffice. Frankly, it would have produced a much tidier result than do the present regulations, but it would have prejudged the decisions which will be taken in the revision of the Yellow Book, which is now being undertaken by the Stock Exchange.
Although implementing the directives unadapted leaves a number of doubts as to their purport, as I said, it leaves the Stock Exchange and users free within, and consistent with, the limits of the directives to agree how those doubts should be resolved. I believe that it is for the best that these should be resolved within the framework of the directives, as they have been before, by common sense and the meeting of minds. I do not think that the regulations are more demanding than the Schedule 4 point which the noble Lord raised.
My Lords, I think that 1 have answered the bulk of the questions raised by noble Lords. I apologise for having been so long but, again, as the noble Lord said, it was an important matter. I hope I have cleared up some of the issues that might have been uppermost in his mind. I commend these draft regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Video Recordings Bill
12.21 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AMPTHILL in the chair.]
Clause 8 [Requirements as to labelling etc.]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 7, line 10, at end insert—
(" (2A) Regulations under this section shall also define the considerations, criteria and standards of judgment to be applied by the designated authority in carrying out their responsibilities under section 7 of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. It is possible that this amendment is not really relevant to the clause but I am seeking some elucidation of where things which may be dealt with otherwise are going to happen. I assume that this clause, Clause 8, is dealing solely with regulations which govern labelling and similar activities after the classification has been given. But it is not an interference or a direction to the designated authority as to how they are to do their classification. What it does, as far as I can tell, is ensure that whatever classification is given, then it is a matter for the Act, and regulations under the Act, to decide how they shall be displayed, labelled and drawn to the attention of the dealers and to the public.
So if I am right about that, then my proposal here for regulations on standards and criteria will not be relevant to this clause. I may ask whether what is in my amendment is likely to be in the guidelines which I understand are to be made at some time. I am a little vague about these guidelines because I am not sure whether they are going to go from the DPP to the designated authority, or whether they are going from the Home Office to both, or what. I understood from the Second Reading, which now seems so long ago, that some guidelines were going to be issued and the question was whether they were going to be made public, whether they would receive the approval of both Houses of Parliament, or what. If the noble Minister can just clear up the confusion in my mind about this aspect, we might make progress on this clause.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): Perhaps I can help the noble Lord rather more briefly than I had intended to, if those are his concerns. His anxiety appeared to be the reversal of the burden of proof. But in Clause 8 we are making provision for the labelling of classified material and how it is to be done. Therefore I feel that his interest in standards is not relevant to his amendment, as he rightly says. The noble Lord referred in a somewhat imprecise way to the question of the publication of

1621
guidelines. I sympathise with him over the distance, lending confusion to the view about the beginning of our proceedings. I take it that he is referring to the guidelines which it was suggested might be prepared by the Director of Public Prosecutions, as to the basis of prosecution of material on the bounds of acceptability in the 18 year-old group.
Therefore, it might be as well if I now said to the Committee, as I said in the earlier exchanges, that our discussion of this is based on correspondence which was private and not intended for publication between the DPP and the British Board of Film Censors.
Of course it is not for me to say whether this guidance should be published but I can tell the Committee that I recognise the strength of feeling in the House, which was expressed at an earlier stage on this matter. I will draw to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General the Committee's concern about it and there will be found an opportunity to make a further statement in the light of my right honourable and learned friend's further consideration of this matter. I am not sure whether I have in fact taken care of the noble Lord's concern over two amendments. If so, I will make no apology because it will expedite proceedings.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: That is probably so. I think the noble Lord was probably referring to my later amendment, Amendment No. 77, which is on a similar point. So far as this amendment is concerned, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Supplying video recording of unclassified work]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 7, line 18, leave out ("unless") and insert ("if).
The noble Lord said: This is a proposal to reverse the provisions in the Bill regarding the onus of proof. It is not the only clause where this matter arises, but I thought the Marshalled List would look far too formidable if I spelled all these out for the several clauses that might be concerned. I think Clause 10 would certainly be concerned, and possibly Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14, but I may have more clauses in my list than would be directly affected.
I am bound to say that the more I study this Bill—and I have never before lived with any Bill for so long and so closely—the more I am convinced that it was drafted by Big Brother—with great big capital letters! It really does tie everybody and everything up. We have here, in Clause 9, a provision that a person is presumed to be guilty of an offence if he has in his possession a video recording which does not contain a classification certificate and which he may have for the purpose of supplying it to somebody.
On Clause 9 particularly, may I ask the question: who exempts a video recording? Provision is made, under Clause 2, for exempted works. It is part of the

1622
defence under Clause 9 that—I am quoting from line 18 now:
"the supply is, or would if it took place be an exempted supply, or the video work is an exempted work".
Who exempts the work? Is it self-exemption or does it have to go to the designated authority to be classified as exempt and bear a label that it is exempt? Can the noble Lord please clear up this point? I think it is very material to the amendment because if a person can be lawfully in possession of a video recording for which no classification has been given, he may say, "In my opinion, it is exempt. It falls within Clause 2 of the Act. Therefore I have decided it is exempt and it is now up to the police, or a court or somebody to decide to the contrary".
How is a citizen to know whether he is lawfully carrying about an exempted video film, or whether it is a matter of his own judgment, which might be upset if the police are not content with his explanation?
Lord Elton: Clause 2 describes an exempt video. If you have a video of such a description, it is an exempt video. That is, of course, open to testing in the courts but if you are about to be dealt with by the law for having what is not an exempt video, the clause allows you to protect yourself by convincing the court that you thought that it was an exempt video and had good reason for so thinking.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Dear, oh me! I really think that it is making life very hard for possibly innocent people. This really relates to the main proposal of the amendment. It is the long traditional basis of our system of jurisprudence that a person charged with an offence has to be proved guilty. The onus of proof is not usually put on the accused person. It has been done, I believe, on previous occasions in a similar connection to this. It seems as if we have one system for one classification of offence and another system for a different classification of offence.
I think that we have to be careful before we go on extending the device of putting the onus of proof on the accused person instead of proving guilt against him. I understand that if a person is accused, it is usually not a good defence on his part to say that he did not know or that he was in ignorance. The clause does at least say what his defence may be. That line of defence is for him to prove that, although it was in his pocket, it was not in his pocket for the purpose of supply, but if it was in his pocket for the purpose of supply, it was in his pocket for an exempted supply.
My advice to the citizen is "Don't carry videos in your pocket" because, if you are accosted by a policeman, subsequent clauses of the Bill might come into operation. Is this not crazy? Is this really a rational procedure in connection with non-indictable offences and solely to do with what you have in your possession? This is not heroin. Even if it is heroin, it might be exempted heroin under the provisions of this clause. Your defence will be that, although you have heroin in your pocket, you did not know, or if you did know, it was an exempted heroin. Really, I am getting speechless on this Bill.
Lord Elton: A condition I would not altogether regret under certain circumstances. But the noble Lord

1623
mentions heroin. I dislike hypothetical cases because lawyers seize on them and one has a debate as if the court were sitting. Let us suppose that the noble Lord did have a controlled drug in his pocket which he did not know was there because it had been planted on him. He would be defending himself to the policeman who said that he was carrying a controlled drug in his pocket by saying that it was not put there by himself. That would be a defence that was reasonable if the court would accept that that might well have happened.
Equally, if he had some heroin in his pocket and he suffered from a condition that required treatment by heroin, if such there be. or by another controlled drug—and there are many to be had on prescription—he would have two defences. One was that he had a prescription, which would be equivalent to having a label on the cassette. The other would be to say that he did not realise that it was a controlled drug and he thought it was aspirin and that was what he had been told when he had been given it. That would be the equivalent of having a non-exempt cassette in his pocket. It would be a defensible line. I think that the noble Lord would follow that line in court and I would have thought it was appropriate to do so in this case.
There are precedents, as the noble Lord has suggested. They have been recognised for a long time. I can perhaps give one or two examples. When an enactment prohibits an act without a licence, I can refer to Section 101 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which clearly provides that where a defendant relies for his defence
"on any exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification,"
he must make it out on a balance of possibilities.
If I can go to ground more familiar, I suspect, to the noble Lord, I refer to Section 67(a) of the Animal Health Act 1981, which reads in part:
"A person is guilty of an offence against this Act who grants or issues a licence, certificate or instrumen… which is false in any date or other material particular, unless he shows to the court's satisfaction that he did not know of that falsity, and that he could not with reasonable diligence have obtained knowledge of it".
I think that it is not very unusual and not altogether unreasonable. I hope that the noble Lord will be content.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I might be allowed to add a word or two while my noble friend remains speechless, in the hope that he will also be in the unusual condition of being content in regard to this Bill. If one deals with this practically, as I know that my noble friend Lord Houghton wants to do, this is the situation. Any police officer, any person reporting the matter for prosecution, any counsel for the prosecution, if a prosecution eventually takes place, will have to open his case as a matter of practicality by saying that the person concerned was either dealing under Clause 9 or in possession under Clause 10 on the basis of an article that was not classified; furthermore, that he was not exempt under Clause 2 and that on the evidence of the prosecution, or on any matter properly placed before the court as evidence, he could not reasonably have thought there was exemption. It would then be for the defendant to say. "I have got a

1624
defence in spite of what the prosecution has said. I say that I did have reasonable cause for thinking that it was exempt".
However, from the point of view of practicality there would be no prosecution, and the prosecution could not possibly succeed unless the prosecution itself could first satisfy the court, I repeat, that not only was it not exempt but no one reasonably could have thought that it was exempt. There would otherwise be an immediate submission that there was no case to answer and any such submission would be bound to succeed. I hope that my noble friend will take it from me, as a humble lawyer, that that is the practical situation, and that he will therefore be content.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I have never met a humble lawyer yet, least of all my noble friend. I shall not take more than a minute or two because we want to get on. However, I do draw the attention of the Committee to the allied Clause 10 in the same context. This states:
"Where a video recording contains a video work in respect of which no classification certificate has been issued, a person who has the recording in his possession for the purpose of supplying it is guilty of an offence unless he has it in his possession for the purpose only of a supply which, if it took place, would be an exempted supply, or the video work is an exempted work".
That person may have it in his pocket to give away. If he gives it away, that is an exempted supply. I cannot imagine circumstances in which this is a justifiable way of employing the police. In present circumstances, surely, they have something better to do. But, having decided that a video work may be so heinous and so dangerous that a person must in no circumstances get away with having one, unless covered by the various provisions of the Bill, this brings one to the conclusion that the whole tenor of the Bill is out of all proportion to the nature of the offence.
I find it difficult to believe that we should have come to this point in administration and application on such a narrow issue as we had at the beginning of the campaign to tidy up the video industry. That reminds me of something Sir Harold Morris, one time chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Board, said: "If you give a simple idea to the Civil Service, they'll make it very complicated indeed before they've finished with it". Here we are—every loophole, everybody walking down the street with something in his pocket! Why do we not distinguish between his jacket pocket and his trouser pocket, and he can have an exempted supply in one, but he is in peril on the other? What evidence is there to be that a person is about to supply a video unlawfully?
But I shall not go on. I can only regret that this kind of thing apparently finds acceptance in your Lordships' Committee on a matter of such importance to civil liberty. I propose to leave it there. I am not able to withdraw the amendment because I feel so strongly about it, but I do not wish to take up time by dividing the Committee on this matter. I may ask for the opinion of the Committee on a later clause. I admit this one has certain respectable precedents, but one does have to look very closely indeed at the extension of them.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46:
Page 7, line 19, after ("is") insert ("not").
The noble Lord said: I shall not move Amendments Nos. 46, 47, 48 and 49 because they are all related to the main issue that we have just been debating.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Supply or possession of video recording on certain premises]:
12.41 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 50:
[Printed earlier: col. 780.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment and also to Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53. It might be for the convenience of your Lordships if the four amendments are taken together. I propose that these four amendments be agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 50 is agreed to, I shall put en bloc Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 51: [Printed earlier: col. 780.]
Amendment No. 52: [Printed earlier: col. 780.]
Amendment No. 53: [Printed earlier: col. 780.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 53A not moved.]
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 54:
[Printed earlier: col. 781.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 54. Similarly, this amendment has already been spoken to, as have Amendments Nos. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61. Therefore it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if those amendments were taken en bloc. Meanwhile, I beg to move that Amendment No. 54 be agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 61:
[Printed earlier: col. 781.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Supply of video recording not complying with requirements as to labels, etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Penalties]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 11, line 20, leave out ("summary conviction") and insert ("conviction whether summarily or after trial on indictment").
The noble Lord said: This is another question of legal procedure. In Clause 15(1) the Bill provides that on summary conviction a person shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £20.000. When monetary fines of this magnitude may be involved it seems to me that the question of guilt is a matter that should be decided, if the accused person wishes, by taking the case before a jury. I quite understand that in this great moral upsurge for the cleansing of the body politic and the social life of Britain not even juries shall be allowed to stand in the way. There is nothing more unscrupulous than moral fervour and here we see all the signs of it. The normal scale of fines has been written up and there is a proposal before the Committee this morning to write it up still more. There is a proposal to send people to jail, but so far that has been resisted. This is an offence not subject to a custodial sentence. Nevertheless, if it is to be taken out of the conventional realm of financial penalties, then the size of them justifies giving the opportunity of going to a jury. That is my case.
Again, one has to be very careful about depriving the citizen of the right to go to a jury. It does not really raise questions about the jury system, but it is what many people would choose to have. Before I sit down let me just add that there is evidence that the discontent which many people have with the Obscene Publications Act arises because they cannot get juries to see matters in the same light as the prosecution. That is the real grievance about the Obscene Publications Act—that the juries have got more common sense than the prosecutors. Of course, that is dreadful. The jury system was never intended to produce that situation, so the attitude is, "Get rid of it if you can. If you have enough noble Lords in the Committee who don't care either way, then you can get rid of the jury in this case, too".
I am really suggesting that we should restore some semblance of justice to this outrageous outfit and give the poor accused person, with the possibility of a £20,000 fine up his shirt, at least the opportunity of putting his case to a jury. I should like to ask whether the noble Lord has any intention of accommodating this Bill to any different point of view, or am I wasting my time for the third Friday running? My wife says, "You're expected home at a reasonable hour today". I beg to move.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I should like to say a word on this point in support of my noble friend. He asked for a sense of justice and I would ask for a sense of proportion. It is the case that some people take the view that these nasty films do no actual harm. Personally, I do not share that view, but it is a view that is held. I think there is a possibility that they may do harm.
What undoubtedly is the case—this is why I ask for a sense of proportion—is that there are people who are doing actual harm to children. There are drug pushers

1627
in Glasgow, and so on. If one could have a little more enthusiasm in regard to the people who are known to be harming and even killing children and less enthusiasm about punishing those who conceivably may be doing harm, but who some people would now argue are not doing harm, I think we would get the matter a little more in proportion. I take my noble friend's view that in order that it shall be seen in proportion, it is highly desirable that anybody proceeded against under this Bill shall have recourse to a jury, if he so desires. If the case is a particularly obvious and bad one, he will have the good sense, presumably, not to exercise his right to elect for trial by jury. But that he should have that right, I should have thought there can be no reasonable doubt.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: In this centenary year of the NSPCC I am sure that we are all very conscious of the responsibility of society to do what we can to protect children. I am quite certain that noble Lords opposite read the report in the paper today of the serious upward trend in harm to children which so often occurs in the home. But I do not think that we should delude ourselves into thinking that children cannot be damaged by seeing some of these unpleasant videos. They undoubtedly can be harmed and there is plenty of evidence of that. So the two matters really are in the same realm; we are concerned, particularly in this context, with the protection of children.
However, I come to the noble Lord's specific point about whether someone charged with this particular offence should have the option of trial on indictment or summary conviction. The point is that the actual offence involved in all these clauses—that is, Clauses 9 to 13—involves a simple technical issue; indeed, an issue with which the magistrates' court can very easily deal. There are here no obscure legal points which need careful elucidation and which would be matters for argument before a jury. Of course magistrates' courts normally—certainly in the country—comprise anything between six and 10 people, and therefore there is quite a spread of opinion in reaching a conclusion. So from the point of view of getting justice, I do not think that any of us can doubt that a magistrates' court would be well able to make an adequate judgment on the particular issues that will be brought in front of it.
There is a very practical point to be borne in mind from the point of view of making this Bill workable when it becomes an Act, and that is that the Crown Courts are enormously congested. I discussed with the Metropolitan Police their problems in dealing with sex shops—and this was at the time when Soho still had between 60 and 70 such shops—and I made a quick inspection of the sex shops with some of the police. It was clear that the law was being breached in every kind of way. I asked why it was that no action was taken and was told that they did make regular raids on a type of rota basis but the congestion in the courts was such that it took about two years before they could get a case brought before the courts. So there is a very strong practical point to be borne in mind here.
When we are dealing with offences which, by their nature, are limited technical offences then I would urge noble Lords that the magistrates' court is a very

1628
adequate court for dealing with such cases. Indeed, it is for that reason that the Bill has been drafted in the way that it has been. I would hope that your Lordships would feel that it has been drafted in a reasonable and practical way and that the alternative put forward in the noble Lord's amendment would not be a very practical measure and would not be justified in the light of the type of offences with which we are dealing.
Lord Mishcon: I venture to say that what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has just said constitutes rather a dangerous precedent if it be followed. Indeed, it is only for that reason that I rise to my feet and find myself supporting the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and supported by my noble friend Lord Jenkins. It would be extremely dangerous if ever we in Parliament used the excuse that, because Crown Courts are crowded, therefore the very elementary, just and traditional right of trial by jury should for that reason and that reason alone—or even because it was an accompanying reason—be denied. We are all speaking personally in this debate and I cannot personally ally myself with any such consideration.
What the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said was perfectly correct in regard to the technicality of several of the offences under the Bill. However, I spoke before in answer to my noble friend Lord Houghton on the question of exemption and defences in regard to exemption. One of those defences is the reasonable ground for belief that the video itself was exempt, the reasonable ground being that it was thought to be concerned with sport, religion, education or whatever is contained in the description in Clause 2 and which would therefore be a defence.
I can see that a perfectly bona fide defence could exist, which is capable of argument before a jury, as to whether there was reasonable ground for thinking that the video concerned was an exempt video coming within the description of exemptions in Clause 2.I can well see that somebody would want to have that issue tried by jury, and the person concerned ought, in my view, to be given that right. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and indeed the noble Lord the Minister, to consider that aspect of the matter. But whatever be our decision, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister—and I say this with great respect, as he knows, to the noble Lord. Lord Nugent of Guildford—will dissociate himself from any consideration that jury trial be not given by Parliament because our Crown Courts are crowded. The answer to that view is: let our Crown Courts not be crowded, by some reform of ours; but even if they are crowded, please do not remove the right of jury trial because of it.
Lord Monson: I strongly support every word that the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, has just said and I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Elton: I obviously cannot speak as briefly as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and put so much effect into it because I wish to advance an opposite view. I wonder if I can briefly help your Lordships on this matter. I take absolute note of what the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, has said. Although I suppose good

1629
management requires one to have regard to the loads that one puts on courts, that is not a prime consideration. The prime consideration is access to justice.
Let me remind your Lordships that the offences to which this amendment refers lie in Clauses 9 and 10 which deal with requirements as to labelling and so on and the supplying of unclassified work. It seems to us that the issues to be tried will, in the great majority of cases, be extremely simple and that there will be no great difficulty because magistrates are perfectly capable of deciding whether or not a video work has a certificate under the Bill: either it has or it has not. The Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society were consulted during the drafting of this Bill and they similarly saw no difficulty about this. The weight that I put into my argument is in large part the view of those people who are much closer to this question of the approach to the appropriate court than I am and than many of your Lordships are, although I accept that that comment does not include the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will consider that this is a matter which should not be reversed at the Committee stage and that you will also bear in mind that of course in the rare cases where there is a difficulty—or where the defendant, when he loses a case feels that there is such a difficulty—the defendant will in any case have access to the higher court by appeal. So he does have an approach to a jury by that route. It would seem to be a mistake to send all business that way in order to cope with the—I think your Lordships will agree—small minority of cases when the attention of the jury, the elaborate prepara-tion and the time taken by so many people, might be expended, in most cases, to no good purpose and when the case could have been dealt with swiftly in a magistrates' court.
1 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I know that the noble Lord the Minister would never mislead the Committee—his reputation is much too good. But if there were an appeal from a summary matter, it would not come before a jury. That is my belief and I think that I am correct in saying that. I have obtained approval from a certain quarter, at whom I am not supposed to look, but I did so out of concern to see whether I was in fact right. Therefore, there would be no chance of a trial by jury. I know that the noble Lord the Minister would want me to make that perfectly clear.
Lord Elton: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the very courteous way in which he has put me right on a very important point of fact on which I was wrong.
Lord Mishcon: the noble Lord has done that for me on many occasions in just as kindly a way. There is a very short point here, but I think that it is one of principle. If trial by jury is given as a matter of right, I do not think that it would hold up the passage of the Bill. I hope that this can be one of the concessions which the noble Lord can make. The Committee has been told that the Magistrates' Association has been consulted, and it is very right that it should have been

1630
consulted for it is a very worthy body. But presumably what it was really consulted about was: does it think that it is capable of dealing with this matter? I imagine that its answer was, "Yes"; and I should have thought that it would be. If somebody had told me that the judges had been consulted and that they thought that this was not a matter that should, in any circumstances by way of the right of the defendant, go before a jury I should have been more impressed; but presumably the judges have not been consulted. I hope that this concession can be made or that at least the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, can say that because of what has been said in this Committee—I believe rather effectively and from many quarters, quarters that are very sympathetic to the Bill—he will give favourable consideration to this amendment.
Baroness Phillips: Before the vote is taken, as a mere magistrate, I should like some clarification of this point because it is becoming more and more confusing. I understand that on summary conviction a person guilty of the offence will be liable to a fine not exceeding £20,000. A magistrates' court cannot impose a fine of that kind, so the case would have to go to a higher court, in which case surely the appeal would be against the higher court and not against the magistrates' court?
Lord Elton: On the question of precedent, two years ago your Lordships passed the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. I am not at all sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, did not assist us in that; I am sure that my noble friend did. With effect from 1st May this year, offences under that Act will carry penalties of up to £20,000, and offences under that Act are also triable only summarily.
I have been invited to comment on whether we should look at this amendment again. I am reluctant to encourage your Lordships to think that that would be a profitable course to take. We have the precedent of which I spoke: we have the appeal although not to a jury; we have the consideration that 99 per cent. of the time I think your Lordships will agree that the issues to be tried will be very simple. I wonder whether it is wise to magnify the difficulty of the legal procedure and the time that it will take. However uncrowded the Crown Courts may be, and however uncrowded other courts are, if we keep manufacturing work for them, they will become more crowded. I do not wish your Lordships to interpose yourselves between the common man and common justice. I do not think that the provisions of this Bill will do that.
If the fine imposed by magistrates was to fall at the higher end of the spectrum of the fines available —which admittedly is very high—I do not think that the offender (if that is what he is) would not appeal his case, and therefore I do not think we are denying justice. Nor do I think that the complexity of the cases is such that juries suddenly become necessary for this when they are not necessary under the closely analogous arrangements of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which as I recall related to sex shops.
Lord Mishcon: I promise to detain the Committee for one minute and one minute only, and then I shall

1631
sit down. Again, I believe that we are walking into very dangerous language if we say that if a fine happens to be very high, no doubt there will be an appeal. We are dealing with a question of conviction in regard to a criminal act, and it is a criminal court that will make that conviction. I am not interested so much in the question of the fine; I am interested in the question of a conviction and the right to go to a jury, if it only be on the one matter of whether there be reasonable grounds for thinking that the article concerned was exempt, and in my view that is very much a matter for a jury to consider, if the defendant wants to take that course.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that this matter will not be pressed to a Division; but, if possible, I would urge that the matter be kept open for consideration until a later stage. I do not think that the noble Lord. Lord Houghton, would lose anything in taking that course. There seems to me to be great force in what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says, that the issue of reasonable belief is eminently a matter for a jury and is normally a matter for a jury. I should like to raise just one further point. The noble Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, are quite correct in saying that subsection (1) applies only to Clauses 9 and 10, and that, apart from the issue which the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, raised, the issues are likely to be very narrow. The same point arises on subsection (3).
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I do not know whether the Minister wishes to say anymore on this?
Lord Elton: I was about to have a word in the ear of my noble friend as to the response, but I am quite happy to utter those words via the Floor, as it were, and to say that I recognise the weight of authority which has now been brought to bear on this issue. I do not have the experience to come head-on in collision with such notable authorities as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Therefore, I should say to my noble friend that it would be prudent to look at this matter between now and the Report stage, though from this Box I could not give encouraging noises as to the result. I was about to suggest that my noble friend might like to say that, but I have now put the gloss on it and 1 hope he is taking the point rather than the reverse. Therefore, if the noble Lord does not press his amendment further this afternoon, we shall undertake to look at it again.. However, I cannot give him any encouraging thoughts as to what might happen at the next stage, but it is for him to find that out then.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Elton has just said. I recognise the perspicacity of the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, in picking the most effective issue on which a jury should deliberate. I think that we should look at this amendment between now and the Report stage. There are problems about it. Without being able to indicate the kind of answer that we shall arrive at, we shall certainly look at the matter most carefully and return to it again on Report, if the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Yes, I shall readily do that. 1 should not spend the time of the Committee commenting further, except to say that I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Mishcon. When he comes out on my side, my case is strong indeed and I have no need to presume to add words to the case that he has made. I am very grateful to him. I was hoping that somewhere during the passage of this Bill the lawyers would take up these very important questions of civil rights. However, I am beginning to digress. What shall I do? I think that I shall withdraw the amendment so that we are free to come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 11, line 21, leave out ("£20,000") and insert ("£10,000").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 66. This is esentially a probing amendment, though no less important for that. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of apologising in advance to the Committee for the fact that I may possibly have to depart before the end of the debate on this series of amendments as, unfortunately. I have to leave for a funeral in just over 20 minutes' time.
Clause 15 prescribes a quite unusually high maximum fine by the normal standards of magistrates' courts.
"It is important that we should preserve a sense of proportion in fixing maxima".
These are not my words. They are the words of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, speaking for the Government on 1st July 1982, at column 423. At that time we were debating an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill designed to raise the maximum fine for breaches of the straw and stubble burning by-laws from £200 to £1,000, instead of the £500 to which the Government had reluctantly agreed. Three weeks later we succeeded by a two to one margin, but that is another story.
The Government's view was that only in exceptional circumstances should magistrates be empowered to impose maximum fines of as much as £1,000. let alone anything larger. Since that date the retail price index has risen by no more than 8 per cent. We have of course what I consider to be the unfortunate precedent set by the indecent displays legislation: but two wrongs do not make a right.
It is important to remember that this Bill covers not only professional dealers who make large sums of money and for whom a high maximum fine might well be appropriate: it also of necessity covers amateurs. We must remind ourselves that there must be many tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of video cassettes already in circulation in people's private possession which were acquired quite legally before this Bill becomes law, if indeed it does, and of which many—perhaps most—may well not be eligible for classification at all.
Let us suppose that, in order to supplement his somewhat meagre unemployment pay, an unemployed factory worker, or lorry driver decides to let his neighbours and his friends—his adult neighbours and adult friends. I stress—borrow his cassettes in order to earn an extra few pounds a week.

1633
Is it right that he should be liable to a fine of as much as £20,000, especially if he is to be deprived of the right of trial by jury? I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I readily acknowledge that £20,000 is a heavy fine, but it is applicable in only two instances. The other offences will be subject to a fine of up to £2,000 with the recent upward adjustment. These offences are not comparable with stubble burning, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would be the first to acknowledge that.
While the small operator described by the noble Lord may not be in a position to stand, or indeed to have levied on him, fines of that order, in this field there are many traders for whom a fine of this size is not a serious burden. It was this consideration which moved us in the legislation referred to by my noble friend Lord Elton on sex shops two years ago—the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act—to fix the top level fine there at £20,000.
In fact, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, knows this particular level was fixed on Report in the Commons. So the matter had a fairly general consideration before the House as a whole when the fine was raised from £10,000 to £20,000. It is notable that among those who spoke with apparent approval on it was the spokesman of the BVA in the House of Commons. So there was general approval of this level of fine as being appropriate in these circumstances.
Of course, it is a matter of judgment as to what should be the top level of penalty, but the fact that it is set at that high level does not mean that courts would always impose the highest level of fine. I am sure they would not. If there was involved a small trader of the kind the noble Lord describes, I do not doubt that the court would use its judgment in the normal way to impose a fine that was suitable for the particular offender.
At the top level I should not have thought that this was out of line. I would be inclined to commend to noble Lords here the judgment of the other place that this figure is probably about right in the circumstances at the top level. I shall shortly be answering another amendment with regard to custodial offences, and it is necessary in this field to set a high level of penalty because we are dealing in many cases with big operators. I hope that the noble Lord will be convinced that this is the appropriate level at which to set it and that he may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would agree that perhaps this question could be linked with the matter that is to be given further consideration. What was the origin of this heavy fine? It was due to the fact that in the Standing Committee in another place a group of Members wanted there to be prison sentences. They were discouraged from that by the Minister himself. Then they said, "Well, if we can't send people to prison, we can put up the fine". They had a figure of £10,000, and so they said, "Well, double it."
When you read the proceedings of the Standing Committee in another place you realise how some of these matters come to be where they are. I link in my own mind beside the maximum fine the mode of dealing with the case. I would limit the magistrates'

1634
power to impose fines exceeding a reasonable sum. It seems that fines have to be put higher and higher as a substitute for a custodial sentence, because that is really what this £20,000 is. They gave way on it when they did not get their custodial sentence. There is an amendment on the Marshalled List, to follow in a moment or two, to restore the idea of a custodial sentence.
It seems to me that questions about the method of trial, about whether there should be summary proceedings or a jury, and whether there should be a custodial sentence, a fine, or monetary fines only, need sorting out in regard to how the cases are to be dealt with and what the penalties may be. Then we can see the situation in better perspective. Having had the grudging offer of further consideration from the noble Lord the Minister, we ought to leave him with this as well. We can let him have a look at the wider issue and then come back at Report stage and see whether some rationale can be introduced into the method of dealing with the offences and the penalties incurred.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I would have thought it inappropriate to link this question with the other matter that the Minister was good enough to say he would consider. I find it difficult to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in suggesting this, has reflected on the careful answer of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to the very deliberate point of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. In particular, although theoretically a person charged in the circumstances outlined by Lord Monson might be liable to a fine of £20,000, no court would consider imposing a fine approaching that figure. In the part of the country where I have my legal being, before fixing a fine the courts are bound (and they are very conscious of the obligation) to take into account the means of the accused.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to underline what the noble and learned Lord has said. I think one can reassure Lord Monson that no magistrates' court would impose a fine on an unemployed lorry driver—the sad story of course that we always hear. I have always understood that hard cases make bad law, and I think that it is wrong to legislate on the basis of a rather remote case. We all know the kind of people we are considering and discussing in this Bill. I think it would be totally unreal, from my knowledge of the courts. Magistrates always have to take into account—sometimes, in the opinion of some of us, far too much—the means of the offender; so I see no possibility of a heavy fine being imposed in the circumstances outlined by the noble Lord. I think we can give him that reassurance.
Lord Mishcon: It is only because I do not want anyone North of the Border (superior though many parts of their law are to ours) to think that in this respect we are deficient that I tell the Committee what I think noble Lords most likely already know, which is that there is a statutory obligation upon the courts to take into account the means of the defendant. Some of us who know a little about the sort of sums that are being earned by the trade that we are trying to hit at in this Bill will know that it is completely lacking in

1635
deterrence, let alone any other thought that might have been in anybody's mind, to have a maximum fine which is less than the amount in this Bill.
Lord Cornwallis: Can we just for a moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, think about the people we are dealing with? These films that we are trying to ban have no artistic merits of any kind or description. They are made because people can make very large sums of money out of them. They are made for no other reason whatever. Even the people who act in them are not very highly paid for doing it; and why they do it I cannot imagine. But, surely, we must have a fine that is a deterrent to those people who have been making millions out of it, and to whom it may perhaps act as a deterrent in the manufacture of these things, and not only the supply.
Lord Monson: May I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for tactfully correcting me. It was of course the sex shops legislation, and not the indecent display legislation, which set up the precedent for unusually high maximum fines, at any rate as far as magistrates' courts are concerned. If the right to trial by jury is agreed to at the next stage, or if there is a possibility of such an agreement, then the maximum stipulated in this Bill is somewhat less objectionable, although I should still prefer a lower maximum for a first offence, which I think would cover the sort of example I had in mind. While I reserve the right to return to this matter at the next stage, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.25 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 11, line 21, after ("£20,000") insert ("or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, which at this stage I would say is a probing amendment, I should like to refer to the Protection of Children Act 1978. The Bill we are discussing today is basically for the protection of children, and under the Protection of Children Act imprisonment is available on summary conviction up to the maximum normally given in a magistrates' court of six months. I feel that it should be available under this Bill as well. When Mr. Gareth Wardell pioneered action on videos in 1982, he included imprisonment in his Bill, which lapsed with the dissolution of Parliament. But possibly even more important—a point that was brought out in discussion on the last amendment—are the vast sums of money that are earned by some of the suppliers or potential suppliers of videos that are neither exempt nor will gain a certificate.
I am not saying that the more responsible end of the market will necessarily supply these videos, but there is always a temptation because where there is a demand and a lot of money changes hands, temptation must be present. I understand that it is possible for a sex shop—which could well be the supplier—to earn as much as £30,000 a day gross. In these circumstances, a fine of £20,000 is really "peanuts". I think that serious consideraton should be given to adding

1636
imprisonment to the punishment, particulary where there are subsequent offences after someone has been found guilty for the first time. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I have great sympathy with this amendment and with what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said in support of it. Like the rest of your Lordships, I greatly enjoy the good-humoured scorn which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, delights to direct upon what I think is coloquially called the "morality lobby". Throughout history, since the Labouchere amendment, and before that, no doubt, we as a nation have made ourselves look a little absurd from time to time with these great urgings which beset us to get after the evildoers; and in the light of history we can see the absurdity of it.
Where the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is quite wrong, and where the scorn which he directs against most of us who support this Bill is quite misdirected and irrelevant, is illustrated by the reality of the fact that this is a trade which has an extremely undesirable end. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that the violence of the video nasties is more important than the sex of them. I have heard it suggested that we were trying to abolish sex. or something like that. This is a trade with a very bad end, and it has got to be brought under control.
Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that most of us who support the Bill recognise that sex is readily distinguishable from justice, because justice has to be done and has to be seen to be done. Most of us who support the Bill take the view that sex is something that must be done, of course, but which should not be seen to be done by any other than the participants. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, could appreciate that this is the outlook of most of us, and that voyeurism is a perversion which should not be encouraged as, particularly among younger people, that sort of thing tends to be stunting of emotional and intellectual growth. That is why we are against it.
So far as violence is concerned, I do not think that I need give any kind of explanation but it is because of an awareness of the reality of the dangerous end of this trade that so many of us support the Bill. I hope that the Government will have looked carefully at the question of penalties and will tell us what their approach has been.
I shall just detain the Committee for one more minute. I have not said very much about it throughout the sittings, but I have seen this end of the trade in operation and I see a number of similarities to the drug problem and to "pushers". We always say, both inside and outside the courts, that the people we want to get at (so far as punishment contributes to the solution of the problem, which is only part of it) are the "pushers". I do not see why we should not take the same view about the "pushers" at the dirty end of this trade. That is why I would be disposed to support this amendment.
The Earl of Gainsborough: I too should like to support the amendment. I think something of this nature is absolutely essential, because I do not think anybody would deny that when monetary punishments are imposed on the "front men" selling

1637
the videos these fines are simply paid by the people in the background who are making the videos and are making fortunes. We have heard what very big figures are involved. So even £20,000 is really "peanuts" when it comes to a fine which will be paid by somebody who is dealing in very big figures. The only way to influence the man at the front is either to put him in gaol or into some form of community service. Any form of fine is absolutely useless.
Lord Cornwallis: I too should like to support the amendment. I think that throughout the Bill we have been just a little over-anxious to direct our attention to those aged 16 or 18 and under. I have had family experience of somebody damaged by these video nasties—somebody over 18—which were taken and shown to them late at night. I can tell your Lordships that the effect does not last just for a week or two but that it takes two or three years to pull somebody back from a situation in which they have been subjected to this sort of repetitive filth. I would beg your Lordships seriously to consider this amendment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I have much sympathy with noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I recognise that there is great weight in what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, by my noble friend and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. Sometimes I feel that I should like to speak more freely on these matters, but time is important and therefore I cannot do so. But I certainly sympathise with his expression of view about the bad end of this trade.
It is a fact that in the sex shop world, when offences under the Obscene Publications Act were prosecuted from time to time and when the case was taken summarily before magistrates, where the usual penalty would be a fine, and probably forfeiture, this really had no deterrent effect at all; but latterly there have been one or two successful prosecutions before the Crown Court leading to imprisonment. There is really no doubt that this has had a very big impression indeed.
Let us be clear, to be fair, that we are not dealing with that issue here today: we are dealing with a classification scheme. My noble friend and I have taken pains to explain that there is not an element of censorship in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has frequently alleged: it is a straight classification scheme, even including 18R. The only video works which will be excluded are those which go well beyond the standard of the 18R. So it is essentially a classification scheme. Therefore, in the main we are not dealing with the same kind of offences as, indeed, were conceived under the Obscene Publications Act, where, before a Crown Court and jury, a custodial sentence can be given. It is because we feel that this is a more limited Bill in every way that we feel we should stick to penalties of fines and probably the summary process for dealing with them.
I should think that a fine of £20,000 would have its impression and would have a deterrent effect even at the top end of the trade, although I agree that very large sums of money are being made there. But this is all a matter of proportion, and again it is a matter of judgment whether one thinks a custodial sentence is

1638
justified. I am sure that we would all recommend a custodial sentence with the greatest of reluctance. It is the last thing to do if one can avoid it. I hope that we shall find, in practice, that a £20,000 penalty will be adequate for dealing with even the strongest end of the trade. I would rather hope that the strongest end of the trade is a respectable end of the trade, and it may be that they will have some influence on it, too.
While I greatly sympathise with the strong words of support which have been expressed on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen, I feel that we would be throwing this little Bill out of perspective if we introduced a custodial sentence into the punishment for these particular offences. I hope that my noble friend will be persuaded that he should withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I would prefer not to rise to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, if only because to do so would be to repeat arguments that have already been made in the course of the Committee. I will confine myself to saying—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Houghton will agree—that those of us who oppose the Bill on libertarian grounds are under no illusion that the supporters of the Bill do so from the deepest of feelings and the strongest of concern for the protection of others. There is no doubt in our minds on that point.
I want only to say that I wish that the noble Lord had his noble friend Lord Donaldson with him on the Benches today, because I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, would wish to say, as I wish to say, that at a time when custodial offences have already gone too far, and when all movement in penology is away from custodial offences, particularly from long custodial sentences, it would seem to be a great tragedy to be adding new custodial offences to the statute book. I hope that, on that general ground alone, this amendment will be resisted.
Lord Elton: If I may put in but one sentence, I would remind your Lordships that this Bill in no way sets aside the provisions of the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the Obscene Publications Act 1959, under which of course custodial sentences can be given if a case warrants it.
Lord Swinfen: May I first thank all those who have supported my amendment? I must admit I was extremely disappointed with the reply of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. He seemed to be under the impression—although perhaps I may have got it wrong—that this particular subsection is concerned with labelling. I was under the impression that this was a penalty for offences committed under Clauses 9 or 10 which concern the supplying of a video recording of an unclassified work or the possession of a video recording for the purpose of supplying, and not for mere errors in labelling. I wonder whether my noble friend could help me by undertaking to give this matter further consideration before the next stage. I realise he may find hmself in some difficulty but I think it would help me and those who have supported me in the Chamber, if he could give me that undertaking.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I sympathise with my noble friend's trying to get what he can out of me; but this matter has been given very careful thought both here and in the other place, and I really cannot encourage my noble friend to think that if we took it back we would be likely to take another view. I must say that, although I do not always agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I entirely agree with him in this instance. We must approach the matter of adding to the number of custodial sentences with the greatest caution; and I think that in this case, with the high level of penalties, we should try and see how we get on.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for that rather discouraging reply, but as I said at the very beginning that this was a probing amendment, I feel that, as a matter of honour, I must beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.43 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 11, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, and this is a friendly act on my part because I want to spare the Government the humiliating confession of the possible failure of their economic policy. When I read what this provision does and that the Secretary of State may take power to uprate the already very high fines which are provided for in the Bill,
"justified by a change in the value of money appearing to him to have taken place",
I imagined that he would know when there had been a change in the value of money; he would know that the Government's policy has failed and would hand in his resignation at the time he uprates the fines, regretting that he has ever had anything to do with them! I hate to see Governments blatantly display their confessions of failure in this way!
There is already a power for uprating which the Home Office take from time to time; I have the latest in my hand. Is this clause necessary in the Bill because the uprating powers of the Home Office do not extend to fines of this magnitude? I am a little puzzled that I should see a writing-up of the fines in Circular 19 of 1984 and it is apparently necessary to put it into this Bill—not that it matters a great deal, and I certainly do not want to hold up the Committee. If the Government want to go on record that they are wrong in their economic policy, who am I to stop them?
Lord Mishcon: I must intervene immediately to tell my noble friend that I had not read this provision in the same way as he did. I thought that it was put in deliberately by this Government in anticipation of a Labour Government coming to office, where the value of money would have increased. Therefore, it gives power to a future Labour Government, having increased the value of money, to minimise the penalties charged under this Bill. I read it quite differently, and therefore I hope that he will at once agree to remove, withdraw and expunge his amendment.
Lord Elton: I look into the crystal ball from the opposite side. It seems to me that the power to increase is what is most likely to be required if the friends of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, ever triumph at the polls; otherwise of course the provision may not be used for a very long time.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Very well. Let us forget it as quickly as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 70:
Before Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Obscene Publications Act 1959 with respect to Video Recordings.
—(1) In section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (prohibition of publication of obscene matter) at the end of subsection (3A) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3B) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in any case where the article in question is a video recording in respect of which a classification has been issued under the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984."
(2)In section 2 of that Act. after subsection (4 A) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4B) Without prejudice to subsection (4) above a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence at common law in respect of a video recording for which a classification certificate has been issued under the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984."
(3)In section 3 of that Act (which among other things makes provision for the forfeiture of obscene articles kept for publication for gain) at the beginning of subsection (3) for the words "subsection (3A)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (3A) and (3B)" and at the end of subsection (3A) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3B) Without prejudice to the duty of a court to make an order for the forfeiture of an article where section 1(4) of the Obscene Publications Act 1964 applies (order made on completion), in a case where by virtue of subsection (3A) of section 2 of this Act proceedings under the said section 2 for having an article for publication for gain could not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, no order for the forfeiture of the article shall be made under this section unless the warrant under which the article was seized was issued on an information laid by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions."
(4) In section 4 of that Act (defence of public good) at the beginning of subsection (1) for the words "subsection (1 A)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (1 A) and (IB)" and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1B) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply where the article in question is a video recording, but—

(a)a person shall not be convicted of an offence against section 2 of this Act in relation to any such recording, and

(b)an order for forfeiture on any such recording shall not be made under section 3 of this Act,

if it is proved that publication of the recording is justified as being for the public good on the grounds that it is in the interests of drama, opera, ballet or any other art, or of literature or learning."
(5)At the end of section 4 of that Act there shall be added the following subsection—
"(4) In this section video recordings shall be defined by reference to section 1 of the Video Recordings Act 1984.".").
The noble Lord said: We now come in this amendment to a more substantial point. I think I can explain it quite briefly. All this amendment proposes to do is to apply to video recordings what I understand already applies to films. There was the matter of whether films which had been given a classification by the British Board of Film Censors should also be open to proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act and, in order to get rid of what would appear to be a rather ridiculous confusion, provision was made for any prosecutions that might be contemplated against the exhibitors of films which had been given a classification by the British Board of Film Censors to be subject to approval by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was probably assumed that in certain circumstances there might be a classification given for the exhibition of a particular film which somebody could satisfy a court was obscene and should be caught under the Obscene Publications Act. They wish to prevent private prosecutions being launched against the exhibitor, which would in the normal course be open to a private person.
We are aware of prosecutions which have been instituted under the Obscene Publications Act; so this was a protection to the exhibitor in that if he exhibited a film that had been given the appropriate classification and he showed it in the approved conditions, he would not be caught by the Obscene Publications Act unless the Director of Public Prosecutions decided in exceptional circumstances that he should be.
In the case of video recordings, classifications are to be given for them too. It has been stressed in various debates on this Bill, to the comfort of some people, that behind the classification of the designated authority will be the right of prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act. It seems to me, if I am correct so far, that a person selling a classified video recording in the proper way ought to be given some protection against being proceeded against under that Act. I do not think one can have it both ways all along the line.
Again, I would say that the position of the British Board of Film Censors is crucial to this situation. But allow me to draw the distinction that in the case of films the British Board of Film Censors is not a statutory body. It is not accountable. There is no Minister responsible for it. It is financed entirely out of the funds of the industry. So one can see the justification of not allowing an unofficial body, such as the British Board of Film Censors, the power to give a classification which would render the exhibitor immune to prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act.
But if the designated authority for video recordings is a statutory body, which is accountable and has to make an annual report to Parliament—which the British Board of Film Censors does not at present have to do—and which is subject to directions by regulations made by the Minister on various matters, particularly labelling and so on, then it seems to me that not only should some immunity be given from the risk of prosecution, but there should be exemption from the provisions of the Obscene Publications Act altogether.
But the amendment does not go as far as that. The amendment merely reproduces in this connection the safeguard already provided to the film industry. This seems to me to be a perfectly justifiable protection to be given to those who are selling video recordings. There is confusion enough already on this question of the relationship between the Obscene Publications Act and the selling or exhibition of matter which can be caught by it.
I understand that only two days ago cases were started in Leeds where a prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act is being taken against a producer of a video recording of a film which has already had a classification and has been shown in over 180 cinemas. So the film exhibitor cannot be proceeded against under the Obscene Publications Act, except by authority of the Director of Public Prosecution, but the video producer is up in court because he has no similar protection; and the prosecution is being undertaken by the police.
To add to our problems, an article in the Sunday Times of last Sunday stated:
"At the moment, there seem no clear guidelines as to what is obscene. What makes the potential for confusion even greater is that the Video Recordings Bill currently passing through the Lords aims to set up the BBFC as the statutory body with responsibility for certifying all videos.
"It is believed that the police have indicated unofficially that they want to retain the power to prosecute videos. But provided that the Board does not adopt what they consider to be a too liberal attitude they have said that in practice they will rarely prosecute."
I think we ought immediately to move a vote of thanks to the police for being so lenient in their approach to the decisions of the designated authority.
One can ask the question: who is the real censor? After all, I read in an articles in New Society recently that the British Board of Film Censors takes the view that its job is to protect exhibitors from being taken to court. It is a safeguard against transgression of the Obscene Publications Act, and probably other Acts as well. The designated authority will be in a similar position. Surely its job in giving a classification—assuming that the Obscene Publications Act is held in reserve—is to ensure that those people to whom it gives a classification will not be put in court under the Obscene Publications Act. My amendment proposes to give them at least the protection that they cannot be proceeded against by the police alone, but only on the authority of the DPP.
There are other things which I shall not stop to quote now, but which give the impression that the censor here is not the British Board of Film Censors and that it will not be the designated authority. The real censor will be the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that is one stage removed from the police. Can any of this be denied? Can any of it be cleared up? Surely, we are not going to leave the video industry at the mercy of police prosecutions under the Obscene Publications Act, if people are selling a video recording, which they are free to do under the provisions of this Bill, and are in the clear so far as the contents of the recording are concerned. I look forward to the Minister doing something which will clear up this situation, because left as it is, it is absolutely indefensible and is a confusion of authority.
I am dealing with what I understand is known by the lawyers as double jeopardy. You cannot have it both

1643
ways. If a classification is to be given by a statutory body according to the discretions which have been vested in it by Act of Parliament, then surely, having done that, the citizen can rest assured that he is not open to prosecution at the caprice of some chief constable who says, "We are going to go for this, because we do not like it and we think we may get a conviction." That is not the way to run matters. There are already enough differences between police authorities on censorship of books under the Obscene Publications Act. I have said enough to make my case, which I believe is a very powerful one indeed for the Minister to answer, since the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has temporarily left his responsibilities to the Minister. I beg to move.
1.58 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I should like to say a word in support of my noble friend's case on this matter. He has quoted one or two precedents for such a clause being in this type of legislation, and they are not the only ones. There are other precedents under which the agreement of the appropriate authority is required before a prosecution can by launched. For example, I recall the Theatres Act, under which a prosecution cannot be launched without the consent of either the Attorney-General or the DPP. In other words, there is a safeguard against irresponsible private prosecution.
It is very necessary in this area that there should be that safeguard. Otherwise, in any area of the presentation of dramatic performances of any kind, unless there is some protection against private prosecution, hardly anything would ever take place at all because somebody, somewhere, would prosecute. For example, Mrs. Whitehouse has exercised her very considerable ingenuity in this matter and, despite the intention of Parliament, she has succeeded in resusci-tating an Act of 1361, causing considerable concern and mayhem down at the National Theatre about a production which, in my personal view, was not a terribly good production, but which certainly did not deserve the treatment which it received. Therefore, some protection of this kind is necessary. Perhaps I may amend what I said, because I have a very great regard for the director of that production, which would be fairly easy to identify. It was the play that I was not very keen on, rather than the production. I withdraw any aspersion upon the director, who is a very distinguished one.
This amendment seeks to drive some sense into a Bill which is rather scarce in that commodity. My noble friend is seeking to ensure that there is a certain degree of continuity and of relativity. I may have missed the point, but at the moment I do not really know what is to be the relationship—perhaps the noble Lord will tell us—between the designated authority and the British Board of Film Censors. Is the designated authority to be the British Board of Fim Censors? Or is it to be a parallel authority? Or is it to be a sub-committee? This is a very important question. As my noble friend has pointed out, the British Board of Film Censors is not a state authority. It has in itself no authority. This body will have authority. It will be a designated body. Authority will be given to it under Act of Parliament.
1644
So how is the relationship between, on the one hand, a voluntary, self-censorship body and, on the other hand, a state designated body to be worked out? If there is no relationship between the two bodies, some tremendous absurdities will be perpetuated, since one body will take different decisions from the other body. There must be a relationship—this has been recognised by everybody concerned with the Bill—but I have not heard spelled out precisely what that relationship is to be. In case I have missed it, I should be grateful if, in reply to the debate, the noble Lord felt able to clarify this important point. If it is not clarified, it seems to me that the amendment is absolutely vital. Unless there is a safeguard against the possibility of prosecutions taking place at different points on entirely different grounds, there could be absolute havoc. A video which is acceptable in one area may be unacceptable in another. There must therefore be some degree of confidence in the decisions of the designated authority, and the designated authority must have some confidence that when it makes a decision that decision will have some force. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will be able to reassure us on these points. Without that reassurance, it seems to me that my noble friend's amendment becomes absolutely essential.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: May I say a word about the banning of private prosecutions. All I need to do is to remind the Committee of the wise words spoken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in 1977. At col. 493 of Hansard of 21st July 1977 he said:
"The right of the private citizen to invoke the criminal law is an important constitutional right and constitutional safeguard".
I can understand that that right may have to be diminished when national security is at stake, but this is not such an area. I should have thought that it was the last kind of area in which one would want to take away the right of the citizen.
On the question of double jeopardy, may I remind the Committee of what the Minister said during the Second Reading debate in the other place. I quote from col. 562:
"Anyone who deals in 18-rated videos knows that among them will be some that are towards the outer edges of acceptability. If people take the risk of dealing in such titles for commercial gain, they must understand that the mere possession of a certificate under the Bill does not guarantee that a court, under the Obscene Publications Act, will not legitimately take a different view".
Lord Elton: The effect of this amendment would be to put video material classified under the Bill on the same footing as films of a width of 16 millimetres or above—that is. films designed to be shown in cinemas. Therefore the amendment relates to the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
It has been suggested that there should be a complete immunity from prosecution under the Obscene Publications Acts for video material which has been classified under the Bill. That is a view which we reject. It is the role of the courts to decide whether or not something is obscene, and theirs alone. It is right that we should give the designated authority and their examiners proper powers to perform the tasks which this Bill proposes for them, but it is not their function

1645
to be the final judges of what is or is not obscene in our society. It is an important safeguard against the powers and responsibilities which the classification authority will be given that it will not be them but the courts who will remain the ultimate arbiters of whether or not a video is obscene. Your Lordships may wish to know that the British Board of Film Censors have said that they would not want to see the Obscene Publications Act disapplied to articles containing works which they had classified.
This amendment seeks to treat video material which has been classified under the Bill in the same way as, in practice, films designed for showing in the cinema. It is proposed that prosecutions and proceedings for the forfeiture of obscene videos should only be undertaken by or with the Director of Public Prosecution's consent. Your Lordhsips will appreciate that proceedings are only seldom and in exceptional circumstances made subject to the Director of Public Prosecution's consent. There are significant differences between proceedings against a cinema owner and proceedings against a supplier of videos.
In most cases, the cinematograph exhibition concerned will take place on premises which, under the cinematograph legislation, need to be licensed by the local authority concerned. The terms of the licence may impose conditions on the calibre of films to be displayed. Failure to adhere to the conditions may result in revocation of the licence and the consequent shutting of the cinema, and may render the publisher and distributor liable to prosecution under Section 7 of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982. With possible sanctions of this nature, there is, it seems to me, a justification for a consent provision—consent by the Director of Public Prosecutions—for films of a width of 16 millimetres and above which does not exist for video.
Nobody, of course, wants to see video works classified which may be found to be obscene. I explained at Second Reading that steps have been taken to minimise the risk of that occurring but that I did not think it would be appropriate for any proceedings under the Obscene Publications Acts in respect of classified videos to have to be channelled through the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Local prosecutors, who have discretion to initiate prosecutions in respect of almost all offences, are, in my view, perfectly capable of taking decisions in this area also which depends—as is clear from the definition of "obscene" in the 1959 Act—on the particular circumstances in which the publication was or was likely to be made.
It is of course the case that offences under the Obscene Publications Acts are imprisonable, but so are a great many other offences. The system simply could not cope if no such prosecutions could be mounted without the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In his introductory remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that his approach would be different if the designated body were to be a statutory body and not the kind of body envisaged in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked what kind of body that was going to be, anyway. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, may be reassured when he recollects the parliamentary
1646
scrutiny of the designation of the designated body in Clause 5. When he said that it would be particularly reassuring to have a requirement for a report to be laid by the statutory body before Parliamant, I may remind him that Clause 6 requires the designated authority to make a report to the Secretary of State, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so after 31st December, on the carrying out, in the year ending with that date, of the arrangements. In other words, it must make an annual report—and in subsection (2) it is stated that,
"The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report made to him under this section before each House of Parliament".
So a good deal of the reassurance which the noble Lord said he required is in the Bill.
As to the relationships between the BBFC and the designated body, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, was in the Chamber during our earlier proceedings when we went into this matter at some length; but it is the senior officers of the Board who will be designated. I do not believe that I need elaborate further on that point.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am sorry that I do not regard that very carefully explained justification for keeping this anomaly in the Bill as being satisfactory. It seems to me that if we leave this matter as it is, it will prejudice the independent judgment of the designated authority in the discharge of its task. All the time, it will have to consider what the reactions are of the police up and down the country to classified material already in circulation. Indeed, I read out the passage from last Sunday's issue of the Sunday Times, which reported the police as saying that this point will depend on how soft the designated authority is in deciding whether or not they will prosecute.
This brings us back to my earlier remarks. The censor, eventually, will be the court; the police will have the right to prosecute, even on classified material. A private citizen will have the same right to prosecute on classified material. In other words, both the police and the private citizen will be able, off their own bat, to take proceedings to convince the court that the designated authority has been guilty in passing and allowing to be circulated obscene material. I regard that as an absolutely ridiculous position for the designated authority to be in.
It seems to me to undermine the whole structure of the Bill. One hands over to the independent authority the power to make the classifications, and then exposes the authority to the caprice of the police authorities and private citizens to go for those who thought they were protected.
My reply to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who spoke a moment ago, is that the unclassified material will not be protected anyway. It will be exposed to the Obscene Publications Act from the word "go". It will have no protection under this Bill. It will be a matter between those concerned, the police and the courts. Bear in mind also the severe penalties for peddling unclassified material, of the kind we were discussing earlier. Consider also the offences that will be committed if one sells material properly classified but with an age limit on it to a person outside the age limits prescribed. That, too, is an offence. Having

1647
surrounded this subject and the people operating within it by all the safeguards against abuse and disregard of the legislation, we are not exposing them to the proceedings of the police or of private citizens.
1 am astonished that the Minister cannot see the absurdity of this situation; how unfair it is that people can be shot at twice. This is a double-barrelled gun. After the British Board of Film Censors, as the designating authority, has shot its barrel then another barrel can still be pointed at them—in the hands of either the police or the private citizen. It is not good enough. If there is no possibility of yielding on this point—which I would have thought would be fully justified—then I cannot even agree to this amendment being negatived without a Division. I feel strongly that this is the crowning infamy of so much in this Bill that is unfair to people.
My final comment is this. At the end of this story this part of our new technology will have a smear upon it which is bound to do harm and take some time to remove. I think that is a great shame. Anyone who wishes to see the possibilities that lie ahead should read William Deedes in The Listener this week, and see the phase that we are embarking upon in the use of new technology in communication. We are bungling it as we go along. It is a great shame that we cannot at least give protection to the industry when it is observing the law and the rules. When the British Board of Film Censors, as the designated authority, is doing its job, for heaven's sake let us protect the industry from further proceedings on the same material except with the sanction of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would not leave it to chief constables because they are a very queer lot. I am sorry, but I must press this amendment.
2.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 70) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 3; Not-Contents, 59.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

[Teller.]

[Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gisborough, L.

Ampthill, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Haig, E.

Auckland, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Marylebone, L.

Bessborough, E.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Caithness, E.

Hayter, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hooson, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Ingleby, V.

Davidson, V.

Jeger, B.

Dormer, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Elton, L.

Killearn, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Feversham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Longford, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Lothian, M.

1648

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Selkirk, E.

McFadzean, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Marley, L.

Soames, L.

Merrivale, L.

Somers, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stone, L.

Molson, L.

Swinfen, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Swinton, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Terrington, L.

[Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Phillips, B.

Underhill, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Westbury, L.

St. Davids, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Entry, search and seizure]:
2.23 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 12, line 26, leave out ("justice of the peace") and insert ("circuit judge")
The noble Lord said: This is to replace a justice of the peace by a circuit judge as the person having the required authority to permit a search of premises to be made. There have been disputes from time to time as to where the authority should reside. It concerns entry, including entry by force if necessary, in order to seize goods and other material which might be of an incriminating character for it to be used in any proceedings against the person concerned. There has been a tendency of late to uprate the authority from that of a justice of the peace to a circuit judge. There are precedents for both. I do not know whether there is clear guidance in previous Acts of Parliament as to when it should be a justice of the peace and when a circuit judge. What I do know is that one year, when dealing with the Finance Bill, there was a revolt in another place against a justice of the peace being used as the authority for that purpose, and it was another place which upgraded the responsibility to the authority of a circuit judge.
In Clause 17 we are obviously authorising a very serious step. The right of forcible entry into a citizen's home or premises is being extended all the time. The authority for this rests in the hands of magistrates or circuit judges. I think it is time, when we are again extending this field of power to raid a person's home or premises, that we should look at who gives the necessary authority.
In line 33, there is a small point which I have not included in my amendment because it was only yesterday that I discovered it. It is that the warrant under the hand of the authorising person permits "any constable to enter and search the premises". I notice that in the case of the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955 the phrase was,
"Authorising any constable named therein".
I am not quite sure whether the warrant by a magistrate or a circuit judge would omit the name of the constable authorised to undertake the task, but at least it is not provided for in the clause as it stands. That is a comparatively minor matter.
However, we must bear in mind that in subsection (2) the constable may seize anything found there which he has reasonable grounds to believe may be required to be used in evidence in any proceedings. It is a very wide reference indeed to the powers of seizure. Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, what may be seized was enumerated, was classified: but here, it is "anything found". It is really an act of gross intrusion into the affairs of a citizen. In many many cases—for example, in the case of books—the amount of material that has been taken away is very large indeed. In fact, you can ruin a trader by taking so much away that his stock is so heavily depleted that he cannot carry on business. Also, he cannot get the stuff back without an order of the court, or whatever. There is that part of the matter still to come.
I hope one can agree to put this responsibility on a circuit judge instead of a magistrate. It will appeal to the judgment of noble Lords one way or the other, but I hope they will come down on the side of the circuit judge.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I take the point that the noble Lord makes: that he wants to be assured that this decision is taken by a completely responsible person; that this is an important power which is being given, to search for evidence, and that it should be granted only in proper circumstances. Of course, as the noble Lord well knows what we are talking about are circumstances in which the policeman believes that there is evidence that an offence has been committed. We are really talking about the video shop which is for the purpose of supplying. It would be most exceptional for this to be in anyone's home; that someone should have transformed his home into a trading operation. So we are talking normally about trading premises. If the police believe that an offence has been committed, it is essential that it should be possible to collect the evidence for it.
With regard to this responsibility of magistrates, I would have thought that there cannot be any doubt that a magistrate is entirely competent to judge, when a policeman makes such an application to him, whether or not it is justified. The issue is simple. He would ask a few simple questions of the policeman. He would naturally ask what his suspicions were founded upon and, if he thought them justified, he would grant the request. That it is needed, there is no doubt. The noble Lord agrees. All he is saying is that you must have a circuit judge. But a circuit judge is not always available. It may take a considerable time to gain access to him. A magistrate is normally available and it is therefore to him that we feel that the application should go.
I would have thought that this is not an unreason-able process. The magistrate would certainly not grant the warrant unless he was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to persuade him that there was at any rate a weighty suspicion that an offence was being committed. I would have thought that this is reasonable if the Bill is to work at all. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that while a circuit judge adds even more weight, a magistrate is quite capable of carrying out this function, and that he will be satisfied with the Bill as it is.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I have listened with great care to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to my noble friend's amendment, but I do not feel happy about it. A justice of the peace is possibly not the right person to make this kind of decision. It can be an individual justice of the peace. The Bill does not require that a bench of magistrates takes the decision. If it did I would feel happier. There are a number of justices of the peace, or at least one, who voted against the last amendment. This seems to me not to demonstrate the sort of independent judgment that I would like to see brought to bear on the question.
The Earl of Longford: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. I have not spoken today and I made a vow not to speak. However, had one of the justices of the peace voted on his side, would he have thought that that showed more independence of outlook?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Yes, I would have thought that. I am sorry that I have done the very unusual thing—I am sure that it has never happened before—of persuading my noble friend to break a vow. It is a unique occasion, and I hope it will not occur again.
In general, I think that my noble friend Lord Houghton is on the right ground in wishing to take this decision-making process to a higher level. I hope therefore that, on further consideration, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will say at least that he will give consideration to the possibility of substituting, as my noble friend's amendment suggests, a circuit judge for a justice of the peace.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I intervene with the greatest hesitancy as a non-lawyer in the company of many lawyers. However, since the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that would have introduced a custodial sentence for this offence was not pursued, we are now talking about the right of entry on the warrant of a justice of the peace for a non-imprisonable offence. I would simply ask the lawyers whether that is normal practice in our law. Is it not more normal for this right of entry, authorised by a justice of the peace, to be restricted to imprisonable offences?
Lord Mishcon: I did not intend to enter into this discussion because it is only right that there should be an authoritative reply and not one from me. But to emphasise how it is that we are all expressing personal opinions, may I beg to differ from my noble friends in regard to this amendment, for two short reasons? First of all, Parliament was either right or wrong to give an appointed justice of the peace, by his or her decision, the right not only to convict of quite serious offences but also to send citizens to prison. That right was given as a result of our faith in their judgment and impartiality. Parliament was either right or wrong about that. If Parliament was right about that, then is not a justice of the peace able to be trusted to make a decision about the question of search of premises? In my view that must be right.
The second point I make is one of practicality. Normally the right of search will be useless if it is long postponed. Normally it is of value if expeditious action

1651
follows. While it may and should be perfectly easy, in any locality in our realm to find a justice of the peace before whom an application of this kind can be made and proper explanations given, it may not be very easy to find a circuit judge as a matter of urgency. Therefore, on the grounds of expediency and that Parliament has already vested in a justice of the peace far more serious powers than this, I do not think this amendment should be acceded to.
Baroness Trumpington: I should like to follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was saying. It is an inevitable implication of this amendment that somehow a magistrate confronted by an application for a warrant under Clause 17, supported by an information on oath, is likely to be no more than a rubber stamp and that he would endorse automatically the police request. We do not accept this implication.
We must look also at the safeguards which apply to the granting of a search warrant under Clause 17. These safeguards are in the Bill now before us and will be added to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill which was recently received from another place. Of course, we do not under-estimate the extreme seriousness of power of entry, but what we have in mind here is the granting of warrants for entry to places where an offence itself was committed—the video shop where possession is for the purpose of supply. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill will add additional important safeguards and the search itself will be subject to a code of practice issued under that Bill. I feel that perhaps it would be more suitable for this amendment to be approached under that Bill, if it was felt necessary at the time. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My noble friend Lord Mishcon has now deserted me and the Government have put up the noble Baroness to trample on me, so what chance do I stand? Especially in view of the result of the last Division, I stand very much alone and my noble friends who supported me then are the heroes of the day.
However, if it comes to having a raid on my home or premises I suppose I would as leave have it done on the authority of a magistrate as that of a circuit judge; it would not matter much. I think there are probably only two Members of your Lordships' Committee who have appointed magistrates—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I myself when I was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. So it ill becomes me to give the Committee my opinion about magistrates.
The Earl of Longford: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I am sorry to break again my vow of silence, but I also have been Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I beg my noble friend's pardon. There have not been very many of us. Probably he will join me in having some views on the present subject, but they do not matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Arrest]:
2.40 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: I am not certain how Clause 18 comes into this Bill at all. I should have thought that this concerned police powers in regard to which some very controversial proposals have just finished their passage through the House of Commons. I noticed that yesterday's edition of the Financial Times referred to the police powers Bill that is coming up here, and it said:
"The Bill now goes to the Lords where civil liberties lobbyists are confident of mobilising significant support among Tory and independent peers for amendments to strengthen safeguards for the public".
May I respectfully say, What a hope! There is no indication so far in this Bill that your Lordships' Committee has given any real protection to the public in matters of legal and court procedures. I know that one can justify drastic measures on the ground that the end justifies the means. But in matters of this kind we are really considering the interest of the citizen, notwithstanding the importance of what lies behind the proposals in the Bill.
The clause begins:
"If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting".
I do not know whether I heard the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, aright, but I think he probably said, "If a constable has reasonable grounds for believing". I am not sure that I want to split hairs about whether "reasonable grounds for believing" equals "reasonable grounds for suspecting", but, anyway, the clause says, "reasonable grounds for suspecting". In such circumstances the constable,
"may require him to give his name and address".
I am not competent to say whether the powers contained in this provision are different from the powers that the police possess normally when they stop a person in the street and say that they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has done something or other and they want his name and address. There are some distinguished members of the legal profession present and I must take their word for it. Have we in this Bill given the police greater powers than, and powers different from, those that are available to them for other purposes? Is this part of the police powers Bill, or should it be part of the police powers Bill? How does this Bill come to be dealing with the powers of the police to stop and demand a name and address and upon failing to get it or believing that they have been given a wrong one, the power to arrest without a warrant? Is that what the police can do normally?
I thought that the power to stop and search was one of the most controversial parts of the Bill that will be coming before your Lordships' and, therefore, I draw attention to this matter. In my view it is quite outrageous for this Bill to give powers to the police that they do not possess in other contexts. Therefore, we ought to look very critically at Clause 18, because we are getting very near the knuckle. This Bill, despite all

1653
its merits, does not justify this type of action by the police either being specifically lifted from wherever it may have been before, or being invented, if it did not previously exist, and put into the Bill. This is a very serious clause indeed and I beg to move that Clause 18(1) be removed from the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In supporting my noble friend I venture to ask the same question as I asked a few minutes ago, but to which I received no answer whatever. Is it normal practice under the law for this power of arrest to be extended to non-imprisonable offences? It is important that we should know whether there is, as my noble friend suggests, a significant extension of police power here, or whether this is normal practice as regards comparable offences.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I can certainly concede the noble Lord his point that Clause 18 is related to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which will shortly come before this House. The position is that if noble Lords pass the Video Recordings Bill, and it receives Royal Assent before the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, subsection (1) will be repealed by Clause 23 of the police Bill. This will mean that the offences provided by the Video Recordings Bill will become subject to the general arrest conditions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. The arrest conditions will provide a power of arrest similar to that given in Clause 18. The presumption is that the process will be by way of summons, but if the suspect refuses to give a name and address, or gives false particulars, the police may arrest him. So the machinery is such that the noble Lord will have his wish that this clause will then disappear and be absorbed into the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
However, the practical point here is that, while most of this trade is carried on by reputable people in fixed premises, some of it can be carried on by mobile people—for example, by a man with a suitcase or a man with a van—and it is then necessary for the police to have powers to act, otherwise the offender will escape. So there is a practical need here.
Having said that, I think that the substance of the reply is that this clause was included in this Bill last autumn—nine months ago—before the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill was moving along as it is now and probably even before it was drafted. But the clause will be subsumed—I think that that is the correct word—in that Bill when it comes along. Therefore, the noble Lord's point will be met.
Lord Mishcon: I am a little worried about this and I believe that other noble Lords are too. I am just wondering where we are going. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is one of the most serious and important Bills in regard to the liberty of the subject and the powers of the police that will ever have come before Parliament. If it is debated by this House, now that it has come to this House, and, I have no doubt, each of its clauses examined with, it is to be hoped, a very full House in attendance, is it right and proper that we should insert this clause in this Bill so that it can be argued that this House—and indeed Parliament—in regard to a comparatively minor measure have passed a power in this clause which can be quoted to us as a precedent that this House has
1654
already approved the procedure, and therefore quite obviously it would be nonsense not to include it in the main Bill? In saying that I am not underestimating at all the need for this Bill.
In those circumstances, I am a little apprehensive. I have an idea that there are other Acts—and no doubt the noble Lord the Minister can give us this information—where this power has been given; that is, that if the name and address of the person is not given or if an officer of the law, a police constable, or whoever it may be, does not believe the particulars to be correct, there is a power of arrest. I do not believe that this is the first time that such a provision has been included in legislation, but that is something we need to know. In any event, I should have thought that this is not the time, and not the Bill—having in mind the attendance in the House—to create a precedent of this kind before we discuss the Bill and all its implications. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will consider that as a very proper point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I noted with some pleasure that, in making those remarks, my noble friend Lord Mishcon did not make his usual disclaimer and say that he was speaking in a personal capacity. May I therefore assure him that there is general agreement among some of us on these Benches with what he says. It seems to me personally that to introduce into legislation something which is in conflict with the provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is about to come before us would be a mistake for this House at this time. As I understand it from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, there is the question of a summons in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which was the point that my noble friend Lord Houghton was making.
Lord Elton: I rise to answer the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I was trying to find precedents in the short time available to me, and I am not sure that I have been successful. I wonder whether your Lordships are addressing yourselves to the right question. Not very long ago it was suggested that the offences in this Bill were such that they should be imprisonable. Your Lordships decided not. The question surely is whether the Bill would work without this power.
Your Lordships will shortly be looking at a fairly technical amendment which recognises that the salesman with the suitcase outside the factory gate is a real source for this kind of material. The question then arises whether the police constable, seeing this activity in process, should be empowered to go up to the man at the factory gate with the suitcase and say, "Would you kindly give me your name and address because I believe you are guilty of an offence" under so and so. The chap replies with a phrase which I would not put on the official record, and departs, not giving his name and address. Should that be the last of the matter? If it should not, then the constable must have a power to detain him until he has his name and address, or until some other legal process takes place.
That is what is proposed here. That is what will be superseded by the proceedings in the other Bill if your Lordships agreed to them, which I trust that your Lordships will. Without it, it seems to me that your Lordships are in danger of making the matter

1655
unenforceable, and perhaps making your Lordships readdress the question of whether there ought to be an imprisonable offence in the Bill simply in order to prevent the man with the suitcase decamping from the factory gate without leaving his address. I think I have that right.
Lord Mishcon: I am right, I think, in saying to the Committee—I almost used the words "very humbly" but I am reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said when he said that he had not yet met a humble lawyer, so I had better not employ that phrase—that we have to be extremely wary. There is another side to this coin. Is it right—and this is a small Committee to consider such an important point of principle—that we should give an officer the power to come up to any citizen (indeed any stranger to our country, and he may have a right in regard to certain restrictions on entry to do it) and say to him, "I demand that you give me your name and address"? It is something that we have been very wary about.
We have been wary about questions of identity cards. There are many who feel that it would never get by in any Parliament that we should suddenly introduce indentity cards in order possibly to be able to identify more easily in a way which is in fact carried out on the continent. People have said, "No, not in the United Kingdom, it won't stand for it. In wartime, yes, but not in peace."
Now is it right that we in this Committee should pass a clause which gives a police constable that right merely because he says, "I am asking that"—if he has to say it at all—"in pursuance of an Act which deals with videos"? It is an extremely important principle for us to adopt. I do not think that we ought to do it. I certainly do not think we ought to do it in the month of May 1984 when, on 4th June, in only a few weeks' time, we shall be debating the Second Reading of a Bill which is one of the most important Bills to come before this House—and before Parliament—and which is dealing with the whole question of police powers. The noble Lord the Minister was not able to give me any precendent when I asked him for one. I, myself, could not remember one; but there might be one or two Acts which obviously had slipped my memory. The noble Lord the Minister said that he could not think of a precedent at that moment. If he cannot think of a precedent at the moment, then this is not the Bill in which, and not the time when, this clause ought to be passed. I ask the noble Lord the Minister in those circumstances to say, at the very least, that in view of how seriously this Committee regards this clause at the moment, it will be taken back for further consideration.
Viscount Hanworth: I should like to make one brief point. I think that many of us feel that for the reasons already stated this is an important position in this Bill. But if we do not put the provision in the Bill now, we cannot, after a decision has been made on the police Bill, reasonably put it in. The other aspects does not apply, as we have been told. If in regard to the new Bill this kind of proposal is not agreeable, then it can come out, but I do not see how, in practical terms, it could be inserted later if at the moment it is not left in the Bill before us.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I was proposing to rely on my noble friend on the Front Bench because nothing I could say would add to the authority of what he has said. But I must point out, in relation to what has just been said from the Benches on my right, that the consequence of carrying this measure at this time would be very peculiar indeed. I am not sure on which side I stand on this issue. I am not at all sure that intrinsically the clause is necessarily wrong. I should like to consider it at greater length and in context. This is exactly what we are not doing here this afternoon. The time to consider that is when the measure is before us in its fullness and can be seen in the generality of the Bill which is shortly to come before us.
Let us consider what would happen if we carry this Bill this afternoon. Here we have a clause which refers to where a constable has reasonable grounds et cetera. Let us suppose that in regard to the Bill which will be coming before us it is decided either that the clause should not go in or that it should be inserted in a different form. Perhaps it might be provided that the officer who must have reasonable grounds must be a superintendent or someone of similar rank. It might be changed in another way. Then we would be in the absurd position of having passed in this Bill a clause which would be different from, and possibly more severe than, the generality of the situation.
In these circumstances, I believe that my noble friend's request to the Government at least to say that they will look again at this question between now and the next stage of the Bill has enormous strength and power, I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will take note of what has been said in regard to the situation which would occur if we were to carry this clause in its present form at this time.
2.59 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: May I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his position? Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that if the forthcoming Bill does not contain something equivalent to this, then this clause will never be put back. There will be no authority to put it back. We cannot in a video Bill have powers given to the police that they may not possess in connection with their fight against crime. Parliament can speak with only one voice, it seems to me, on a matter of this kind.
After all, the man at the factory gates with the suitcase which may contain videos is not the only person with a suitcase in circumstances where the police would like to know what is in it. Let us bear this in mind. If the policeman says to the man at the factory gates with a suitcase, "I have reason to believe that you are selling videos which have no classification", the man will say, "Oh! and what are the grounds for your suspicion?". Then the constable will say, "Open that suitcase and then I might know." So then you have the power to search as well as the power to ask for a name and address. I think that that could be open to the gravest abuse.
If the Bill when it is passed depends on this clause, it seems to me that it will be in a bad way indeed. I think that the Minister must reconsider the relationship between this clause and what has still to be discussed and decided on the Police and Criminal

1657
Evidence Bill which is on its way. Moreover, are we going to be asked to send this Bill back to another place with this clause in it where they have been debating for the past month whether something equivalent to it should be in the main Act governing the rights of police? There is an inconsistency there, too. I am sorry to be so persistent, but I think we are probably on the gravest matter of all in this Bill, and if the Minister wishes to make progress he is not going the right way about it.
Lord Elton: The Bill came to us from another place with Clause 18 in it. So if there is an inconsistency it does not lie with us in that respect. But I accept that your Lordships have a great interest in this and that it is an important issue. Again, I never give encouragement from this Box to expect a happy issue out of a reconsideration, but I will look very carefully at what has been said. I also note what was said from the Liberal Benches. They have a good point and I suspect that I shall not bring comfort to your Lordships at the next stage. But I think that your Lordships would want me to look at this and at the linkage with the other legislation in the light of what has been said in this debate. That I am happy to undertake to do.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: In that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): Clause 23, Amendment No. 76, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: This is the Title of the Bill. Is that right? I have rather lost where I am.
Lord Elton: It deals with the Short Title of the Bill. Clause 23, page 16, line 32, Amendment No. 76.I do sympathise with the noble Lord. I have often before been in that position myself.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 16, line 32, after ("Recordings") insert ("Censorship")
The noble Lord said: It seems to me that the Bill bears a neutral title where it ought to have a clear indication of what it is about. Although the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, keeps on saying that this is a straight classification Bill, he does not go on to say that the censorship authority will be able to refuse a classification to certain work on the grounds that it is not fit to be seen and that it will not authorise anybody to trade in it, and that it will be unlawful and an offence if anybody does. No protection is given on
1658
that. It can be any old obscene publication that anybody may hawk around and they will be exposed to exactly the same process of the Obscene Publications Act.
This is a form of pre-censorship. Everybody that I have consulted on this matter says so. It is something which stops one seeing something under the process of the Act itself. Moreover, in order to get a classification, there will be authority to ask for deletions and changes in the form and content of a particular work. So it is a form of pre-censorship. We should not shrink from the use of the word "censorship" where there is censorship, unless we are ashamed of it and like to pretend we have not got it.
Of course, we are a little hypocritical about these things in this country: if we can find words which hide the stark reality and meaning of something, we prefer the alternative. That is why we talk about "industrial action" instead of "strikes". Many other obscurantist words are used to define things for which we would rather not use the normal phraseology. I think we should call this the Video Recordings and Censorship Bill. It seems to me that that is what it should be, because that is what it is. That is what its sponsors want it to be; I think the world should know that is what it is; and I move that it should be so.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I was going to say shortly that I would oppose this amendment. I think it illustrates what these Committee debates on this Bill have suffered from, and that is someone on the other side—not the non-Liberal side, but the side opposite to that on which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, speaks—with an equally vociferous voice in support of the reasonableness of the Bill, against that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in the altogether reasonable middle supported by the noble Lord the Minister. At least, that is how I see it: because, quite frankly, I do not care whether or not the word "censorship" goes into the Bill, but if the choice is between what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, regards as censorship and the alternative, then I am for censorship.
Lord Mishcon: I will try, if I may, to abbreviate the discussion, not only to help your Lordships' Committee but also to see that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, obeys the dictates of his gracious wife and is able to leave, as he said he had been instructed to do, at a reasonable hour. This is the Short Title of a Bill of Parliament. It is not suggested that any Short Title encompasses all the things that a Bill is supposed to do. What the Short Title does is to give an indication of what the Bill is about, and this Bill is about video recordings. Therefore, it is an extremely accurate and uncontroversial Title. Once you start putting other words in it, you walk into controversy, or you walk, at the very best from the point of view of those who support such an argument, into one part of the Bill which many of us feel is possibly not the most important part. In those circumstances, I think it is the general parliamentary practice in relation to the Short Title to do what I have just indicated; and I hope that we shall follow that practice without further ado.
Lord Monson: On this occasion I am afraid I certainly cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, pointed out, this Bill not only provides for simple classification but also for outright banning; and what is outright banning other than censorship? If at some future date a Bill were to be introduced into Parliament to ban what I termed on Second Reading "folio nasties"—that is, books and magazines contain-ing descriptions of violence or erotic scenes—would it be termed, "The Books and Magazines Bill"? I think not. Let us get the Title right.
Lord Somers: May I ask my noble friend Lord Monson whether he has ever seen an Act of Parliament which has not banned something?
Lord Monson: All too few!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It may be thought that the matter of the Short Title of the Bill is trivial. But it has a meaning and a significance, as it shown by recent experience in another place, where on a number of occasions an honourable Member sought to introduce a Bill to allow for refreshments in licensed betting shops. He tried that several times and each time there was an objection. Then he changed the Title to the Specified Premises Amenities Bill and immediately got it through.
There is the possibility of the public being misled if the short Title is not as precise as it can be, within the obvious restrictions of the number of words involved, but an increase from two words to three words is not very dangerous. The fact that the Bill is about censorship is made clear by the fact that the designated authority is to be the British Board of Film Censors. Dr. Johnson said, "Clear your mind of cant". I would not dream of accusing any Member of your Lordships' House of cant. But I think that in the conception of the Bill, and in the way in which it achieved its Title in the first place, there is an element of cant which your Lordships' House ought to avoid.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I presume to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. The short Title of a Bill is its label, and nothing more than a label. It should not be used as an advertising title or an instrument of propaganda. The short Title of this Bill seems to me to represent exactly what it is about and to be a convenient one.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: It has been an interesting debate on this rather limited subject. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon: my thanks, as ever. I do not think that I could give a better answer than he has. But I would make this point to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who wants the short Title to be accurate. He has stressed many times how small is the amount of video nasties in relation to the total volume of video works, which run into 6,000 or 7,000. The video nasties number perhaps 50 to 100 at the outside. That is the only section which is in danger of censorship.
Therefore it would be completely out of proportion to call this a censorship Bill, when by far the major part of it is to do with classification. That is the purpose of the Bill. I have said it many times. The
1660
noble Lord opposite does not like it, but I am afraid that I shall have to say it again. It really would be throwing the descriptive value of the short Title out of perspective if we added to it the word "censorship". I hope the noble Lord will therefore be persuaded that on this occasion, once again, he should graciously withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, sits down, will he agree that the British Board of Film Censors in its process of classification very often requires so many seconds, or scenes, to be cut out? Is that not censorship?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Yes, but it is a very small part of it. The major function under this Bill will be classification and, as has already been said far better than I can say it, the present short Title is accurate and complete. I am sure that it would be wise to leave it at that.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I not only wanted the Bill to have a more literal description; I also wanted to bring some prejudice into it. The noble Lord could have brought prejudice into it by accepting this amendment. He could have waved his finger at all the nasties, and all these horrible people who are engaged in the trade, and said, "Now, you rogues, you have a censorship Act against you". But, no; he has now become tolerant at the end of this long debate and I am disposed almost to respond to that and to let it go as it is.
But my final shot in this locker is one that I have mentioned before. When your Lordships considered the Termination of Pregnancy Bill which had gone through another place, it was decided that abortion was not going to be hidden under the cloak of verbiage and that "Abortion Act" it should be. This had the merit of shortening the title of the original Bill. However, at this hour I have neither the energy nor the willpower to resist further those who do not want my amendments. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
3.16 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 16, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I want to know why Northern Ireland is not included. Are they better behaved than are we? I thought that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Mishcon: I would ask the noble Lord to refer to Clause 23(3).
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I thank the noble Lord. This is another amendment which I need not press. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: According to subsection (2), the various provisions of the Act will come into force at different dates. Is the Minister able to say which will come into force first? He ought to bear in mind that the Bill, though it may be passed within a matter of days from now, will not in some respects be in operation before the police Bill has been through this House. Perhaps therefore the Minister will consider this point, together with the other matters he has taken back for further thought. As an act of courtesy, may I indicate that at Report stage certain of my noble friends and I will propose that the Bill should lapse five years from now, subject to renewal by both Houses of Parliament. There is precedent for this procedure.
Lord Elton: It is intended that the provisions of the Bill will be brought into force in three stages. Clauses 1 to 8 and Clauses 22 and 23 will be brought into force first. This would allow the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament his proposals to designate an authority to classify video works. It would also allow the Secretary of State to approve a tariff of fees to be imposed by that authority under Clause 6 and to make regulations on the labelling of video recordings and their cases or containers under Clause 8. The remaining provisions of the Bill are expected to be brought into force first in respect of new video works—that is, works in which no copyright subsists at the specified date: the date of designation under Clause 4 of the Bill—and at later stages in respect of video works in which copyright subsists at that date. This is to allow sufficient time for those works to be submitted for classification, for the classification procedures to be completed and for the labelling requirements to be met. This is a reasonable arrangement. I hope the noble Lord will find the information that he wants in it.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 79:
Line 1, leave out ("regulating") and insert ("the censorship and regulation of)
The noble Lord said: As I have put down my name to this amendment, may I take over from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and speak to it? There may be some merit in keeping the Short Title of the Bill as short as possible, even at the risk of some ambiguity. But surely the same consideration cannot apply to the Long Title. Is it not right that we should change the Long Title, as the amendment suggests, because no one can deny that some censorship is provided for by the Bill, even if it is not likely to be very great—as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has suggested. Is it not normally correct to make the Long Title as long as is needed to explain the purposes of the Bill in detail?
Lord Mishcon: I again intervene briefly, and in the expectation (I hope not too optimistic) that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will feel content that the amendment not to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, if he had his way, should not be moved by him, either. One point that is looked for in a Long Title is accuracy, so that by reading the description of the Bill one can know what it is intended to do. What
1662
this Bill will do without any question of doubt is regulate the distribution of video recordings. By regulating the distribution, one is saying either that something which has been classified should be distributed in a certain way, or that something which has been censored should not be distributed at all, otherwise an offence will occur. So the three words "regulation and distribution" accurately summarise everything in this Bill. I therefore believe that your Lordships should be content with the Long Title.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said everything that I intended to say, except for this. Courts nowadays examine the Long Title in the construction of a statute—and rightly so. If the word "censorship" goes into the Long Title, it will colour the construction—and colour it in a way absolutely contrary to that which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, desires.
Lord Monson: I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, concede that "regulation" embraces censorship and that therefore this Bill does involve a degree of censorship. We may return to this point at a later stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ashbourne Lord Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 80:
Line 2, after ("recording") insert (" ; for the protection of children;").
The noble Lord said: My reason for proposing this amendment is to try to express the focus of deep public and parliamentary concern in a way that the stark wording of the Bill as it stands fails to convey. When the Bill was debated, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, the motivation of speaker after speaker was their concern for the well-being of children and young people. It seems to me that the Title of the Bill should accurately reflect its primary aim.
Without wearying your Lordships (particularly in view of the high gear into which the Committee has moved this afternoon, which has nearly caught me with my pants down on more than one occasion), I should like to offer one or two examples of this motivation—first, from another place.
The Member for Luton, South (Mr. Graham Bright), the sponsor of this Bill, observed:
"I have been spurred on by the need to protect young people".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/83; col. 523.]
At a later point he continued:
"One shudders at the impact that the type of material I have described could have on a child or on certain adults".—[col. 524.]
The Member for Gower (Mr. Gareth Wardell), who had his own Bill before it collapsed on Dissolution, said this:
"I feel confident that those hon. Members at the viewing"—
and here he is referring to a viewing of "video nasties" in another place—
"who are not now convinced of the dire necessity to protect children must be very unusual beings indeed".—[col. 533.]
The honourable member for Harlow, Mr. Jerry Hayes, said:
"Let us not forget the mischief that the Bill is designed to prevent. It is designed to protect young impressionable and corruptible minds."—[Official Report: Commons, 11/11/83; col. 570.)
The Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, Mr. Simon Hughes, stated:
"It is our duty to"—
The Earl of Swinton: I must interrupt my noble friend. I am afraid that he is out of order in quoting names of honourable members in another place. I also think that it is the feeling of the Committee that this is not an appropriate time to make a Second Reading speech. Therefore, perhaps my noble friend will quickly put his points to the Committee.
Lord Ashbourne: I apologise to your Lordships. I thank my noble friend for that correction. I was trying to give examples. May I say what the professionals think? I see that I cannot. I will continue. May I say what the press think?
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Ashbourne: No? I seem to be out of luck today. May I finally state—and I think I may get the same answer but this is final so it is quite an exciting moment—what the right honourable member for Finchley said?
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Ashbourne: I cannot? Misery! I think I must withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
The Earl of Swinton: Before I adjourn the House it would be churlish of me, after the enormous length of time this Bill has taken, not to congratulate noble Lords on the speed with which they have got through the final day of this Committee stage. I do not see him in his place but the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby should be thanked, too. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

Foreign Limitation Periods Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Fosdyke Bridge Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Somerset House Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past three o'clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND: BENEFIT ALLOCATION COST
  NORTHERN IRELAND: BENEFIT ALLOCATION COST
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HOUSING BENEFIT COST
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HOUSING BENEFIT COST
  DEBT COLLECTION
  DEBT COLLECTION
  ANGLO-IRISH COUNCIL: PARLIAMENTARY TIER
  ANGLO-IRISH COUNCIL: PARLIAMENTARY TIER
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: LAND PURCHASE
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: LAND PURCHASE
  CYPRUS AND SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS
  CYPRUS AND SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS
  TORUS PROJECT: COST
  TORUS PROJECT: COST