Sitting of 3 May 1985

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

  Human Embryos
  9.35 am
  Ms. Jo Richardson: I have the honour to present a petition containing well over 7,000 signatures of United Kingdom residents who oppose the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill that we are to discuss today. The signatories are from all parts of the country—north, south, east and west. That is why I have been asked to present the petition rather than divide it between individual Members of Parliament.
  The majority of the signatories are women who object to the Bill because they believe that it pre-empts consideration of the Warnock report; that it discriminates against women; that it brings the state into an area of private life by requiring a woman to be specified to the Secretary of State; that it severely restricts the use of fertilised embryos; that it damages research into infertility, the causes of handicap, gene defects and the treatment of infertility; and that it opens the way to attacks on the abortion law and the use of some forms of contraception.
  536
  The petitioners hope and pray that Parliament will take serious note of their very strong opposition.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Later——
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I have the honour to present a petition from 337 residents in the north-west of England who oppose the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill and pray that it does not receive a Third Reading.
  Under the heading "No to Powell" it sheweth
  That Mr. Enoch Powell's Unborn Children (Protection) Bill will have adverse effects by preventing research, and increasing the bureaucracy involved, in 'In Vitro Fertilisation'.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Bill be not given a Third Reading.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of my constituency of Battersea and of other parts of the United Kingdom.
  The petition sheweth
  That the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill will, if enacted, severely damage the treatment of infertile women, prevent much-needed research, encroach upon patient confidentiality and give legal protection to the embryo, wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House vote against the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill at Third Reading, realising that it pre-empts a proper consideration of the Warnock Report; by charging for application for a named woman to be treated for infertility by in vitro fertilisation it discriminates against poor women and brings the State into an area of private life; by severely restricting the use of fertilised embryos it damages research into infertility, causes of handicap, contraception, gene defects and treatment of infertility; by giving the embryo legal protection it accepts the view of a minority of the population and opens the way to an attack on abortion and the use of some forms of contraception.
  I wish to associate myself with this petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Unwanted Pregnancies
  9.36 am
  Mr. Chris Smith: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents and other residents of north London relating to the Department of Health and Social Security circular of December 1980 and the decision of the courts in relation to the Gillick case.
  The humble petition of United Kingdom residents showeth
  That to prevent unwanted pregnancies amongst young women under sixteen years of age the DHSS Circular of December 1980 should be fully implemented.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do urge the Secretary of State for Social Services that
  If the House of Lords upon Appeal in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA and Another do uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal this would leave many young women in danger of unwanted pregnancies and prevent doctors from giving treatment they felt necessary for the health of their patients and
  The law should be changed to allow doctors to give abortion and contraceptive advice and treatment as set out in the DHSS Circular on the organisation and development of a family planning service.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Unborn Children (Protection) Bill (Amendments)
  Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed to the remaining stages of the Road Traffic (Production of Documents) Bill, I must say to the House and to those hon. Members who raised with me yesterday the question of my provisional selection on the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill that I have reconsidered the selection, and the revised list is in the No Lobby.
  As the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) are present, I must tell them that, having been into the representations which they made to me with the greatest care, I regret that I have not been able to select their amendments.

Orders of the Day
  Road Traffic (Production of Documents) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Road Traffic (Production of Documents) Bill
    Clause 1

      EXTENSION OF PERIODS FOR PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
      9.41 pm
      Mr. Ian Mikardo: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
      Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time the following amendments: No. 7, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
      No. 15, in page 3, line 5, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
      No. 22, in page 3, line 25, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
      No. 28, in page 3, line 42, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
      No. 30, in page 4, line 3, leave out 'seven' and insert 'ten'.
      Mr. Mikardo: It is convenient to discuss those amendments together, Mr. Speaker, because they relate to the same point and are consequential.
      The whole House is in the debt of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for introducing the Bill. While it is, he will agree, a modest measure, it will lighten a burden on people who have committed no real crime or act of gross negligence. They should not, for an act of forgetfulness or something similar, be made to suffer.
      I hope that, well before the conclusion of our proceedings today, the Bill will have received its Third Reading and been sent to another place, and that when it gets there the gods on those Olympian heights will also look kindly on it and get a Neptune from among their number to give it a fair wind.
      My only complaint about the Bill is that it does not go far enough. I am endeavouring by my amendments to fill somewhat further the cornucopia of blessings which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is planning to give to offending motorists.
      It is unreasonable for motorists to have to produce these documents within five days. To do so can sometimes cause great difficulty. Imagine a chap who lives in Newcastle upon Tyne driving with his family to spend their holiday in Torquay. They stop for a Devon cream tea in Honiton and the chap parks the car in a spot where it should not be parked. For that misdemeanour he may be under an obligation to produce his licence within a few days because he has left the document at home. Should he drive all the way from Honiton to Newcastle or cut his holiday short, to five days, so that he can return in time to produce his licence and not commit an offence?
      Since tabling the amendment, I have been wondering whether 10 days is a sufficient period. A chap from Newcastle upon Tyne is driving with his family to a camping site in France where they intend to have a 14-day

      539
      holiday. They stop for tea in Dover just before boarding the ferry. Having parked in the wrong place, he is asked to produce the necessary documents but discovers that he has left them at home. Should he give up his family's place on the ferry and drive back to Newcastle or board the ferry and risk prosecution?
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield may tell me that all such contingencies are covered by clause 1(2)(d) and that people can cite that in their defence. There are two things wrong with that safeguard. First, if there is to be a defence, why increase the period from five to seven days in the first place?
      By increasing the period and by adding that defence, the hon. Gentleman has tried to reduce the number of people who find themselves in difficulty when having to produce these documents. That is a worthy aim, but if, as I say, we are to rely on a defence for people who have committed an offence through sheer forgetfulness, the period could have remained at five days.
      Secondly, the phrase in subsection (2)(d) which states
      "it is not reasonably practicable for it to be produced there"
      could cause complications. Having been a member of many Standing Committees, I can scarcely recall one when there was not a long debate about the words "reasonable" or "reasonably". Such words always create legislative difficulties because they are imprecise. What is reasonable to Tom may not be reasonable to Dick, and one cannot tell how a court will interpret "reasonable".
      I hope that I do not utter a blasphemy when I say that courts have been known to be unreasonable, and I recently had an experience of that. I parked my car in a spot where it should not have been left. Being the defendant, I drew the attention of the court to the fact that, according to Butterworth, one may put in a plea in mitigation referring to similar cases that have come before the courts. The lady in charge of the bench that day flatly refused to allow me to mitigate in that way, although I saw her clerk drawing her attention to the relevant passage in Butterworth. That is why I say that great difficulty can be caused when words such as "reasonable" are put in legislation.
      I had intended to try to amend subsection (2)(d) with a different form of words which I thought would be more helpful to the defendant. Mr. Speaker did not select that amendment, and I make no complaint about that; perhaps he felt that I was replacing one imprecise term with another. I still believe that it would have been easier for a motorist to defend himself under my wording than under the subsection as drafted.
      I hope that my amendment will be accepted, although I do not propose to have a great battle over it or, indeed, over anything in the Bill. If it is accepted, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield may care to suggest to any friends he may have in another place that they might take yet another look at the period within which documents must be produced. As I say, I am not sure that 10 days is long enough.
      Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to protest about the procedural position that has developed.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a protest, but must make a point of order on which I can rule.
      Mr. Cash: My point is that these proceedings are wasting time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The business is perfectly in order, or it would not be on the Order Paper, and the amendments would not have been selected.
      Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I wish to speak briefly in support of the amendments of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I understand the good will with which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) moved his Bill, and I support the complimentary remarks about the matter. However, we must first examine what the matter is about.
      If I understand the law correctly, every motorist is required to carry with him the statutory documents to which this matter refers. When the Government passed the two original statutes, they wrote in a modest concession that permitted five days grace. That was reasonable and right. I support the prospect of increasing that period from five days.
      The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar made a good point when he said that seven days was a rather inconvenient period for many people because a week is often a holiday period. Therefore, I agree with his amendment. However, if my hon Friend can persuade me that a period of more than seven but fewer than 10 days is better for any reason, I shall accept his view.
      I recall an occasion when Iwas stopped because one rear light was not working. I gave it a kick and it worked again. However, because of the procedure, I was required to produce the documents. My secretary was away on holiday and I can never find anything in her filing system. It took me a considerable time to overcome what I consider to be a ludicrous bureaucratic process. I share the will of the promoter of the Bill and of the group of amendments
      The matter is serious. Many matters in the Road Traffic Acts apply to all the motoring citizens of our nation and should therefore be debated more frequently. It is an indictment of our legislation that it is necessary to produce a Bill for a minor amendment. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it is tabled with the best of intentions to improve what is already a concession and to make it more agreeable to many people.
      Ms. Clare Short: I support the amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, the Bill is practical arid limited in intention, but useful. We all talk at length about the need to improve relationships between the police and the public. Various surveys have shown that road traffic matters are the major area of conflict. They lead to all sorts of resentment, disgruntlement and feelings of hostility towards the police. Anything that we can do to minimise that must be useful.
      The Bill is too unambitious. It seeks to lengthen from five to seven days the period allowed to produce documents required by the police. That is insufficient. Nowadays, people are more mobile and move around the country far more than they used to. People are away from home on holidays and for work purposes, and often for a week or more. If people are away from home and are required to produce documents, they may have to travel home again. They may not have all the documents to hand, and they may have to make arrangements to obtain them. Many people would find it difficult to produce the necessary documents within seven days.
      It may be useful to the House to detail the documents to which we are referring. Clause 1(2) refers to certificates

      541
      of medical exemption from wearing seat belts. A person may have such a certificate or be entitled to such an exemption, but not have the certificates with him. He may then have to return home, see his doctor, obtain such a certificate, and return to the place where the police stopped him in the first place. That could take more than seven days.
      Clause 1(3) refers to a driving instructor's certificate or licence. Clause 1(4) refers to the ordinary driving licence. Obviously, that is the most common provision under which motorists are caught. Although I am not a motorist—I am a great supporter of public transport—I understand that driving licences that are sent for renewal are frequently held up in Cardiff.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Nothing is held up in Cardiff, except through the inefficiency of the post from time to time. The driving and vehicle licensing centre is in Swansea, but that, too, has an excellent record.
      Ms. Short: I apologise to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who tells me that the organisation is efficient and that the post causes delays. Whatever the cause, I am aware that there are great delays when people renew their driving licences.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have been listening with great care, but I have a tiny worry. Will my hon. Friend tell me exactly what she has in mind about the production of certificates of exemption from wearing seat belts? That is an important point, on which I shall have something to say shortly. Does she believe that people may be inclined to seek to avoid the responsibility of wearing seat belts by saying that they cannot produce that certificate, and by using the extra time to get, for example, a private practitioner to give them a certificate? I am worried that that may be possible.
      Ms. Short: I understand my hon. Friend's worry. However, the law on the compulsory wearing of seat belts has been enormously successful and is popular. The claims that it would infringe civil liberties have been unfounded. I have not come across people who have defiantly refused to wear their seat belts. Therefore, I believe that my hon. Friend's fears are groundless. On the other hand, some people may have genuine reasons for medical exemptions but may not be able to find their medical certificates. They may be away from home and they may need to see their doctor. My experience of the law on seat belts is that it is popular, and that people comply with it and do not wish to resist it.
      Clause 1(5) refers to the other documents which may have to be produced, such as an insurance certificate, an MOT-test certificate, a plating certificate or a goods vehicle test certificate.
      The first purpose of the Bill is to extend the time in which people can produce their certificates, and the second is to end the absolute offence of failing to produce the certificates in time. That is right. It allows a person to demonstrate in court that he had reasonable cause for being unable to produce any of the certificates. If we extend the period from seven to 10 days, we shall reduce the number of trivial cases clogging up the courts when people have reasonable excuses. There are enormous costs and increasing delays in our legal system. Justice delayed is
      542
      justice denied, and it is extremely desirable that the amendment should be accepted. It might be acceptable to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who has so usefully introduced the Bill, and it would be beneficial to us all in the ways that I have outlined.
      10 am
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: I oppose the amendments. Although it would be superficially attractive to allow the extra few days, in practice some flexibility should be allowed. I suggest that the police should have the power to demand the documents more or less immediately if they believe that something is wrong.
      Britain has the worst stolen car record in Europe. A report in The Times on 1 May stated that twice as many cars are stolen in Britain as in France, and six times as many as in West Germany. It is believed that as many as 6,000 luxury cars have been taken abroad. If a policeman stops a luxury car on its way to Dover because he has reason to believe that it would be taken abroad illegally, he should have no hesitation in demanding to see the driver's licence and other documents immediately and to hold the driver until they could be produced.
      The Home Office has suggested setting up a study group to investigate the epidemic. In France, the manufacturers and distributors of BMW cars are suggesting that registration numbers should be etched on windscreens and all the windows. Perhaps we should go further than that. Will the Home Office study team consider the suggestion that someone who has been convicted of stealing cars should be tattooed——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the amendment. He must relate his speech to the amendments that we are discussing.
      Mr. Thurnham: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to say that the police should have more flexibility and should be able to demand documents immediately and to hold a person until the documents are produced. If the police stopped a suspicious-looking motorist, they could ask to look at his left wrist. Recently, a person was arrested for a serious offence because he was wearing his watch on one wrist rather than the other. If the motorist was seen to be keeping his left hand firmly in his pocket, the police might have reason to suppose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment deals with whether the production of documents should be required within seven or 10 days, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks must be addressed to that.
      Mr. Thurnham: I would favour an arrangement whereby this could be left to the discretion of the police officer. If he has reason to suppose that a vehicle is being taken abroad illegally, he should be able to demand the documents immediately and should not have to wait for 10 days.
      Mr. Wigley: I support the extension of the time available for the production of documents, because this is a constituency problem that I have come across many times. It affects people in an area such as mine, where tourism is a major industry and where, regrettably, there is no adequate public transport system. Therefore, more people must rely on motor vehicles. Indeed, the ownership

      543
      of motor vehicles in my county is the highest per thousand population in the United Kingdom. The next highest is in Powys, which is another rural area.
      The majority of tourists to my area travel by road, and of those, the majority come by car. Every summer, problems arise with people who have been stopped by the police, for major or minor traffic incidents, who do not have their documents with them. Many people have come to my office during holiday periods looking for help. They have driven to the beauties of Snowdonia, the Menai straits, the Lleyn peninsula, perhaps from London, Scotland or Newcastle upon Tyne——
      Ms. Clare Short: And from Birmingham.
      Mr. Wigley: Many people come from Birmingham and from north-west England, but I was thinking especially of people who come from even further away and who, regrettably, do not have their documents with them.
      I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) that there may be a case for people carrying their documents with them at all times, although I would oppose any recommendation from the Home Office study team to which he referred that would impose such a restriction.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: The hon. Gentleman says that there may be a case for people carrying documents with them at all times. I have been a motorist for many years, and on some occasions, although I have not broken the law in any way, I have not had all the three documents that I need to drive a car. I have not been able to produce them immediately because I had sent them to Swansea or elsewhere.
      Mr. Wigley: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I was about to refer to Swansea. It is possible to overcome the problem of documents being tied up in Swansea. I realise that there were difficulties in Swansea, but most of them have been overcome. However, in the past, documents were lying in Swansea for a month or even two, which made it impossible for people to comply with the requirements of the law. Indeed, it would have made it impossible for them to comply with the requirements of this Bill, even if the period were extended to seven or 10 days.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is the minimum that should be asked for? Often the motorist who is required to produce his driving licence or insurance certificate is completely innocent. Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of the police contacting Swansea or the motorist's insurance company, if the motorist can produce some identification to show who he is?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will resist the temptation to go down that road, which is wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Wigley: I note what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will comply with it. The question whether there should be an extension from five to seven or 10 days depends upon what other powers the police could be given instead. As the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) said, there may be other ways of overcoming the problem. Although an extension of the period from five to 10 days will cut the number of instances of people being unable to produce documents in time, it will not stop them
      544
      altogether. The hon. Gentleman's question was valid, although I realise that the debate must relate to the extension to seven or 10 days.
      It would be practical for the police to check some things, including the ownership of the car. Indeed, they can do so already. A police officer can radio from his car and check with the central computer to discover who owns the car that he has stopped. It would be much more difficult to check insurance and MOT certificates and disablement documents, which are also covered by the amendments. Although there is merit in considering whether some of the problems can be resolved by the means suggested by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, it would not answer all the problems. We must return to the time limit, which is the matter under consideration now.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Some years ago, I spent a holiday in the hon. Gentleman's glorious constituency. Without being offensive to him, may I ask why the Welsh are so bureaucratic?
      Mr. Wigley: When those who visit my constituency ask nicely in the Welsh language for their mitigating factors to be taken into consideration, they have no difficulty at all. When they ask in English, it is not too bad. But when people use other languages or accents that are difficult to understand, it sometimes causes problems.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) makes a pertinent point. Like others, he has been on holiday in my lovely part of the world, to which he paid tribute. I hope that he will go again and take his friends with him. He has come up against the bureaucracy which is at the core of the problem. We must try to overcome that bureaucracy.
      The hon. Gentleman might have to go to the police station in Pwllheli, Portmadoc or Criccieth and produce his documents. He might not have those documents with him, but if he were allowed a week or two to produce them that would allow him to return home and to present them to his local police station, where he will be a well known person, and bureaucracy would be reduced. I am sure that the police in my area are not deliberately awkward, but they have to enforce the law.
      The problem applies not only to Wales but to the south-west and the Lake District where many people spend their holidays. If a traffic offence is committed, documents have to be checked.
      Mr. Thurnham: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that people who holiday in the Lake District are particularly liable to commit motoring offences? I live there and that is not my experience.
      Mr. Wigley: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman lived in the Lake District. He is lucky to have a house there in view of the restrictions imposed by section 32 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I am sure that the people who holiday in the Lake District commit no more offences than those who holiday elsewhere. If the police do their job properly the problem is bound to arise. We have to decide how to stop disrupting people's holidays unnecessarily.
      People who go to Gwynedd usually plan to stay for at least 10 days. They arrive on Friday night and stay until a week the following Sunday. We must allow at least 10 days for documents to be produced. An offence might be

      545
      committed on the journey. A driver might be forced to turn back to look for the necessary documents. Of course, drivers should carry the documentation with them. That would save trouble all round.
      Mr. Wiggin: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but it would be wrong to suggest that the problem affects holiday makers alone. The insurance document causes most difficulty. For example, a garage or company might insure 50 cars and have only one insurance certificate. The problem is widespread and serious.
      Mr. Wigley: I accept that and intend to deal with it when I have completed my constituency argument. I have received direct representations from constituents with bed and breakfast establishments, hotels or caravan parks who are worried about how their guests are somtimes messed up by the regulations. I have also heard from constituents who have been out of the area on business or for other reasons.
      Disabled visitors to my constituency have also encountered problems. Some disabled people have difficulties with seat belts and many have certificates which allow them to travel without wearing seat belts. A number of places in my constituency specialise in holidays for the disabled and so more than the average number of disabled people go there for their holidays, and I welcome that. Disabled people often find it difficult to make long journeys and it is even more difficult and painful for them if they are forced to make the long journey back home to find a document. They might have then to curtail their holiday and not be able to find an alternative place.
      Any disabled person who wants a certificate of dispensation should seek it immediately rather than after the event. I am not sure whether people have a right to apply retrospectively for a certificate permitting them to travel without wearing a seat belt. Such a certificate will probably not be valid if it is obtained after the event.
      10.15 am
      Ms. Clare Short: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is right in that disabled people must have the certificate of dispensation before they drive. However, the certificate might be lost and the person would have to return to the doctor for a new one.
      Mr. Wigley: That is true of driving licences, certificates of insurance and MOT certificates, which can also be lost. The possibility of losing a document is one degree higher for a disabled person.
      An extension of the time allowed to produce documents to at least 10 days is essential. I should prefer 14 days to be allowed and I regret that I did not table an amendment to that effect. However, I shall support the amendment to extend the time allowed to 10 days.
      Before I came to the House I worked for the Hoover company in Merthyr Tydfil. The company had sister factories outside Glasgow and outside London at Greenfield. One day a problem arose and it was necessary for me to drive to Scotland. I was stopped in Scotland and asked for my documents. I did not have them with me because I did not expect when I left for work that I should have to speed to the other factory.
      Ms. Clare Short: Did the hon. Gentleman find the people in Scotland bureaucratic?
      Mr. Wigley: I found the people in Scotland difficult to understand, particularly in the Glasgow area, but they were friendly. The word "Glasgow" originates from the word "Glasgae" meaning "blue field."
      Mr. Chris Smith: I fear that I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I believe that "Glasgow" means "dear green place", not "blue".
      Mr. Wigley: That is interesting because the word "glas" has two connotations in Welsh—one suggesting blue and the other green. That might reflect the colour of the fields in Wales which are a blue shade of green as opposed to the emerald green of Ireland.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is being tempted, but I hope he will now address his remarks to the amendment.
      Mr. Wigley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for rescuing me from the blues and greens of Glasgow.
      I was making a serious point. Many people are caught without warning on a long journey when they do not have their documentation with them. Some documents cover more than one vehicle or more than one driver. For example, my wife and I drive the same car, but we have only one MOT document. It is not practical for one of us to carry the document. Given the number of car break-ins, I would hesitate about leaving the document in the car. Therefore, we shall need to plan in advance if the MOT document is to go with the driver.
      When people are called away on business, it may not be practical for them to carry documents with them.
      Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman is losing sight of the main point, which is that papers should be available to show that a person is authorised to drive the vehicle. If we extend the period from seven days to 10 days, we will give a person who has stolen a car more time to get away. I do not suppose that he would be going to Glasgow if he intended to take the car abroad, but if he is on his way to a port, he would be given more time to get away.
      Mr. Wigley: There is an alternative way for the police to keep an eye out for stolen vehicles. The police computer is very efficient, as I know from an incident in my constituency. The computer can trace the owner of a car very quickly.
      Mr. Leo Abse: Is not the hon. Member dodging the issue? It is abundantly clear that the issue of stolen cars is relevant to the amendments. Extending the limit would give thieves many days' start before the police were put on inquiry. That important point has not been met and it is one of the most fundamental problems that we shall have to consider on some of these amendments.
      Mr. Wigley: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should do away with the five-day period and that the police should be entitled to see documents on the spot. Once the driver has left the scene, the police are back to square one.
      There has been a great increase in the number of stolen vehicles, and safeguards are needed, but I question whether they should include cutting down the five-day period, which is the only logical way to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse). That would impose enormous inconvenience on motorists. They would need to take documents with them whenever they were in a car and, when there was more than one

      547
      driver of a car, multiple copies of the documents would have to be made. The bureaucracy about which we heard complaints earlier would be extended.
      We must look for other ways of checking for stolen cars, and the use of the police computer is one such way. I should like the time limit lengthened rather than shortened.
      Ms. Clare Short: Any suggestion that the Bill relates to dealing with stolen cars is misguided. The Bill aims to ensure that people are properly insured and that their cars have MOT certificates. There are other ways of dealing with the problem of stolen cars. I believe that the police are now entitled to demand that people give them their name and address, and a simple check on the police computer will reveal the name of the owner of a car.
      Mr. Wigley: I agree with the hon. Lady. We have to follow that line because of the implications of doing otherwise. If we are to react to the problem of stolen cars by allowing the police to demand documents on the spot, we will create serious problems. We must go one way or the other. At the moment, we have the worst of both worlds. I can see the argument for shortening the time limit, but the price that would have to be paid by the 95 per cent. of innocent citizens is not worth paying when there are acceptable alternatives.
      Because the Bill would present problems in relation to tourism in my area, because of the difficulties of those who make long journeys away from home—our lives have changed in recent years and many more people now use cars—and because of the implications for disabled people who might have to interrupt holidays or journeys that are often undertaken in pain and with difficulty, I believe that we need to change the Bill. I recommend hon. Members to support the amendments, though I should like them to go further.
      Mr. Abse: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) in congratulating the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on having brought his Bill thus far.
      Knowing, as I do, the anxieties of hon. Members when their Bill seems to be coming to the end of its passage through the House, but other hon. Members are still exploring the issues, I should tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that, although I feel compelled to speak about the amendments and, doubtless, other issues, I am sure that my view that the House must reach a decision on the Bill is widely shared. I say that to relieve anxiety as I begin to speak in what so far has not been a debate about each of the amendments in the group.
      As a result of the seductive persuasions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar, we have been misled into believing that the same theme runs through all the amendments. In fact, the same principle is not necessarily involved in each amendment.
      Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is not the real reason for the hon. Gentleman's speech—apparently he intends to speak at length—the intention to prevent debate on and passage of the next Bill on the Order Paper?
      Mr. Abse: Let us deal with one Bill at a time. Each Bill is important. I hope that we shall reach other Bills in which, evidently, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is interested, but it would be wrong for us, in our desire to reach other Bills, to fail to scrutinise the
      548
      amendments before us, all of which are exceedingly important and impinge on millions of motorists. I shall not be deflected from my path as a consequence of the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Orpington, which share, to debate other matters.
      Mr. Mikardo: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be deflected from his path by interventions that are a direct criticism of the Chair.
      Mr. Abse: I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker is well able to protect the Chair. I hope that the admonition implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar will mean that we shall not have any more such interventions.
      10.30 am
      We must relate our remarks to each amendment. I shall deal first with the seat belt amendment. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar said, but why should we become more permissive and relax the rules about the wearing of seat belts?
      I hope that the Minister will tell us why we decided that documents should be produced to the police within a specified time. Part of the armoury of the police force is to be able to check on a range of matters to protect the public, motorists, pedestrians and law-abiding citizens against thieves. Before we start denting that armoury, as we shall if we accept the amendments, we must constantly bear in mind that there was a rationale in regulations which insist upon the production of documents. They did not come about out of caprice. They are part of the armoury of the police, and they should not be taken away from them.
      Mr. Barron: I was once involved in a road accident. Eventually the police discovered that the person in charge of the other vehicle was uninsured. As I had only third party insurance, I lost the car that had taken me about two years to buy. The production of documents is necessary in those circumstances. The rationale is to protect other people, not necessarily the driver.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) will bear in mind that we are discussing not the rationale of the production of documents, but a time factor.
      Mr. Abse: I am sure you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we must take into account the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) who was stressing the difficulties that could arise if we extend the time, as proposed in the amendments, for the production of an insurance certificate. It is an important point.
      The first amendment relates to seat belts. I asked why we should relax the rules. If someone drives without wearing a seat belt, he is not committing a criminal offence, but placing the public at risk through the administrative expense of pursuing a prosecution. The consequences of someone sustaining an accident while not wearing a seat belt are serious for the community as well as for that person.
      We should consider whether to be more permissive to exempt drivers. That point has been mentioned during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) expressed misgivings and challenged the view that it would not matter if we allowed an exempt driver longer to produce documents than is

      549
      proposed. I am not satisfied that that is right. I hope that I do not appear to be insensitive. The exempt driver suffers from a disability. The issue is whether an exempt driver should be able to obtain a medical certificate retrospectively. If a person wants to drive without a seat belt, he must follow the prescribed procedure to obtain a lawful exemption which includes the production of a medical certificate.
      Ms. Clare Short: This is ultimately a legal question. Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that there should not be some provision for retrospective authorisation for not wearing a seat belt if, for example, one broke one's arm on holiday and had it in plaster, and was stopped and required to explain why one was not wearing a seat belt.
      Mr. Abse: I shall not be tempted to pursue that point. I know that Mr. Deputy Speaker has his vigilant eye upon me. I do not want to go outside the parameter of the amendments. I am sure that I shall receive your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I develop the theme, as my hon. Friend is tempting me to do.
      The exempt driver knows that he is suffering from a disability. There is nothing unexpected about it. He knows that when he goes on holiday to that delightful part of the country in the finest part of the kingdom described by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). The minimum precautions that a disabled person can take before he or she enters the Principality is to ensure that he or she carries a medical certificate.
      It may be said that as not all of us carry our driving licences and insurance certificates with us, why should we impose a further difficulty upon the exempt driver, who may have a severe disability, and say that he must carry his medical certificate?
      I can understand the arguments put forward about the danger of keeping documents in a car in a holiday area. The hon. Member for Caernarfon has the most law-abiding constituents, as I know from the statistics, but, unfortunately, his constituency is so attractive that often other people of different temperaments—I hope I shall not be accused of xenophobia by saying this—pour in. I understand the point that he made about the difficulty of ensuring adequate security for documents. Is it being seriously suggested that if an exempt driver took a photocopy of his certificate anyone else would want it? Of course not. He could take the precaution of taking a copy with him at all times.
      Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has not followed my argument about leaving documents in a car. I was talking about the MOT certificate. There might be several drivers of a car, but only one document for the vehicle. There is an argument for requiring documents to be in the vehicle rather than on the person. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the documentation relating to the person in the case of the disabled. A difficulty arises, however, because some disabled people might be given a certificate for a limited time. The expiry date of driving licences and insurance documents is clear, but that is not so for certificates for the disabled. Disabled people might therefore be caught out.
      Mr. Abse: Like others, the hon. Gentleman seems to believe that when a policeman pulls somebody up, he must
      550
      ask that person to go to a police station with the necessary documents within five days. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that that does not happen. The police officer has discretion. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if an out-of-date certificate is presented and the police officer can see that the driver is severely disabled, he will ask him to go to a police station with the relevant documents? Of course not. But if there is no visible sign of disability, it is right to ask the driver to go to a police station, because of a possible deception.
      10.45 am
      Mr. Wigley: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not want to put the police in the invidious position of having to make a value judgment about disability. Their job is difficult enough already. The whole point of the extension of time is to take away a discretion which the hon. Gentleman recognises is necessary if a disabled driver's documentation is not intact. As for the visibility of disablement, the hon. Gentleman must have seen people who appear fit, but have orange badges and who might have a serious condition which could kill them. Some people have an aversion to seat belts which could trigger complaints, such as a heart condition, which might prove fatal. It would be wholly wrong to put a duty on the police to make a judgment.
      Mr. Abse: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point, although I see the cogency of his argument. We should not have a rigid bureaucratic attitude about the duties of police officers. They exercise their discretion sagely, and I should hate to take it away from them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the lack of visible disability, but only the genuine disabled should be exempt.
      What is the likely result of the extra days in which drivers can go around without wearing a seat belt? The longer the extension, the greater the dangers to the community. The cost of people not wearing seat belts is not marginal. It is not possible to calculate what extra cost would be incurred if the nation were allowed to drive without seat belts for two days, but it would be gargantuan. There were 465 road deaths in 1982 and 353 in 1983. It has been calculated that £132 million has been saved as a result of the seat belt legislation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar said with some insouciance that the only major consideration is administrative convenience. He should consider the consequences in terms of the cost to society. I do not want to delay the House as there are many amendments which require discussion.
      Amendment No. 7 concerns the production of certificates and licences. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar really fail to appreciate that the amendment is wholly misconceived? It has been said that the amendments in this group are similar. Indeed, they have been taken together. I am sure that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will confirm that this part of the Bill has nothing to do with the production of documents by the ordinary motorist. This point, which has not been brought to the attention of the House, is relevant to section 137 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, the heading of which states:
      "Production of certificates and licences to constables and authorised persons."
      Other sections of that Act make it clear that the amendment has nothing to do with the ordinary motorist. The amendment is concerned with the production of

      551
      documents involving licensed or certificated driving instructors. Will the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, who is the Bill's promoter, confirm that my understanding is correct?
      Mr. Tim Smith: I can confirm that section 137 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 provides that a person who holds a driving instructor's certificate or licence must produce it if required to a constable or a person authorised in writing by the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct.
      Mr. Abse: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his corroboration of that point.
      Do we want to relax the rules, as the amendment intends? This would be a serious step. During the debate on the 1972 legislation, the House gave great attention to the people in charge of people learning to drive. Hon. Members were not prepared to allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to make out that he was capable of teaching others to drive. I admonish my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar for not having directed the attention of hon. Members to section 137.
      Mr. Mikardo: Perhaps it would ease my hon. Friend's concern—I am always anxious to do so—and save some of the valuable time of the House if I say that I do not propose to move the amendment to which he refers.
      Mr. Abse: I do not think that that is satisfactory in a long debate of this kind on an issue that will be relevant to Third Reading. We need to know a great deal more about why the Bill's promoter wants the time to be extended. In tabling the amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar has given us an opportunity to understand why an extension of time should be allowed for driving instructors.
      Section 137 is part of the armoury that was created to ensure that sections 133, 134, 135 and 136 of the Act were strictly observed. Section 133 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the examination of a person's ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars and to ensure that tests are carried out into the
      "continued ability and fitness to give such intruction."
      A panoply of rules has been created to ensure that those who hold themselves out as capable of being driving instructors are competent to do that job. We ensured that those who passed the examinaton should be registered. We took steps to protect the public by stipulating that, in certain circumstances, it would be a criminal offence for an unregistered person to hold himself out as being a licensed instructor.
      In requiring, if necessary, the production within five days of the appropriate certificates and licences, we are not bearing down harshly on a forgetful private motorist or a motorist who would suffer inconvenience if called upon to produce certain documents. We are dealing with professionals. Their duty should be to have readily available proof of their professionalism. To permit, for a day longer than necessary, an unqualified instructor to continue to hold himself out as competent is to weaken the protection that is given to the public who could be misled by advertisements or improper use of a badge. We would be allowing an instructor more days in which to give faulty lessons to an unsuspecting learner.
      I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport or the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will justify the proposals to extend the time during which documents
      552
      should be produced by those whose schools should be properly registered. We have taken pains to prevent exploitation. It is therefore difficult to understand why such an amendment has been proposed and why, without any explanation so far, change has been proposed in what has been described as a minor Bill. I regard the legislation as significant. This proposal assaults the principles that were so painstakingly laid down by the House in major legislation. In due course, the Minister will no doubt explain why it is wished to extend the period to seven days. The amendment merely propounds an error that is already in the Bill. I shall need to hear some convincing arguments from the Minister as to why any changes are being smuggled into it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar has done us a service in a way by opening up an issue that has clearly been masked. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield has said that the Bill has the support of motoring organisations. Is he thereby saying that the AA and RAC, to which he referred in Committee, are in favour of giving more rope to the untutored to damage themselves through the existence of fly-by-night instructors? Perhaps that is what has misled my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar and prompted him to table an amendment proposing to extend the principle slightly. I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will comment on the amendment. I am sure that he realises that its implications extend to the principles that he has put forward, and in respect of which we have so far not had any real explanation.
      I do not want to delay the House, so I shall turn to amendment No. 15, which deals with the production of driving licences. At first sight it may appear to be almost harmless. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar has pointed out, as others have, that it can sometimes be tiresome and complicated to have to visit a police station simply because one has been stopped for some possible peccadillo. However, as has been said, to extend the time, as the amendment proposes, may have more sinister implications. The statistics reveal that there are irresponsible people who drive cars before they have even passed the test. They do not have a driving licence, but they still take to the roads in lethal machines. There are others—as we well know, because they often come before the courts—who are impatient learners and who drive without an accompanying passenger.
      Thus, we are not dealing with forgetfulness, but are trying to ensure that unqualified people do not drive on the roads. Those who drive when they are unqualified risk causing damage not only to themselves but to other motorists and pedestrians. We should ensure that we do not give them more rope, as the amendment does, and enable them to continue to drive, after being stopped, not for seven but for 10 days. Far too frequently drivers who have been disqualified for drinking and driving or for dangerous driving continue to drive. Should we give them extra time so that they can continue with their devastation? The figures should give us cause to pause. Before extending the time allowed, we should consider how many people drive without licences. The number is increasing, not diminishing.
      In 1974, 58,000 people were brought before the magistrates' courts for driving without a licence. By 1983, the number had risen to 99,000. Furthermore, in 1974, 25,000 people failed to produce licences but by 1983 that figure had risen to 46,000. If we begin to allow extra time,

      553
      as the amendment and the Bill propose, the vigilance that the police can exercise in pulling up someone will be undermined, albeit marginally.
      In the light of those statistics, those who support the amendment must decide whether it is reasonable to ask for a further extension of time. It should, in particular, be borne in mind that those who continue to drive after having been pulled up will often be those who have no licence because of a drinking and driving offence or because of their irresponsible anti-social behaviour. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to resist the amendments. They are not as harmless as their supporters may believe.
      Amendment No. 22, which deals with insurance and MOT certificates, has most serious implications. The number of cars on the road without MOT certificates is horrendous. We are talking not of tens of thousands, but perhaps of hundreds of thousands. It is quite usual to find that 100,000 cases a year come before the courts. That figure refers merely to those who have been discovered. It appears that those who support the amendment do not take seriously the consequences of a relaxation of the rule that obliges motorists to subject their motor cars to a test and, when requested, to produce an MOT certificate. I am aware of the difficulties that are faced by many motorists, which include the increasing cost of insurance and petrol. These factors lead motorists to believe that they might be able to avoid paying for their car to be tested. Many motorists know that their car will fail the test and that that will mean spending money to get it into proper condition. Is it proposed that we should say, "It does not really matter?" Should we encourage motorists to say, "Hundreds of thousands are getting away with it, why shouldn't I?" Should we allow those who take that view to have extra time on the roads?
      It is vital that no car is driven on our roads in a dangerous condition. We should not give the driver of such a car extra time before requiring him to produce documents. Should we dilute the prevention procedure when the consequences could be so serious? We could have tens of thousands of lethal machines on the roads for five more days if we were to accept the amendment. Should we be condoning the widespread view that it is a trivial offence to drive a motor car that does not have an MOT certificate? Surely we should be emphasising the gravity of the anti-social behaviour of those who drive unfit vehicles. Hundreds of thousands of drivers are committing the offence and we should take every step to ensure that the law is enforceable. By extending the time in which it is necessary to produce an MOT certificate to the police, we are, by implication, almost abandoning the attempt to make the law enforceable.
      I resist the amendment that seeks to extend greater indulgence to those who may be driving without insurance. The statistics reveal that there are many who regard driving while uninsured as a relatively trivial offence. A little thought should convince anyone of the importance of adequate insurance for drivers and their vehicles. There is a growing view that it does not matter whether one is careless about driving an uninsured motor car. In 1974, about 25,000 motorists were brought before the magistrates' courts for failing to produce an insurance certificate. In 1984, there were 50,000 such offences. In my professional life, I am only too well aware of the
      554
      undeserved consequences that fall upon those who become the victims of accidents that are caused by uninsured drivers.
      11.15 am
      It can be pleaded that the Motor Insurers Bureau gives some assistance to those who are injured by uninsured drivers. However, that does not mean that we should agree to the extension which the amendment proposes. The bureau and the association which has been formed by the insurance companies have sought to mitigate the problem tht is caused by those who drive while uninsured and who cause accidents, but the payments that are made are limited.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley talked about the difficulties which he encountered personally when he came into collision with the vehicle of an uninsured driver and echoed the grievances of thousands of others. In such circumstances, the only remedy is to turn to the Motor Insurers Bureau. If my hon. Friend had done so, he would have received nothing for any damage that his car had suffered. I gather that he suffered no personal injury but his car was damaged and he was left without any remedy. I do not understand why it is suggested that motorists should have extra time in which to drive on our roads while uninsured and to be able to inflict the damage which was endured by my hon. Friend.
      I have been personally involved in such an incident. Some criminals caused an accident which led to my car being written off. The majority of motorists probably have third party insurance but fortunately I had comprehensive insurance. If I had had third party insurance, I would have had to bear the cost of buying a new car. I would have had no means of claiming successfully against those responsible for the damage. Having had that experience, I do not believe that we should allow some motorists to have more time to indulge in their reckless behaviour. It is not easy to deal with hit-and-run drivers and the difficulties will be even greater if the amendment is accepted.
      I note that some of my colleagues are becoming slightly impatient. I hope that they will accept that it is important that no Bill should pass through the House without the House considering the real issues that lie behind it. The Bill before us was given a formal Second Reading and it spent only a short time in Committee.
      Amendment No. 30 seeks to amend the Transport Act 1982. Again, it has not been explained why the time limit should be extended. As recently as 1982, Parliament determined nicely the procedures that are designed to stop irresponsible drivers from continuing to drive on our roads when their activities have caused 12 points to be recorded against them. The law allows the police officer who has reasonable belief that a motorist has accumulated 12 disqualifying points to cause him to produce his driving licence and other documents.
      Why should we extend the time at all in this respect, let alone in the way that the amendment proposes? Our aim should be to assist police officers. We should not want matters put off so that a motorist with a series of convictions, usually in respect of serious driving offences, can be allowed further time in which to speed round the country causing heaven knows what havoc. As yet no one has explained the amendment. I hope that the Minister will say why such an amendment can be proposed to a principle

      555
      which itself seems to be driving a coach and four through all the procedures which the House decided should be followed as recently as 1982.
      That concludes my remarks on this group of amendments. I am grateful for the courtesy that the House has extended to me so that I might present cogent reasons why none of the amendments should be accepted.
      Mr. Tim Smith: It may be helpful if I intervene now to reply to what has been a useful and constructive debate on this group of amendments.
      I want first to thank hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), for their kind words about my Bill. I think that it will be welcomed by millions of motorists, modest though it is.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made an important point in this context when she said that the main area of contact between the police and the public arose in road traffic offences. This modest Bill will do a little to improve those relations.
      In considering this group of amendments, we need to look at the two principal provisions of the Bill. There is a balance between the two. They are a package, and they cannot be considered in isolation. A good deal was made about the new defence of a reasonable excuse for delay, and the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar said that perhaps we could allow more days. This is a matter of judgment, and one has to take a view about it. However, the production of documents has to be treated as an urgent matter. We should not put into the Bill a number of days which meant that drivers became complacent. If a motorist is unable to produce his traffic documents, it should be regarded as an urgent matter to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
      I do not think that the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is practicable. He suggested that the time should be at the discretion of the police officer concerned. We need more certainty in the law than that, and we must have a definite time in the Bill. The only question that arises on these amendments is whether it should be seven days or 10 days.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) spoke of people taking holidays in his constituency. It should be stressed that people ought to take their documents with them on holiday, especially if they go abroad. However, there is no legal requirement for people to take their documents with them. They should be encouraged to do so. We shall have to see what the attitude of a court would be if someone said, "I am sorry that there was a delay. I was on holiday at the time." The court would want to view that in the light of all the facts.
      Mr. Thurnham: I am sure that the Bill will be welcomed by a large majority of drivers, but does not my hon. Friend feel that it will be welcomed also by the criminal element? We have an epidemic of car thefts at present, with twice as many cars being stolen here as in Europe. Will not this provision encourage thieves even further?
      Mr. Smith: In my view, that is a good reason for resisting these amendments. The Bill goes far enough as it stands, and I shall recommend the rejection of the amendments. My hon. Friend advances an important reason why they should be rejected.
      The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) mentioned the seat belt exemption certificate, and there was some
      556
      suggestion that there was a possibility of the retrospective granting of such certificates. That is not possible under the law as it stands.
      The hon. Member for Torfaen also mentioned driving instructors, and he rightly drew attention to the fact that the Bill did not just deal with the time for the production of a driving licence, insurance certificate or MOT certificate. It also deals with driving instructors, and we are here talking about part of the enforcement arrangements and about professional people. The hon. Gentleman put forward a strong reason why that amendment should be resisted. This is a different group of people, and the only reason why the number of days is being changed is so that we have a consistent arrangement for all kinds of traffic documents.
      These amendments should be resisted. The current five-day production period has caused problems in the past, mainly because of the growing number of people who are on the road and away from home for more than five days. Giving them an additional two days in which to produce their documents and thereby increasing the period to seven days seems to me to be quite satisfactory and should overcome the current difficulties.
      There is some evidence about this. An ACPO council traffic committee working party recently considered the production of driving documents and specifically considered whether the period for their production should be extended beyond seven days. A survey showed that only 1 per cent. of productions were made within seven to 10 days, and only 2 per cent. after 10 days. Therefore, I do not think that providing a period longer than seven days would greatly increase the level of production. Indeed, it could be counter-productive in that it could encourage delay to a point where production was put off and forgotten altogether. I think that it should continue to be treated as an urgent matter.
      For those reasons, I recommend that these amendments should be rejected.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 108.

      Division No. 196]

      [11.25 am

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      McGuire, Michael

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McNamara, Kevin

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      McWilliam, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Michie, William

      Clay, Robert

      Mikardo, Ian

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Cohen, Harry

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Cowans, Harry

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Park, George

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Dixon, Donald

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dobson, Frank

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Eastham, Ken

      Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

      Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

      Soley, Clive

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Stott, Roger

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Woodall, Alec

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Mr. Dafydd Wigley and

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mr. Willie W. Hamilton.

      Leighton, Ronald

      557

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Lambie, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Lang, Ian

      Alton, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Lester, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Beggs, Roy

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Beith, A. J.

      Maclean, David John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Madden, Max

      Benyon, William

      Maginnis, Ken

      Best, Keith

      Major, John

      Blackburn, John

      Malone, Gerald

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Merchant, Piers

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Neubert, Michael

      Cash, William

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Chapman, Sydney

      Nicholson, J.

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

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Parris, Matthew

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Clarke, Thomas

      Pawsey, James

      Corrie, John

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

      Dicks, Terry

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Dunn, Robert

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Fox, Marcus

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Galley, Roy

      Silvester, Fred

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Sims, Roger

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Greenway, Harry

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Spencer, Derek

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hancock, Mr. Michael

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Hayes, J.

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Henderson, Barry

      Strang, Gavin

      Hirst, Michael

      Taylor, Rt Hon John David

      Home Robertson, John

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Howard, Michael

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Wallace, James

      Jackson, Robert

      Waller, Gary

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Watts, John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Wilson, Gordon

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Wood, Timothy

      Kennedy, Charles

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Key, Robert

      Mr. Tim Smith and

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Mr. Peter Thurnham.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following amendments:
      No. 12, in page 2, line 30, leave out paragraph (c).
      No. 17, in page 3, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).
      No. 24, in page 3, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
      No. 26, in page 3, line 32, leave out paragraph (c).
      11.30 am
      Mr. Banks: I cannot possibly hope to follow the eloquence or the clarity of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse). However, I shall discuss these
      558
      amendments together rather than follow his example and discuss them individually. All the amendments revolve around the same principle.
      I am grateful for the wisdom of Mr. Speaker in not selecting another of my amendments. For a reason that I have yet to discover, what was meant to be four days ended up as 14 days——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not discuss an amendment that has not been selected.
      Mr. Banks: I fully understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I am offering an explanation to the House because if the amendment that was not selected had been selected it would have appeared that I was speaking from two conflicting positions, which I am not.
      The debate on the first series of amendments was useful because the Second Reading went through on the nod and the Committee stage was completed in 10 minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen demonstrated that there are a number of serious objections to the Bill. In my view, too much leniency is already shown to motorists. I should have preferred a restriction to an extension in the number of days within which documents must be produced, hence the amendments that stand in my name.
      My objective in tabling them has been to remove the permissive nature of the Bill in regard to the production of documents. I speak not as one who is anti-motorist—because I am a reluctant driver—and I am certainly not anti-police, although either interpretation could be put on my remarks.
      The Bill seems to have the general intention of reducing the number of offences. It is said that by extending the five-day deadline to seven days fewer motorists would offend in that respect. That is an illogical approach to the problem, although it is typical of the attitude of the police to motoring law.
      Another example of that attitude is the recommendation to increase the motorway speed limit from 70 to 80 mph. It is said that because the limit is not being enforced, at a stroke many speeding offences would no longer be offences. There are many other examples, such as calls for changes in the law applying to bus lanes and parking.
      The objection to the five-day period for the production of documents is based not on principle but on practicability, and that is not the basis on which law should be predicated in relation to its enforcement. If we in Parliament legislate the ends, we should be prepared to legislate the means. In other words, if the police find that they cannot satisfactorily enforce the laws that we make, we should consider in some instances strengthening those laws, rather than making them more permissive.
      It is said that people sometimes have difficulty producing their motoring documents because those documents are being processed, perhaps at the Swansea centre. We should be finding ways of speeding up the processes at Swansea rather than changing the law to accommodate the delays that people say they are experiencing.
      The police are sometimes highly selective in their choice of laws that they claim are enforceable. For example, when they are concerned with the possession of cannabis or dealing with certain forms of obstruction, such as occurred during the miners' strike, the idea of illegal behaviour seems to engender a stronger desire on their part to enforce more formally the existing legislation.

      559
      In other words, the police are determining their own priorities in law enforcement. As a result, Parliament is asked to weaken the application of those laws that the police have chosen not to enforce and to strengthen those that they wish to enforce. I find that totally unacceptable. The most bizarre case of which I can think occurred with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, when the House was asked, and finally agreed, to legalise previously illegal actions by the police. This course of action represents a threat to civil liberties and the concept of the sovereignty of Parliament and should be resisted vigorously by hon. Members.
      That attitude is highlighted in this instance by the complex nature of the police procedure in dealing with the production of documents. Until 1983, should a motorist not be carrying his or her driving licence when stopped, a complex form had to be sent from the police station making the request to the police station at which the motorist intended to present the documents within five days, and generally that would be the police station most convenient to the motorist concerned. Should the motorist not produce the necessary documentation within the set period, a further complex procedure would initiate activity by the police to follow up the case.
      It is reasonable to argue that a more refined and simplified police procedure within the present time limit should be established. However, the procedures followed by the various forces are not standard. That may cause, for example, the Metropolitan police certain problems. I gather from comments made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) in Committee that the City of London adopted what one might call an unofficial attitude towards the non-presentation of documents.
      Clearly, consistency is required, with the need to treat sympathetically those with genuine reasons for not producing their documentation within the specified period. Such changes must be devised within the concept of law, because law that is totally inflexible is often bad law. However, this measure is not the best vehicle for dealing either with the problem of consistency or of flexibility.
      My amendments draw attention to several problems with the Bill. One is the large-scale lack of follow-up of existing transgressions of the law. That is due, in part, to the complexity of the follow-up procedures, to which I referred. I do not see how, by increasing the documentation deadline, we shall improve the follow-up procedure. In any event, the extension of time will lead to a range of problems in other areas.
      Accident reporting is a good example of that. Motoring accidents are recorded on what is called a stats. 19 form. Those forms represent the basis of national accident recording and are administered by the police. However, there is evidence of substantial under-recording, particularly of accidents involving cyclists. A study by Bull and Roberts in 1973 found that 76 per cent. of cycling casualties in hospital had no stats. 19 record. That is why I say that it is essential to have a greater degree of follow-up of transgressions by those who do not produce their documents within the specified period.
      In a study by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Downing confirmed, from the details of accidents at Oxford hospitals, the figures produced by Bull and Roberts. It was postulated that longer delays between the presentation of documents and the initial request for them produced greater errors in recording and that if the details of cycling accidents were properly
      560
      recorded, the pressure on Government to support proper facilities for cyclists in cities would undoubtedly increase. The Greater London council recognised that by introducing cycle lanes and——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Member is giving the background to the amendment, but he will agree that it is a quite narrow amendment, and I hope that he will now direct his remarks to why clause 1(1)(b) should be deleted from the Bill.
      Mr. Banks: I have felt it necessary to give that detail, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because a number of amendments are being discussed together, as they should, because they apply to the same point.
      The increased time for the presentation of documents would give increased possibilities for personation, a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen referred. Personation can occur, particularly if the documents are presented at a police station different from the one at which the request was originally issued. In that context, a case could be made for it to be compulsory to carry one's driving licence, or for all relevant documentation to be carried by the person in charge of the vehicle. Some interesting, if macabre, suggestions have been made by Conservative Members about the compulsory registration of certain vehicle licence numbers.
      Many people carry their documentation with them, but many others, and I am one, do not get into the car with all the documents to hand because there is an increasing incidence of car theft. It is extraordinarily inconvenient to lose one's car and all the documentation that goes with it. Many people do not carry the documentation with them for reasons of security. We should, therefore, find a better way of registering documentation.
      One of the ideas that could be considered would be for all vehicles to carry a composite road tax licence and insurance disc, which would be readily available for the police to identify. My amendments seek to remove the wholly permissive nature of the Bill. If delay is written into the Bill, the possibility of personation and fraud is greater. I am positive that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield does not want that.
      Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that his amendments will reduce the permissive nature of the Bill. I have been listening to him for some time and I do not understand what he is trying to achieve. What will be the precise effect of amendment No. 3 if the House accepts it?
      Mr. Banks: My point is that the Bill not only sets out to increase the number of days within which a motorist can produce documents, but in some circumstances—this is what my amendments seek to remove—to make the time limit almost non-existent. That is not right. I understand the need for flexibility, but this catch-all way is not the way to do it. It seriously weakens the job of the police, and allows far more permissiveness and gives far more leniency to motorists. I object to that, which is why I tabled the amendments.
      My main objections to the Bill are based on art objection to the existing leniency towards motorists who break the law. I am not anti-motorist, but I am a reluctant motorist. Motoring offences are dealt with more leniently by the courts than those caused by someone not driving a car. If, for example, one uses a car as a weapon and drives directly at a person—there are many cases on record of

      561
      that—one is treated differently from a person who takes a club from his pocket and hits another person in the street. The law treats motoring offences differently from non-motoring offences.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: I follow what my hon. Friend says, but I disagree with him. Motorists are not treated differently or better than anyone else. Is my hon. Friend aware that seven days does not mean seven days because there must be an intervening Saturday and Sunday? It means five days. The motorist will be given sufficient time to produce the necessary documents only if the period is increased, not reduced.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention harks back to the amendment which we have already discussed. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not do that.
      Mr. Banks: I understand that, although the arguments are common to both sets of amendments. Although I must obey your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the amendments have some points in common and, therefore, it is difficult not to wander between both groups. I direct my hon. Friend to a letter from Dr. Trevor Smith which appeared in the Glasgow Herald on 14 June. He shows clearly that the law treats motoring offences differently. He compared the examples of a man who was fined £200 for kicking two cars, and a driver who knocked down an eight-year-old boy and failed to stop and who was fined a mere £150. That example of the way in which motorists are treated much too leniently is seen regularly in the courts.
      The Bill seeks to make life easier for motorists and, therefore, I oppose the Bill's objective, and ask the House to support my amendments.
      Mr. Tim Smith: As I said earlier, the Bill has two objects, and the previous debate dealt with the first, which is to extend the number of days within which a motorist must produce his documents to a police station. The second is to introduce a new defence—a reasonable excuse—for not producing the documents within that time. The amendments of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) seeks to remove that defence wherever it appears in the Bill. His objective is, therefore, to remove half of the Bill. It would not be going too far to describe his amendments as wrecking amendments.
      I wish to address his argument because there is a good reason why the House should accept the Bill as it stands. In the past justice has not always been done. Driving documents have been stuck at Swansea because of industrial action or some other reason and, consequently, the driver has not been able to produce them at a police station within the five days presently allowed, and he has been convicted because that is an absolute offence. It is entirely right that there should be a new defence of reasonable excuse.
      As I said in Committee, I am supported by the Royal Automobile Club. It told me of a recent case in which it had been active in assisting a motorist who had been defending himself. Unfortunately, even recently, he was convicted because it is an absolute offence. Because injustice has been done in the past, the House should reject the amendments.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I rise briefly to oppose my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), and to support the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) in seeking to retain the Bill in its original form.
      My hon. Friend seeks to remove the safety valve of reasonable practicality, which the hon. Gentleman has sensibly written into the Bill. I accept that there are difficulties about reasonable practicalities. There are niceties of interpretation, on which the police and ultimately the courts must make judgments. There are likely to be varying decisions from varying courts and varying police officers. However, a safety valve is undoubtedly needed. It is needed even more because the previous set of amendments was rejected. They might have removed some of the necessity for it. However, with the period standing at seven days, and for all sorts of reasons, a safety valve is needed.
      There has traditionally been discretion available to police officers in the interpretation of particular acts of citizens, which may be regarded as being in breach of the law. That was a reason for the introduction of traffic wardens. Before they existed there was a degree of discretion available to police officers in operating the law on traffic offences. Understandably, there was a great deal of complaint from the public that some people were being treated with discretion and that others were not. For that reason, traffic offences were removed from the province of the police, and traffic wardens were given the job. There is no discretion available to them. They must implement the law and the letter of the law. But police officers can temper the strict interpretation of the law with the basic principles of justice. I have criticised the way in which the police use that discretion at times, but it is traditional, and the hon. Member for Beaconfield is right to ensure that there is a discretion in relation to the production of documents.
      For all the reasons that were advanced in the lengthy debate on the first set of amendments, and because of the difficulties that people may have in producing documents within a strict seven-day period—they may be on holiday, it may be a holiday period or their documents may be in the post—it is only reasonable and fair that a safety valve is available. The provision of reasonable practicality, insufficient and difficult of interpretation though it may be, is necessary and I congratulate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield on inserting it in the Bill.
      12 noon
      Mr. Alfred Dubs: I, too, oppose the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I commend the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for producing a Bill that improves the law.
      Hon. Members need not always speak from experience, but it sometimes helps to give authenticity and weight to the arguments. Discretion is important, because often the motorist who is obliged to produce his documents is completely innocent. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West suggested that we are talking about motorists who have committed offences and who are therefore obliged to produce documents. He said that no discretion should be applied to them. My argument is different, because often completely innocent people are put in that position. Therefore, the discretion contained in the Bill is reasonable and fair.

      563
      Twice during last year I had to produce documents at a police station. On the first occasion, I was stationary at traffic lights when I was hit by another motorist who then drove off. I reported the accident at the police station, which I am obliged by law to do, and I was asked to produce documents. I returned later to produce the documents. Indeed, I had to produce another one because I had misunderstood what the police officer said. On each occasion I was driving home from a general management committee meeting.
      On the second occasion, I was hit while moving by another motorist, who also drove away. I managed to catch him, and told him that it was usual to stop after an accident. At that point, the police arrived. They breathalysed him and said that they would also have to breathalyse me. He was arrested and disappeared from the scene. The police officer said that I had no alcohol in my system, and then we got to talking about documents, which I did not have with me. Again, I was asked to produce them at the police station, which I did. But I found it extremly difficult to do so in the five-day period, because we were working late in the House and it was difficult to get the documents together. I did it, but I had to go to the police station at about 3 am after a late-night sitting in the House. I am not pleading for special exemption for Members of Parliament, but other people will discover that their personal circumstances will be helped by the element of discretion.
      Another argument for discretion is that it takes a long time for one's documents to be examined at the police station and for the officer to fill in the necessary forms. It is not a matter of having five minutes to spare and popping in to the police station. The officer must fill in complicated and detailed forms. Following the second incident, I wrote to the police saying that the forms should be rationalised because it was ridiculous to take 45 minutes of a police officer's time and the citizen's time to deal with the requirements of the legislation to produce documents. That is how long I took. If one is not first in the queue at the police station, it can take even longer.
      If the House rejects the amendments, it will be in a better position to safeguard the position of ordinary motorists, many of whom are innocent.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I understand my hon. Friend's arguments, but surely they are arguments for simplifying procedures and forms and finding other ways to deal with the problems associated with the presentation of documents other than extending the time period, which would allow the abuses that I and other hon. Members have mentioned.
      Mr. Dubs: We are not talking about extending the period, except in the sense of giving the police discretion if the individual can show that he needs it. Of course, I favour simplifying the procedure, but it is bound to remain complex even if we simplified it as much as we could.
      My main argument is that, in many cases, the motorist is entirely innocent of any offence. Therefore, it is unreasonable to remove the discretion that he will have under the Bill, thereby making an innocent person into someone who is guilty of an offence. I hope that the House will reject the amendments and support the Bill in its original form.
      Mr. Bob Clay: I oppose the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham,
      564
      North-West (Mr. Banks), because I have a special interest in bus drivers, who will welcome this useful Bill from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), especially the small element of discretion that it will allow.
      Although most of us need not renew our driving licences for a long time, bus drivers must renew their PSV licences every five years. When they do so, they must send to the traffic commissioners their ordinary driving licences, and it often takes the traffic commissioners a long time to process them. Therefore, for a considerable period—it can range from a week to as many as 28 days—bus drivers will not have their ordinary driving licences.
      Bus drivers, especially those who work in the inner cities, are often involved, as innocent parties, in motoring incidents and offences. Since they spend seven, eight or even more hours a day driving, by definition they spend more time on the roads than the average motorist, and consequently there is more likelihood of other vehicles running into them. In some cases, the police will require the bus driver to produce his documents. If the incident happens while the driver's licence is with the traffic commissioners, he can be in considerable difficulty. As the law stands, he is committing an offence by not producing the documents within the prescribed period. Many similar arguments could be made in favour of HGV licence holders.
      We must also remember that many coach drivers with PSV licences travel abroad or in Britain for long periods. They will be unable to produce their documents in time, because they will not return in time from the traffic commissioners. Some friends of mine in the coach industry had to tell their employers that they were unable to take a coach party away for a long period because they had to wait until their licences came back from the traffic commissioners before they could produce them to the police. They, too, had been involved as innocent parties in motoring incidents. Dire consequences can result from the lack of discretion.
      Those of us involved in the dreadful Transport Bill know that the role of the traffic commissioners is to be changed. Instead of three traffic commissioners for an area there will be only one. They will be given many onerous and complicated duties.
      Bus drivers have to send their ordinary licence to the traffic commissioners. Sometimes its return is delayed and it cannot therefore be produced to the police. The traffic commissioners will take even longer to process PSV licences because of the onerous tasks that the House is imposing upon them. Without the necessary staff, the problems will become even more serious for bus drivers.
      One could argue the same case for many other professional drivers. Many hundreds of thousands of workers earn their living by driving vehicles. The amendment would remove from the Bill a provision which many professional drivers welcome. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I am sad to see that clearly I do not have the sympathy of the House. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 6 after 'person', insert
      'or by another person authorised by him so to do'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 10 after 'person', insert
      'or by another person authorised by him so to do'.
      Mr. Mikardo: This will be the shortest speech of the day because I feel that the House is in a mood to come to a conclusion as soon as possible. My speech can be short because the amendment covers a narrow and simple matter which requires little explanation and because the amendment is so manifestly meritorious that I should be surprised if the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) did not urge the House to accept it.
      Earlier I mentioned the chap from Newcastle upon Tyne going on a business trip. He arrives at Heathrow to catch a plane to Dusseldorf where he has a business date and is hoping to do some export trade. He parks his car in the wrong place and is asked to produce his papers within seven days. The chap expects to go on from Dusseldorf to Vienna and Genoa on business and will not be back within seven days.
      I want it to be possible for him to ring his wife and say, "Darling, I left my driving licence and insurance certificate in the suit I was wearing yesterday. Will you be a dear, and take them to the local cop shop?" Surely that is simple and easy. What can be against it? It provides what an hon. Member called in another context earlier "a certain element of flexibility".
      Mr. Barron: I might be stopped in London and I might not even have a driving licence. I could tell the police that my name was Colin Barron—my brother's name—and he could go to the local police station at Maltby within seven days and produce his licence pretending that it was mine. That would involve me and my brother in deception and lies. The amendment would increase the possibility of such action.
      Mr. Mikardo: One does not draft laws expecting people to break them and take advantage of them. My hon. Friend could be driving round London with his brother's driving licence in his pocket. His argument is fanciful.
      12.15 pm
      Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is, as always, persuasive, but on balance I think that his proposition could lead to more abuse, although I agree that it would be convenient in some cases. There is no argument for changing the procedures as he proposes.
      When a person is required to produce his licence, the onus of doing so should fall upon him alone. That is the only satisfactory means of ensuring that the obligation is properly discharged.
      We must examine the proposal in the context of the reliefs already provided in the Bill for the motorist. His life will be made considerably easier by the extension from five to seven days and by the reasonable excuse provision. I invite the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Mikardo: It would be churlish to get into a confrontation at this stage with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. Although I think it is meritorious, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      12.16 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): We have had remarkably full debates on a modest, although desirable, measure.
      Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I am right in believing that the motion that the Bill be given a Third Reading has not been put.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been put.
      Hon. Members: When?
      Mr. Abse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we debating Third Reading?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. I am sorry if I went a little too fast for the House. We are now debating the Third Reading.
      Mr. Spicer: The deep, and no doubt genuine, interest in the Bill by hon. Members on both sides has been impressive. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has been congratulated from all sides on introducing the Bill. The House has other business to consider and I shall keep my remarks brief.
      The Bill is designed to remove some rigidity from the law relating to the production of driving documents to the police. The inflexibility has caused problems. For instance, courts have sometimes had no option but to convict for failure to produce a document when it was unavailable for reasons outside the defendant's control. An example was given by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who explained how driving licences were stuck at Swansea, not necessarily because of inefficiency but because of industrial action such as that in 1981.
      The Bill will make two changes to existing procedure. First, it will extend from five to seven days the period in which the driving licence and other driving documents must normally be produced at a police station. The main reason for that is that a growing number of people on the roads are away from home for more than five days. We have discussed whether the time limit should be extended, but there seems to be reasonable evidence to suggest that an extension to, say, 10 days would affect only a few people.
      The second reason is to provide a defence for people who are unable to produce one or more of the documents within seven days, provided that they do so as soon as reasonably practicable or—where it is not reasonably practicable—before proceedings are commenced in court. The words "reasonably practicable" are frequently used in legislation.
      All that is achieved by making minor changes in the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1972 and the Transport Act 1982. I believe that the Bill offers a fairer deal to the motoring public, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed with that view. I join in the congratulations heaped on my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, and I commend the Bill to the House.
      12.20 pm
      Mr. Roger Stott: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on the Bill.
      Many hon. Members have said that the Bill is a small but important measure. The House wishes to ensure that

      567
      proper documentation is produced, but the Bill removes what has generally been acknowledged to be an unnecessary burden on the motorist. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends give it a fair wind.
      12.21 pm
      Mr. Abse: I have two major reservations about the Bill. First, as I said earlier, I question whether the minor inconveniences that the Bill seeks to remedy are so vexatious to the public that we are justified in passing a measure which may weaken our capacity for law enforcement.
      My second reservation is whether the Minister and the sponsors of the Bill are correct in their belief that existing circumstances demand that we pass a Bill to save the motoring public from marginal inconveniences.
      During the debates on the amendments, I explained my worry about the time limit for the production of documents being extended beyond the seven days proposed in the Bill. I concede that extending the limit from five days to seven days does not create so dramatically the hazards that the amendments would have prompted, but any extension of the time limit will weaken the capacity of the police to enforce laws that were designed to protect the public from the dangers caused by irresponsible motorists.
      I do not wish to go into excessive detail about the dangers posed by any extension of the time limit. However, out of courtesy to hon. Members who have joined us since we debated the amendments, I ought to categorise the dangers, so that the House will be reminded of the risks of yielding to the pleas of the well-intentioned sponsors of the Bill.
      It would have been less necessary for me to take this course if I had received a response from the Minister or from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) seeking to alleviate some of the anxieties that I expressed in the debates on the amendments. However, even on the important question of allowing further indulgence to those who claimed to be driving instructors, the Minister made no comment.
      If the Bill is given a Third Reading, we must acknowledge that we shall be giving two extra days to drivers before police inquiries may begin. Drivers may have been stopped as a result of an incident and be driving without a licence because they have never passed a test. Those unqualified, untested drivers will have an extra two days to create havoc on our roads.
      Secondly, we shall be giving two extra days of driving, without inquiries being started, to drivers who are occasioning appalling dangers to fellow drivers and to pedestrians by driving cars that are unfit to be driven and would not pass the MOT test.
      Thirdly, we shall be giving two extra days during which irresponsible drivers can blithely continue to drive without insurance and inflict death or injury on others, leaving the relatives of those who have suffered fatal injuries or maiming, the tortuous, sometimes labyrinthine, task of seeking to recover monetary damages for their suffering.
      Fourthly, we should be mindful that we are giving car thieves two extra days before inquiries are likely to be initiated by the police. Those days could be vital, as thieves would have an opportunity to disguise and alter stolen cars and to whisk them to the continent, as happens all too frequently.
      Those are not minor considerations. They need to be pondered by the House and weighed against the
      568
      advantages that have been adumbrated so eloquently by the sponsors of the Bill. It was to guard against the dangers that prompted the House in the past to insist upon the rapid production of documents. The sponsors acknowledge that the dangers are real. If they believed that all the dangers that I am categorising were frivolous, they would have come to us and asked us to abolish the requirement to produce documents within five days.
      One of the most extraordinary features of the debate is that we have been given no explanation of how and why the House came to the conclusion that documents should be produced and that there should be a time limit. No one has explained the origin of that. No one has suggested that we should abolish the requirement. It is acknowledged that the requirements are part of the law enforcement armoury.
      Mr. Tim Smith indicated assent.
      Mr. Abse: Once one acknowledges that, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, who is nodding his head, plainly does, one should acknowledge the fact that by extending the time limit we are weakening the capacity for law enforcement.
      The Minister has not said why there is an overriding need to extend the period. I understood that we were all, and not least the Government, supposed to be preoccupied with the problems of law and order. There has rarely been a moment when it was less appropriate to come forward, as the Bill does, with the suggestion that we should to some degree subvert the capacity of the police to enforce the law with regard to major offences.
      The increase in car theft has been mentioned. New techniques have become available to the thieves. Anyone who has investigated the matter is aware that they can take stolen cars out of the country with ease. Someone taking a left-hand drive car to the Continent might place the Customs and Excise on inquiry. Cars, in particular those regarded as highly desirable such as Rolls-Royces. are frequently stolen and taken out of the country. That has been well documented in The Sunday Times and elsewhere. Left-hand drive cars are switched to right-hand drive. That takes time.
      I do not understand why we are relaxing the regulations just to meet the convenience, which I acknowledge, of motorists. When considering allowing extra time for production of documents, we should pause and ask ourselves whether we have struck the right balance between the subversion of our capacity to enforce our laws and the inconvenience which undoubtedly exists for the law-abiding motorist. That is one of my major reservations.
      I seriously doubt whether we require the Bill in the light of the present state of the law and the way that it is enforced. Nothing could be worse than cluttering up our already overcrowded statute book with unnecessary or overburdening legislation. Neither the synoptic comments of the Minister nor the reply of the Bill's promoter have convinced me that we need the Bill.
      I was a member of the Standing Committee which so briefly considered the Bill. I have read those proceedings with care and noted that the promoter relied heavily on a case which was decided on 17 January. He said that the case was a dramatic illustration of the difficulties that arise under present legislation. Although the decision was in the High Court, it was not given by the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. I nevertheless concede that the ruling is

      569
      significant. The House has not had the advantage, as did the Committee—even briefly—of considering the case on which the promoter founded his argument, nor has it had the advantage of hearing the details that he gave.
      I do not want to reprove the promoter or suggest that his extrapolation, which I might correctly have gleaned from reading what was said in Committee was supplied to him by a motoring organisation, suppressed what I consider to be one of the main features of the judgment which could lead us to a conclusion about whether we need the Bill in its present form.
      I shall follow the example of the promoter, who read from the case. I shall read those parts of the case which will enable the House to understand my doubts. Perhaps I might be permitted to quote the judge's summary. He said:
      "This is the appeal of David Sparks by way of case stated by justices in the City of London in respect of their jurisdiction as a Magistrates' court sitting at the Guild of Justice Room on Monday 14.
      The information had been laid by a woman police officer alleging that the appellant … had been a person whom a constable had reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use of a motor vehicle on a road … and on being required by a constable to produce for examination his licence to drive a motor vehicle failed to do so, contrary to section 161 of the Road Traffic Act.
      The case was heard before the justices on a plea of not guilty and the evidence which they found proved or admitted was as follows: that the police officer had had reasonable grounds for believing the appellant had committed an offence in relation to the use of the vehicle … She required the appellant to produce for examination his driving licence. He did not produce it on that day. He being unable to produce the licence, the officer issued him with a form which required production of the licence within five days. The reason why he did not produce it was that it was in the possession of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea, having been sent there by another court after being endorsed with details of the conviction by that other court."
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield cited that case because of the persuasive argument that, if a person could be put at such risk in those circumstances, the legislature should be called to remedy what might appear to be an injustice.
      The judge continued:
      "It was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that it would be unconscionable for them to convict the appellant when no culpability attached to his actions."
      The justices took the view that the terms of the section were specific and unambiguous and that the offence created by that section was an absolute offence.
      The judge stated:
      "The case arose in circumstances which were unfortunate in this regard. Prio to the establishment of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea there had been no problems of the kind that had arisen in this case. However, since the establishment of that body, it seems that there have been a number of cases in which persons have been asked to produce their licences and have found themselves in the same position as the appellant in this case. Accordingly"—
      I draw the attention of hon. Members to this point, because it concerns my query whether we need the Bill—
      "the Metropolitan Police by October 1982, which was the date mentioned in the information, had formed an unofficial policy not to prosecute in any case in which a licence was unavailable because it was in the custody of the authority at Swansea."
      Even more relevantly, the judge went on to say—obviously with full knowledge—that the policy not to prosecute
      "became official on 9 May 1983."
      The judge said that he had been told
      570
      "that there is a private Member's Bill presently before the House of Commons which seeks to remedy by way of statute the situation in which an absolute offence is committed by someone in the appellant's situation."
      Mr. Tony Banks: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Abse: Then comes the rub. The judge said:
      "It was unfortunate that the officer in charge of this case was not aware of the unofficial policy in operation at the time."
      Mr. Banks: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Abse: I give way.
      Mr. Banks: May I ask my hon. Friend to go back slightly? Was this unofficial practice operated by the Metropolitan police, as my hon. Friend said, or by the City of London police? My information is that it was operated by the City of London police.
      Mr. Abse: I am sorry that my preoccupation in reading this extraordinarily interesting and detailed judgment or my diminished hearing, which comes with age, prevented me from knowing that my hon. Friend was seeking to intervene.
      I cannot give a categorical reply to that query, but I know how carefully judges choose their words and that some evidence must have been given. I do not have a transcript of all the proceedings—I have a transcript only of the judgment—but I am sure that the judge would have been scrupulous and would have been unlikely to make an error in saying that it was the policy of the Metropolitan police. I may not have assuaged all of my hon. Friend's concerns, but I think that we can proceed on the assumption that the Metropolitan police laid down this unofficial policy.
      I come to the last part that I shall read from the judgment, which contains the punch line. The judge said:
      "It was unfortunate that the officer in charge of this case was not aware of the unofficial policy in operation at the time. Accordingly, this case, as counsel for the respondent put it, slipped through the net and this appellant was prosecuted when it would have been more appropriate if he had not been so prosecuted … it would seem that the chances of a case like this recurring, whatever happens to the Bill which is at present going through Parliament, are remote".
      Those chances are not only remote but clearly non-existent. After the furore that occurred because a young woman police officer was unaware of the unofficial policy at that time, would any police officer allow proceedings to move forward again? Clearly not.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield did not intend to mislead the Committee or the House, but if he had had the opportunity to examine the whole of that case he would have realised that it shows that the legislation is not required. I do not believe in trying to legislate for something that has fallen into desuetude. What is the purpose of that? There is enough legislation on the statute book without the misery of including legislation of which we have little need.
      But we are being asked to accept a Bill that extends the period to seven days to cover a contingency which is, in many respects, non-existent. As the judge has said:
      "The chances of a case like this recurring, whatever happens to the Bill which is at present going through Parliament, are remote".
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield drew conclusions from the judgment that were clearly incorrect. He allowed the enthusiasm that he has displayed for the benefit of the House today to lead him unwittingly to make a spurious assessment of the decision. I can well

      571
      understand that in the light of the judgment he might well have felt that a Bill was needed containing clauses—as the Bill does—providing a defence for those unable to produce the necessary documentation within the statutory period, providing that they did so as soon as reasonably practicable after that period. But he misled himself when he affirmed in Committee that the case confirmed the need for legislation extending the period from five to seven days. It does nothing of the kind.
      The defence of reasonable practicality would be quite sufficient and would enable us to avoid a falling into the trap of passing legislation which would be welcomed by law-abiding citizens but which would be even more warmly applauded by all those who drive motor cars without driving licences because they have been suspended, by those who jeopardise others by driving faulty cars and by those who, to the serious detriment of others, do not take out motor car insurance policies.
      We have heard little today about the reasonable practicality clauses, but the argument that they will meet a possible need is more convincing than that which is advanced in support of the first leg of the Bill. It is unfortunate that the clauses have not been debated, despite the considerable time which we have devoted to the Bill so far.
      In the case to which I have referred, the judge commented on the narrow circumstances—there had been a delay on the part of the DVLC at Swansea—and acknowledged that it was impossible for the appellant to produce his documents. However, he ruled that impossibility was not a defence because of the absolute nature of the duty laid down in the statute. Having read the cases that were cited during those proceedings and having examined other case law, I am by no means certain that outside the narrow circumstances of the particular case the same conclusion would be reached. Other High Court judges would not be bound by the decision as it lacks the authority of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, and they would not necessarily come to the same conclusion.
      We should hesitate before enacting legislation in advance of ascertaining whether any seeming injustices can be remedied by the courts themselves. A different set of circumstances could be conceived where the defence of impossibility would obviate the need for the Bill. The case of Harding v. Price was brought into issue in the case cited by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield.
      The facts of the Harding v. Price case were that, while driving along a road, the trailer of a vehicle collided with a stationary car and damaged it. Owing to the noise made by the towing vehicle, the driver was unaware that the accident had occurred, so he did not report it to a police station or to a police constable as required by section 22 of the Road Traffic Act.
      At first sight, because of the absolute nature of the obligation, according to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, one would have expected the driver to be convicted, despite it being held that he did not know that the accident had occurred because the noise of his vehicle masked it from him.
      Believing that the offence was absolute, the magistrates convicted that driver. When the case came before the High Court, the judges took the contrary view. To underline my belief that there is no necessity for the reasonable
      572
      practicality defences proposed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, I shall read what Judge Singleton said in the case:
      "The justices have found that there was no guilty knowledge on the part of the appellant. He did not know that there had been an accident. We are not dealing with a prohibited act, but with the case of a man who is called on to do something, namely, to report an accident."
      I ask hon. Members to mark that well. Here is a case which is congruent with a large number of the circumstances that we have been discussing—the fact that people do not report. It is not a prohibition that we have been debating; it is the failure to report. Similarly, in this case the failure was the failure to report an accident about which the driver did not know.
      The judge went on:
      "How can he do that if he does not know that an accident has happened? There are two possible ways of construing section 22, and, in my view, the court ought not to adopt one which would mean that a person is called on to do the impossible"—
      again I ask the House to mark how differently this judge approaches it from the approach of the judge in the case cited by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield—
      "or suffer conviction if he fails to do it when there is another equally reasonable construction which avoids that position arising. I am of the opinion that the appeal should be allowed, and the conviction quashed."
      In citing the case that he did, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield placed excessive reliance upon it. Although the judge, tortuously in my opinion, tried to distinguish the case before him from the one that I have cited, which in my view was decided so rationally by Judge Singleton, I remain unconvinced and I believe that it requires some resolution by a higher court if we are effectively to reconcile those decisions.
      It is my view that under these two heads the House should consider whether it should pass a Bill which may not be necessary at all and which imports considerable hazards, as I have pointed out repeatedly.
      For all those reasons, I suggest that, before the House approves the Bill, it should consider the obvious balance of advantage and whether there is an overriding necessity for it to be on the statute book.
      1 pm
      Mr. Tim Smith: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) for their support for the Bill.
      I wish briefly to deal with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse). He has two reservations about the Bill. His first is that it would weaken law enforcement because two extra days would be available to rogues before the police came to grips with them. That argument is fallacious. What matters is the lapse of time between the date on which the offender is stopped by the police and the day on which he is convicted in court. The fact that he has to produce his documents at a police station within a certain period of time is neither here nor there. However, that is an important and urgent matter, which is why the Bill proposes only two addional days. The requirement that a motorist must produce his driving documents at a police station is part of the structure of law enforcement.
      Secondly, the hon. Gentleman questioned whether the Bill is needed. It is because injustice has been done in the past. The hon. Gentleman claims that that occurred only because a police officer made a mistake. I believe that that

      573
      brings the law into disrepute. If the police believe that the law is unsatisfactory, and they have an official policy of not enforcing it, we should change the law.
      The other point, to which the hon. Gentleman referrred at great length, was that the matter referred only to documents stuck at Swansea. However, the Bill envisages other circumstances in which it might be appropriate for a defendant to produce an excuse of reasonable delay.
      Those were the only arguments advanced against the Bill receiving a Third Reading. Therefore, I believe that the House should give it a Third Reading.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Unborn Children (Protection) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  1.2 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members who have been deluged with letters on this subject from their constituents—putting both sides of the argument—thought in good faith that the Government would come forward with legislation on this important matter. Before we begin consideration of the Bill, could we hear a word from the Minister about the precise intentions of the Government——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. That is not a point of order. It would be as well to give the Minister an opportunity to refer to these matters during the debate.
  Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to pursue this, but it has a bearing on the whole matter. Considering how seriously this matter is regarded by many thousands of people in Scotland and elsewhere, we thought that at least we would have a statement from the Minister or from the Scottish Office——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of Parliament. He knows as well as I do that this matter is not for the Chair but for Ministers. I am not responsible for ministerial statements.
  We come to amendment No. 2, with which we will discuss——
  Mr. Tony Blair: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not rise when I am on my feet.
  The first amendment to be called is No. 2, with which it will be convenient for the House to discuss amendments
  Nos. 3, 4, 48 and 49.
  Mr. Blair: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that this is an appropriate moment to raise a point of order about a serious matter concerning the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament and, indeed, the record of this House. I gave notice that I would raise this matter——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman rightly reminded me that he gave notice of his intention to raise a point of order. He will recall that I told him that I would deal with that matter at half-past two. I see no reason to revise the opinion that I voiced privately to him. The hon. Gentleman must raise his point of order at half-past two or at the conclusion of business, and I shall listen

  Unborn Children (Protection) Bill
    Clause 1

      FERTILISATION OF HUMAN OVUM IN VITRO PROHIBITED, EXCEPT FOR EMBRYO INSERTION
      Mr. Leo Abse: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 6, after 'shall', insert 'knowingly'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the following amendments:
      No. 3, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'procure' and insert 'cause'.

      575
      No. 4, in page 1, line 10, at beginning insert 'knowingly'.
      No. 48, in page 2, line 43, at end insert:
      '(7) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act it shall be a defence for a person charged to prove,—

      (a) that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake or to the act or default of another person, an accident or some other cause beyond his control; and

      (b) that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.'.

      No. 49, in page 2, line 43, at end insert—
      '(7) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act it shall be a defence for a person charged to prove that at the time of the alleged commission of the offence he honestly and reasonably believed that he was acting with the authority of the Secretary of State.'.
      Mr. Abse: It will be well known to the House that almost the whole of the medical and scientific community is ranged against the Bill. There are many reasons why those who comprise that community take that view, but it would take me well beyond this group of amendments were Ito adumbrate them, apart from the fact that I should incur the displeasure of the Chair.
      One reason is their indignation that their dedicated work in the conquest of infertility may, by the Bill, attract the stigma of criminality. Since, despite their protests, despite all the arguments that rationally have been advanced against the Bill and despite the measured and well thought through Warnock proposals, the sponsor, the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), has chosen relentlessly to pursue his course, it falls to the House to ensure that no doctors, scientists or nurses are placed in jeopardy under threat of the criminal law when, even if they were acting within the strict and rigid parameters laid down by the Bill, by inadvertence and without malevolent intent then found that they had trespassed so as to enter into the mined territory which the sponsor creates for some urgently needed research.
      In his intemperate zeal, for which he is notorious, the right hon. Member for South Down has, in his Bill, placed many of its provisions in the absolutist terms that become his temperament. In vetoing, as the Bill does, anyone procuring the fertilisation of a human ovum, privately and without the sanction of some bureaucrat in Whitehall, the right hon. Gentleman seeks—and perhaps succeeds as the Bill is drafted—to draw into his net even those who, although not wilfully, may directly or indirectly have helped towards the fertilisation of a human ovum in vitro, or precipitated such an outcome, and thus had it in the laboratory, albeit for no sinister purpose and with no intention to defy the law.
      Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are designed to make it crystal clear, by inserting the word "knowingly" in the provision, that no one should unnecessarily be at risk, even though he or she has not set out to defy what I regard as the evil law that this measure seeks to enact.
      Mr. William Cash: I wish briefly to show the sort of nonsense that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse), who is a lawyer, has been speaking by quoting Lord Devlin's remark about the word "knowingly". He said:
      "All that the word 'knowingly' does is to say expressly what is normally implied".
      The hon. Gentleman is indulging in an exercise to waste time, and he knows it.
      Mr. Abse: The law is rarely as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. He may be simple, but by the time I have finished he will see that there is greater complexity about the issue of the word "knowingly" than he imagines. I am certainly not wasting time. I am engaged in a serious debate to mitigate the consequences of an evil Bill. I intend to do that to the best of my ability.
      Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 set out to make it crystal clear that by placing the word "knowingly" in clause 1, no one should unnecessarily find himself at risk, although we must define the law that the Bill seeks to enact. Despite the intervention, I hope that non-lawyers will bear with me and not regard me as patronising or filibustering when I attempt to explain why in the existing law there is considerable ambiguity about whether the omission of the word "knowingly" in the framing of an offence sometimes leads to the creation of an absolute offence in respect of which there can be no defence, however lacking in intent the man may be.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: It may help the House if my hon. Friend gave some examples of where in the present law the word "knowingly" is inserted. That may help us to understand his argument.
      Mr. Abse: I assure my hon. Friend that I coming to that. I understand his point, especially when a view is expressed, as it has been, that the matter is frivolous and does not need to be given considerable thought. If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall spell out why we need this amendment, and I shall deal directly with the matter that he has raised.
      By unhappy coincidence, hon. Members who were present will have observed that the last amendment which we debated dealt with the question of an absolute offence in the Road Traffic (Production of Documents) Bill. I cited two cases, one of which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) also cited, to explain that a rule was absolute. I pointed out how difficult it sometimes is in law to say whether that is so by citing other cases.
      We must see what the position is. At first, it seems lo be simple to say that we do not need the word "knowingly". There is an old Latin tag, which I shall say in English. I had the benefit of a considerable classical education, as the right hon. Member for South Down had. I am only too well aware that when lawyers depend on their Latin, they strangulate the language. The tag says that the deed does not make a man guilty unless he has a guilty mind. At first sight, that would appear to clinch the quotation of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Nothing causes more difficulty in legal arguments than the conflict that arises when we ask whether that principle applies across the board. The tag usually applies to statutory offences. Although it has been stated that no specific requirements as to the mental element are included in the definition of the offence, in common law an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of circumstances which, if true, would make the act for which the person is indicted an innocent act has always been held to be a good defence. However, the statute law is different, and it has frequently been suggested that the principle does not apply equally for statutory offences unless the intention is expressed.
      1.15 pm
      So that the House may realise that there is a need for the word "knowingly", let me give some extracts from a

      577
      case. It shows, first, that the absence of mens rea—of intent—can be shown by the honest and reasonable belief entertained by the accused of the existence of facts which, if true, would make the charge against him invalid. Therefore, some would claim that the principle can be expressed thus: mens rea is the absence of an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of circumstances which, if true, would make the act or omission for which the accused is indicted innocent. But, unfortunately, many cases make it clear, although they are in conflict, that many judges take a contrary view. They consider that, unless the legislator implies the principle in a set of circumstances, including the intention of the legislator, the absence of the word "knowingly" may mean that the defence which would normally be put forward to show the absence of mens rea would not apply. Indeed, that is what happened in the road traffic incidents with which we dealt earlier.
      I have no doubt that we need the word "knowingly", especially since, on any interpretation of the legislator's intention, the court may come to the conclusion that the intention of the House was to make it an absolute rule.
      I have little doubt that the would-be legislator, the right hon. Member for South Down, would regard an infringement of the Bill, if unhappily it became an Act, as what judges have described as an offence of a truly criminal nature. The courts are more likely to come to a different conclusion if the offence is thought to be of a trivial nature than if it is thought to be of a truly criminal character. If the legislator intends vigorously that an offence should be regarded as being of a truly criminal character, it is likely that without the word "knowingly" the offence will be regarded as absolute.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I find it hard to follow the argument. The use of the word "procure" in the Bill is intended to indicate that the offence has to be done knowingly. Amendment No. 3 proposes to delete the word "procure" and to insert the neutral word "cause". To cause something to be done does not mean that it is done deliberately. The use of the word "procure" rather than "cause" would make the hon. Gentleman's amendment unnecessary. He is not a signatory to amendment No. 3, but if that were carried I could accept and follow his line of reasoning.
      Mr. Abse: I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I understand that a long debate took place in the Committee, of which I was not a member, about the word "procure". I am sure that hon. Members who endured the Committee proceedings are only too well aware of it. I have to consider the position as it is. The word "procure" is ambiguous and I shall press my amendment.
      I have little doubt that the right hon. Member for South Down would regard an infringement of his measure as being of a truly criminal character as described by the judges. How adamant the courts can sometimes be when the word "knowingly" is omitted from legislation is illustrated in a Court of Appeal decision which might be relevant to the amendment. A defendant was found to have made a device that was a firearm. The court accepted that the hapless man did not know that he had created a firearm. In that case in 1981, R. v. Hussein, the court insisted that despite the defendant's lack of intent to create
      578
      a firearm the fact that he had done so was enough to justify the conviction. That was not the decision of an ordinary court but a significant decision by the Court of Appeal.
      In coming to that decision, the court was following another of its decisions in Warner v. the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, where, in the absence of the word "knowingly", the court found that, although the accused had an honest and reasonable belief that the firearm that he possessed was an antique and, therefore, exempt from section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, that honest and reasonable belief was not a defence. The firearm was not an antique, though the man believed it to be, and he was convicted.
      There are many other such cases and they show there is a distinction between the bare statement of the offence or a description of an act and the introduction of the words "knowingly" and "consciously". If we leave the Bill as it stands, it is almost inevitable that some hapless doctor, clinician or scientist will find himself in grave difficulties.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Even if the word "cause" were inserted instead of "procure", would not the word "knowingly" also have to be inserted to provide a defence for scientists who can cause things to happen inadvertently? We need a safeguard for them.
      Mr. Abse: I believe that it is wiser to use the word "knowingly", because it has been defined time and again and examined at length in many cases. The law is familiar with the concept.
      Mr. Dalyell: With our friendship of over 20 years, may I put a point to my hon. Friend? He has already spoken for 117 minutes today. Are we to have the opportunity to put a number of concise questions to the promoter of the Bill and the Minister? Many of our constituents are desperately concerned about this issue. Will my hon. Friend give us some idea of how long he intends to speak?
      Mr. Abse: Our proceedings will close in the usual way, according to the ruling of Mr. Speaker. Within the time that we have at our disposal, it is necessary for me to protect to the best of my ability the medical and scientific community which faces considerable threats because of the Bill. Whatever pressure groups outside may say, there can be no question of our hurrying through the Bill.
      Ms. Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has said that the medical and scientific community could be caught unwittingly if the word "knowingly" were not added. Does he agree that staff, technicians and perhaps even the woman herself might be regarded as being "in possession"?
      Mr. Abse: I have suggested how circumstances could arise through inadvertence. Technicians, people working with doctors and the woman herself could be involved. However, perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to contribute later and tell us how the Bill impinges on those groups.
      Those who share my view might reasonably be asked "Are you being reasonable? Why should anyone want to possess a human embryo, produced by in vitro fertilisation, except for a sinister purpose?" How could an embryo inadvertently come into the possession of a person without permission or once the authority provided under the Bill had expired?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) expressed some of the fears of the medical

      579
      profession. The medical profession has told me and many other hon. Members that there may be circumstances when it wants to possess or repossess an embryo with which it could do great good. If the word "knowingly" were not included, the profession could find itself in great difficulty.
      Pregnancies can, and frequently do, go wrong. An embryo can sometimes lodge not in the uterus or the womb but in the fallopian tube or the abdominal cavity. That is said to be ectopic. If the embryo and the implantation site are not removed they almost invariably cause the death of the mother. In the absence of surgery, the embryo could continue to grow in the fallopian tube to such a size that by about the sixth or eighth week of pregnancy it causes the tube to burst. The unhappy woman could die from internal haemorrhage.
      The right hon. Member for South Down intervened in Committee, but he has not persuaded me or the medical profession that the removal or repossession of the embryo conceived by in vitro fertilisation should be regarded as a criminal offence.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the contents of amendment No. 12. It may be of some comfort to him to learn that I intended to advise the House to accept amendment No. 12. It would deal with the point that he is making.
      Mr. Abse: I was merely giving an example. The right hon. Gentleman is retreating. One has only to give that example to show that women could be put at risk by the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman scurries away and says that he will concede the point. I do not find that impressive. As soon as one gives an example, he takes to his heels.
      Mr. Powell: I gave an assurance in Committee that the Bill already excluded the subject matter of amendment No. 12, but that if the House decided that it wanted the matter written on to the face of the Bill, that is something that I would respect.
      Mr. Abse: The right hon. Gentleman may in due course have an opportunity to include that matter in the statute. I am dealing with the Bill as it stands. No one except a monster would want to convict a doctor engaged in a life-saving exercise when a risk has been identified. I do not find the right hon. Gentleman's attitude persuasive. On the contrary, it raises my alarm still further. I gave an example and I received that response from the right hon. Gentleman. Many other examples can be given to show that the Bill needs to be radically overhauled and that there is a need for the inclusion of the word "knowingly".
      Dr. M. S. Miller: I can give my hon. Friend an example of an ectopic pregnancy as I once sent a former hon. Member to hospital because she would otherwise have bled to death.
      Mr. Abse: I am sure that my hon. Friend's medical experience is known to the House. His corroboration of the existence of hazards will be noted.
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: It has presumably escaped the attention of the hon. Member that the Bill deals with the protection of the unborn child. Does he intend to address that matter, or will his filibuster not have time for it?
      Mr. Abse: The hon. Gentleman must understand that Bills on life and death matters need the most careful scrutiny. We want, and are not afraid of, full debate. That is what we are engaged in. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants us to move along when a big chink has been found. Does not the hon. Gentleman want to save the life of a mother at risk?
      Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has already heard my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) concede that he will accept an amendment which deals with precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot anticipate amendments further down the Notice Paper or debates that might occur on them.
      Mr. Abse: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall continue to talk about the Bill as it is and why we need to make my amendment.
      Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have had an operation for an ectopic pregnancy and I am satisfied that my safety would have been secured under the Bill as it stands, and certainly as it will be improved.
      Mr. Abse: That is an affirmation of belief. We do riot pass legislation according to faith or affirmations of belief. We have a legislative process that enables us to scrutinise rationally. When we have irrational Bills that are prompted, as it is said, by gut reaction or, as the promoter said, out of instinct, there is all the more reason for us to apply our rationality and scrutinise them.
      An inserted embryo can develop abnormally and grow uncontrollably. It can become a grape-like tumour called a hydatidiform mole. Some of those tumours are benign, and they can cause severe bleading and the woman can die from haemorrhage. Between 5 and 10 per cent. of the moles become malignant cancers and extremely dangerous to the mother.
      Removal can prevent death in almost 100 per cent. of cases. Prior to removal, however, it is not known whether the embryo has been destroyed completely by the tumour or whether it is still present with the tumour. Removal of the embryo or the entire tumour, which is the product of the conceptus, would be prevented by the Bill, so somebody could be in extraordinary difficulty unless my proposed precaution is accepted.
      There are exceptional circumstances in which it would be considered essential to abort the embryo that has been conceived in vitro under the Abortion Act 1967. What would happen if the embryo that had been inserted was revealed by amniocentesis to be abnormal or if the life of the mother was clearly threatened by the pregnancy? Since it would be an offence to repossess the embryo, a procedure available to the rest of the population would be denied to a woman with an in vitro conceived embryo. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) intervened to stress that, in trying to put safeguards into the Bill, we are providing safeguards not only for doctors and scientists but for the women who might be in difficulty with an in vitro embryo in their wombs.
      One could ask how a person could unintentionally—it could be argued, even in these circumstances, that the doctor was intentionally trying to repossess an embryo—be in possession of an in vitro fertilised embryo after

      581
      the expiry of the authority of the Secretary of State. It is well known that about one in five pregnancies is miscarried. However, before miscarriage occurs, there may be what is known as a threatened or inevitable miscarriage. Patients may show severe bleeding from the womb. Appropriate treatment to stop the bleeding is to empty the womb of the pregnancy—the embryo and the placenta—to allow the uterus to close. Once again, the medical practitioner will inevitably be in possession of an in vitro fertilised embryo without the permission of the Secretary of State. This may be construed as a criminal offence.
      I know that some of these matters were discussed at length in Committee in connection with other amendments, but I believe that I am right in drawing the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory nature of the Bill which has the impress of absolutism upon it and which, consequently, has caused so much alarm to those dedicated men and women who are trying to conquer the problem of infertility. Because of those concerns, and in the knowledge that other hon. Members want to join in expressing their belief in the need for these amendments, I plead with the House to consider carefully before putting at risk good men and women and deciding that these words, which are so small in themselves but which could be so important in their consequences, should be in the Bill.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Much of the speech of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) was connected with the question of an embryo that had already been inserted. As I advised the Standing Committee, that subject lies outside the terms of the Bill as it is drawn. That, however, is a matter that can be dealt with when we come to amendment No. 12, where the House may decide that it is desirable to put on the face of the Bill the interpretation of the measure. I confine myself, therefore, to the group of amendments to which the hon. Member for Torfaen referred.
      I do not treat at all lightly the question of legal safeguards in favour of those who might be caught by the terms of the Bill. In the limited time available since the amendments were tabled, I have taken advice from the two Departments concerned; the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security. I repeat once again that I am obliged to the Minister's advisers for the careful, ready, although strictly neutral advice which they have at all times made available to me.
      It would be advantageous if the House inserted two of the amendments into the Bill. I refer to amendments Nos. 4 and 49, which I shall deal with shortly. However, it may be convenient if I deal first with amendment No. 3. In Committee this issue was the subject of discussion between myself and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). It then appeared that both of us would have been glad if we could have found a word that would do the same work as the term "procure" but which did not have the unintended and, in this case, irrelevant overtones of that verb. The hon. Gentleman withdrew his amendment, but I promised him that I would seek advice as to whether an alternative term was available.
      1.45 pm
      I had to inform the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in advance by letter on 4 April that the search had
      582
      proved fruitless. My advice is that the only satisfactory term that will cover a person under whose direction the procedures are carried out and a person who carries them out is "procure", and that to insert the word "cause" would be an absurd narrowing of the meaning, as it would relate to the specific and direct act of causation and would leave out of account the question of responsibility, for example, on the part of the person under whose direction the fertilisation was carried out. Therefore, I must advise the House that the word "procure" should remain in the clause in order to meet the purposes of that provision.
      The safeguards proposed in the amendments are of two kinds. The first pair of amendments proposes to insert the word "knowingly" in paragraphs (a) and (b), and paragraph (b) only, respectively. The second pair of amendments, amendments Nos. 48 and 49, provide a valid defence in the event of a charge being brought under the Bill. It may be convenient to deal first with amendments No. 48 and 49.
      Amendment No. 48 would provide a two-limbed defence: first, that the act was due to circumstances beyond the defendant's control; and, secondly, that he took reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. To avail himself of the defence proposed in amendment No. 48, the defendant would have to prove both limbs of the defence; and if he failed on one, the whole defence would fall. If such a defence were included, the second limb alone—that he had taken reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence—would be sufficient and satisfactory for the protection of persons who might be persons in a quite subsidiary capacity in the unlikely event of a charge being brought.
      It is, therefore, amendment No. 49 that provides the most effective and practical defence, and I advise the House to accept it.
      Mr. Dalyell: I wish only to make a genuine inquiry. When I was first elected to the House, the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for Health, and I learnt much from him about parliamentary tactics in the mid-1970s. He will appreciate that I ask my question in that spirit of inquiry. I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, but in column 141 there is a report of a crucial exchange that was started by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who said:
      "I am still unclear what will happen to the spare embryos. It is all very well to say that the Bill says that they will not be used for anything other than implanting in a woman. What will happen to them if they are not implanted in a woman?"
      The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)—this took place in the middle of the night—replied:
      "As I understand it, an embryo which is not inserted and which is not used for that purpose, although it was brought into existence for that purpose, ceases to exist as an embryo."
      Whereupon the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said:
      "It dies."
      The right hon. Gentleman seems to have assented. He is reported as saying:
      "It dies."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 13 March 1985; c. 141.]
      That is a crucial matter which concerns many people. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should have intervened earlier. I reminded the House when the debate started that

      583
      we should not anticipate debates that will take place on later amendments. We cannot anticipate amendments subsequent to those before the House. Amendment No. 18 refers to the very matter that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is raising.
      Mr. Powell: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your intervention has relieved me of giving the reply which I would have given in similar terms to your ruling to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
      Dr. M. S. Miller: I genuinely seek information. The clause does not make it an offence of any sort for a person to
      "procure the fertilisation of a human ovum … in the fallopian tube".
      It defines "in vitro" as
      "elsewhere than in the fallopian tube or uterus".
      Therefore, it would not be an offence if a doctor, scientist or experimenter placed a fertilised ovum in the fallopian tube. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that?
      Mr. Powell: I fear that the hon. Gentleman may have tripped himself up in the posing of his question. He ended his question by using the words "if such a person has placed a fertilised ovum in the fallopian tube." In that case, ex hypothesi, the fertilisation would have taken place outside the fallopian tube and would have been caught by the terms of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Bill is concerned with IVF. Therefore, it is not concerned with fertilisation which takes place in the only two areas in which it can take place in a woman, which was the earlier wording of the Bill—namely, in the fallopian tube or the uterus. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is about what it is about.
      I turn to the two amendments which seek to insert the word "knowingly". They relate to paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and, secondly, paragraph (b) only. I shall deal first with "knowingly" in relation to paragraph (a), which refers to procuring
      "the fertilisation of a human ovum in vitro".
      No one who has had the benefit of witnessing the remarkable technical and scientific procedures which result in fertilisation in vitro would imagine that it could be procured unknowingly. Whatever is happening when there is fertilisation in vitro is happening knowingly—is being procured knowingly. It would be inconceivable for it to happen by a mere fluke. Therefore, "knowingly" in relation to paragraph (a) is superfluous.
      However, in paragraph (b), which deals with possession, a wide range of persons, who were not necessarily fully informed of the status and terms of the authority of the Secretary of State under which the fertilisation had taken place, could be held to be in possession. That is why I believe that it is a proper concomitant of amendment No. 49, with its safeguard, which provides a defence in proceedings, that the requirement of knowledge should be inserted in paragraph (b) in order to he the basis of the prohibition.
      Mr. Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman has conceded that there is a danger that a number of people could inadvertently find themselves in possession and not have knowledge about it. Does he believe that the word "knowingly", even with amendment No. 49, is adequate protection? Does he accept that there will be many scientists and technicians who will be afraid of being taken
      584
      to court, notwithstanding the protection given by amendment No. 49, on the basis that the word "knowingly" itself is not enough to protect their interests?
      Mr. Powell: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the purpose both of the Bill and of the clause, which is to delimit in terms of the authority of the Secretary of State the purposes for which an IVF embryo may be possessed. Therefore, we are dealing with persons who, upon the whole, will be in responsible positions and will be fully aware of the purposes for which that embryo is possesed. However, there is a marginal possibility that possession will be held to apply to ancillary staff, for example, at some stage in a hospital process. That is why it appears to me—and I am advised—that the term "knowingly" could be useful and practical in its application to paragraph (b).
      Taking the group of amendments as a whole, I advise the House not to accept amendments Nos. 2 and 3, to make amendment No. 4, and, when we come to them, not to accept amendment No. 48 but to make amendment No. 49.
      If you will permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a point at this juncture about the acceptance of amendments in this Report stage which, it w ill be appreciated, were tabled two or three days ago and which have been available for careful study only for a relatively short period. These amendments are accepted expressly on the understanding that, by accepting them, I do not rule out the possible need for drafting consequentials or alterations to be made at a subsequent stage of the Bill. It is upon that basis that, as a matter of fact, I intend to advise the House——
      Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Powell: I have not been called to order by the Chair.
      Mr. Hamilton: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker will decide that, not the right hon. Gentleman.
      It appears from what the right hon. Gentleman said that he seems to be making conditions on which he will accept amendments. The Bill is now in the possession of the House as a whole. We shall decide, subject to your jurisdiction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not the right hon. Gentleman's, what is and what is not in order.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is true that the House will decide what amendments will he made. I thought that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) was giving advance notice of the possible tabling of further amendments, which is not unusual.
      Mr. Powell: It is also not unusual for either a Minister or another hon. Member to offer advice to the House. I want to be quite clear with the House about the terms on which I am offering advice in respect of a Bill of which I am the sponsor when I advise the acceptance of forms of wording in these amendments. Obviously I cannot in present circumstances commit myself to all the drafting implications of those amendments. Therefore, my advice to accept them is subject to the possibility that it may be found necessary to modify them or to have supplementary amendments made at a later stage of the Bill.
      It seems to me to be no more than candid with the House, as I propose to advise the acceptance of four

      585
      groups of amendments, to show the understanding that I wish the House to have when these amendments come to be made, as I hope they will be in due course.
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: The right hon. Gentleman said that he wished to be candid with the House. I ask him to be candid with the public. He has called this the "Unborn Children (Protection) Bill", but he says that those words do not appear in the Bill itself and that the Bill does not refer to unborn children.
      Mr. Powell: The title of a Bill is not a part of that Bill.
      2 pm
      Mr. David Crouch: We have listened to the right hon. Gentleman——
      Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said that he may need to table consequential amendments arising from amendments that he is prepared to accept today. Can you advise the House whether it will be in order for other hon. Members to table amendments, that will be duly considered, arising from or implied by the changes in the Bill?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House does not complete further consideration of the Bill today, doubtless it will be set down for some other day. The normal rules of the House will apply—that hon. Members may table their amendments within the normal time limit.
      Mr. Crouch: I must declare an interest as I am a member of the Medical Research Council. I make that declaration because the Medical Research Council has positive views on the Bill.
      As we consider these amendments, we are grateful to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) for having explained his position on the amendments, especially in regard to the words "knowingly", "procure" and "cause". I am a little surprised that, at this late stage, when we are within an hour of reaching a decision on the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman should say that he intends to table amendments. We have all tabled amendments——
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I said that I was prepared to advise the House to accept amendments already on the Notice Paper.
      Mr. Crouch: I accept that, but it is a little late in the day, although I make no complaint about that. But it is unusual for the right hon. Gentleman to be so imprecise and to show some ambiguity. It is most unlike him, but that is a small point.
      I wish to speak about matters principally concerned with the law and the understanding of the words "knowingly", "procure" and "cause", which are the subject of the three amendments. I am not a lawyer, but about 44 years ago I had my first experience in court as an amateur lawyer. I was in the Army and I was required to defend two soldiers against a serious charge of desertion. The word "knowingly" was very much in my mind and I used it as part of my defence.
      If any man absents himself without leave when, under embarkation orders, he is due to go overseas on active service, he is guilty under military law of desertion. I was five days in court as an amateur lawyer defending the two soldiers, so I learnt something about the use of words—
      586
      especially as lawyers use them. I realised that I had to understand the meaning of knowledge in the mind of a person.
      My defence of the two soldiers—although I was not successful—was to plead that they knew that they were suffering from a serious illness that might not be treated overseas, venereal disease. Therefore, they knowingly decided to absent themselves and not board the ship because they feared that they would not receive medical treatment overseas.
      I did not succeed in my plea that their knowledge should mitigate their sentence. I make that point only because as I approach the use of the word "knowingly" today, I remember using it once before.
      This is not a light matter because the Bill has criminal consequences. If anyone makes a mistake in the application of his techniques or in how he proceeds with in vitro fertilisation—if he oversteps the mark set down in the Bill—under clause 2 he is at once subject to criminal prosecution.
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend has had reason to use the word "knowingly" in proceedings. Is he aware, as I pointed out in an earlier intervention, that Lord Devlin has taken the view that the word "knowingly" is not necessary, that it is superfluous and would normally be implied in a situation of the kind with which my hon. Friend is dealing?
      Mr. Crouch: It is not for me to cross swords with the noble and learned Lord, whose experience of the law is somewhat wider than mine.
      Suffice it to say that from my experience as a politician and as a member of the Medical Research Council, and from what I have seen of the performance of fertilisation in vitro, I appreciate that there are areas of uncertainty. The Bill does not clarify those uncertainties. As there are criminal sanctions in the measure, we have a duty to safeguard those who practise in vitro fertilisation. After all, it is permitted under the Bill, which writes certain safeguards round it. Those safeguards are inadequate and we must get this matter right. We must not rush this issue.
      Ms. Harman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the responsibility of the House, when creating serious criminal offences which could result in imprisonment and the ruination of careers, to ensure that those offences are sound and just? What a judge might have said about what might normally happen in certain circumstances in a case involving a different offence should not divert us from our responsibility of making sure that the criminal law is fair.
      Mr. Crouch: That was the point I was endeavouring to make. It has now been made much better by the hon. Lady, who is a lawyer.
      Although "knowingly" is an important word, which should be added, may we be told to what it relates? Knowing what? And what is not known? There is ambiguity in the drafting of the Bill, and I repeat that it is extraordinary that a measure of such imprecision should have come from the hand of the right hon. Member for South Down.
      Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has several times said that the Bill is imprecise, that it contains grey areas and that it is difficult to understand. Does he recall that the Second Reading of a measure to make experimentation with human embryos unlawful was passed by the thundering majority of 238 to 66?
      Mr. Crouch: I am not arguing in favour of further research on the human embryo. This series of amendments is concerned with words, and the one word about which I am speaking is "knowingly". I am asking whether people who take part in in vitro fertilisation know what they can and cannot do.
      The implementation of the clause, especially clause 1(1)(b), would make it an offence to have in one's possession a human embryo produced by in vitro fertilisation without the express permission of the Secretary of State. That applies equally to the possession of live, dead or non-viable embryos because no distinction is made in the Bill. We therefore need to establish whether a person knows what he is handling, what he may do, and what a person who takes part in in vitro fertilisation thinks he or she knows. Some hon. Members may think that the amendment is a trivial addition to the Bill, but it reveals a huge flaw. The difficulties in interpreting the law will be serious if we do not get the Bill right and it passes to the statute book.
      I fully understand the intention of the right hon. Member for South Down that an embryo produced by in vitro fertilisation should have a special status to safeguard it from abuse. I am sure that he never meant his Bill to apply to dead embryos. However, he does not say so. The Bill is imprecise. If a human embryo is conceived in vivo it has a one in five chance, and if it is conceived in vitro it has a one in three chance of aborting spontaneously, that is of miscarrying. Although that may happen at any stage in its development, it is more common for it to occur in the first few weeks after conception than later in pregnancy. It is standard medical practice for embryos that have miscarried, especially when it is a repeated event in the medical history of the mother, to be sent to a specialist laboratory for examination to see if a cause for the miscarriage can be found. That may be done using anatomical, biochemical, histological or cytogenetic techniques—in other words, a standard post mortem.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish to repeat to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill does not apply to an embryo after it has been inserted. That issue arises on amendment No. 12, about which there was an exchange earlier, acceptance of which would be merely confirmatory of the interpretation of the Bill. I thought that it would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if that were clear.
      Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because his comment is helpful to me. I know exactly what he means and what the Bill intends. However, there would still be a doubt in the minds of those who practise in vitro fertilisation about what they can or cannot do.
      The notion of a post mortem may be considered in another way when we consider embryos produced by in vitro fertilisation. Many such embryos stop dividing after one or two divisions. That is known as cleavage arrest, and the embryo referred to is an arrested embryo. That is not be confused with arrested in vitro fertilisers, who contravene the Bill. The arrested embryo cannot give rise to a pregnancy even if it is transferred to a uterus. It is nonviable in every sense of the word. Those embryos are effectively dying, if not already dead.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech may be more relevant on a later amendment.
      Mr. Crouch: In a debate such as this one says many things that would be relevant at a further stage. I
      588
      understand that. We need plenty of time to debate this significant Bill. The House knows that I have been calling on the Minister to make speeches on this subject for the past three months, and he has made speeches.
      Mr. Cash rose——
      Mr. Crouch: No, I must proceed, and I wish to observe Mr. Deputy Speaker's injunction.
      I was not aware that the Minister was trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if he is, I shall give him the opportunity to speak.
      Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Crouch: That is an extremely encouraging response from my hon. Friends.
      2.15 pm
      Mr. Wigley: Would the hon. Gentleman clarify one aspect of his remarks? I have been following his speech with close interest. Does he suggest that someone in possession of a dead embryo or one that is in the process of dying could be guilty of an offence under the Bill, unless there is clarification of the status of the embryo? If that is what he is saying, he is opening——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The status of the embryo does not arise in the amendments that we are discussing.
      Mr. Wigley: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the question whether a dead embryo is covered by the amendment is critical. It is extremely important to the interpretation——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have reminded the House that there are other amendments, which seem to be much more relevant and which, under our rules, we should not anticipate. I have so ruled.
      Mr. Crouch: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) makes an important point. The Bill is imprecise, and that is why we must ensure that it does not reach the statute book.
      When you told me earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stay within the confines of these amendments, I was saying that, if embryos are placed in the appropriate preservative for microscopy or are subjected to biochemical or chromosomal analysis, information may be revealed as to why an embryo arrested during development and became non-viable. One may regard that as an early mini-post mortem with exactly the same motives as though it were performed on a dead adult or foetus. The information gleaned might enable medical scientists to prevent cleavage arrest occurring in other embryos and thus improve success at in vitro fertilisation and embryo replacement. It may also provide clues to the mechanism that may cause spontaneous miscarriages.
      We need to know all those things, but we shall not know them through the Bill. If the Minister wishes to speak at this late stage, I shall willingly curtail my remarks. All that I am saying is that we must know much more precisely what is permitted under the Bill. It is not clear as it is drafted.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The proposer of the Bill—one of the great procedural experts of the day with whom I would hesitate to tangle—said clearly that the short title was not part of the Bill. However, clause 2(1) on page 3 of the Bill states:
      "This Act may be cited as the Unborn Children (Protection) Act 1985."

      589
      I submit to you, Sir, that the short title of a Bill is part of that Bill. Certainly it is the understanding of the hundreds of people who have written to many hon. Members. They start by saying:
      "As you may know, the report stage"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I understand it. The short title is part of the Bill.
      Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman complained that someone said that the short title was not part of the Bill, and he asked for my advice. I thought that I gave him the answer that he wanted. Yes, the short title is part of the Bill. Nothing further arises.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is not just that someone said it; the proposer of the Bill said it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whether it was the proposer of the Bill or anyone else, I hope that I have put the matter beyond doubt. I do not see how any further point can arise. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman should persist in this when many hon. Members are waiting to address the House.
      Mr. Frank Dobson: I shall address the House briefly on two topics, one of which was certainly not mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). One of the reasons why Members on both sides support the amendment to insert the word "knowingly" is that certain processes can accidentally lead to the creation of an embryo, and that embryo is not intended for placement in a specified woman.
      Techniques for testing ova and sperm involve bringing the two together without the intention of creating an embryo. For the sake of argument, let us accept that the crucial point in the creation of life is the making of the embryo. I personally do not accept that, but that is what the right hon. Gentleman and the supporters of the Bill are so concerned about. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members agree that when an embryo is created by accident as a result of action taken in good faith when testing an ovum or sperm, the person who creates the embryo should not be obliged to put it into a woman.
      Those responsible for running an infertility clinic might have doubts about the capacity of a man's sperm to penetrate the ovum of a particular woman, so it is then necessary and proper to do tests. Anyone who says that he does not object to in vitro fertilisation must accept that as proper and reasonable. Tests can determine whether that form of penetration is possible. If it is not, the in vitro fertilisation procedures are irrelevant until something can be done either to the ovum or to the sperm.
      It might be necessary to take sperm from someone not intended to be the father of a child to see whether it has the capacity to penetrate a particular woman's ovum. The scientists and the woman concerned need to know whether something is wrong with the ovum. Such procedures should not be inhibited.
      If the Bill remains as drafted, some honest, decent, humane clinician who carries out a test which by accident
      590
      creates an embryo should not be obliged to insert that embryo into a woman. That would be absurd. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: Is not my hon. Friend saying that the Bill will effectively stop all research and make in vitro fertilisation almost impossible?
      Mr. Dobson: I would go further. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has been listening, but this is not a facile matter. It involves the fertility of many women who are desperate to become fertile. We do not want facile contributions from the hon. Gentleman.
      It is not a question even of research. The sort of tests that I have been talking about are vital to the continuation of existing in vitro fertilisation techniques. When people go to an infertility clinic, humane, caring and responsible doctors have to carry out such tests if they are to do their job responsibly. It would not be proper for the House to countenance anything that inhibitied them from doing their job humanely and properly.
      Ms. Harman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has not given the House a single reason why the Bill should depart from the normal criminal law, that the definition of an offence must include the intention to have committed that offence? It is part of the flavour of the hysteria and irrationality of the Bill that the right hon. Member for South Down counsels us not to accept an amendment which would simply put this criminal offence on all fours with other criminal offences.
      Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it is not a question of intending to do something that proves to be unlawful. Without any concept of lawfulness or unlawfulness, clinicians might find themselves in possession of embryos that they had created by accident.
      Mr. Thurnham: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that research is important, because only one in 10 embryo implantations succeeds? The House should try to improve the chances of embryo implantation succeeding and not prevent the possibility of achieving an improvement.
      Mr. Dobson: I agree with that extremely valid and reasonable point. The hon. Gentleman made many similar points in Committee.
      Amendment No. 3 seeks the removal of the word "procure" and the substitution of "cause." The right hon. Member for South Down has explained that that proposition was considered in Committee and that he was convinced by our arguments against the use of "procure." He said that if he could come up with a better word, he would do so.
      The right hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to write to me to say that he had not been able to come up with a word that met his requirements. Therefore, I hope that he will appreciate that as we——
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Dobson: Not at the moment.
      In view of the fact that——
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Dobson: Not at this point.
      In view of the fact that——
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Labour Front Bench talking out the Bill?
      Hon. Members: Yes.
      Mr. Dobson: In view of the fact that——
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Dobson: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Powell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House proceeded to a Division——
      Dr. M. S. Miller (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important subject. There have been few speakers in the debate, none of whom was out of order. I resent the fact that the closure has been put when many hon. Members wish to speak.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have been debating the amendment for approximately one and a half hours. It is for the House to decide whether it should bring the debate to a conclusion. I do not decide. The House decides. I merely give the House the chance to make its decision.
      Dr. Miller (seated and covered)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is for the House to decide, but it is for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to decide whether to accept the closure.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is is for the House to vote upon whether it wishes to proceed to a conclusion on the matter before the House.
      Mr. Wigley (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) raised his point of order a few moments ago, he said that a number of hon. Members wished to speak in the debate. In those circumstances, why did you accept the closure before hon. Members, some of whom had tabled amendments, had been called to speak?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it became the practice of the Chair never to accept a motion for closure when there were still hon. Members wanting to address the House, we should never have closure motions. They would become superfluous.
      Mr. Dobson (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for my ludicrous appearance which is required by the rules of the House. This situation seems to some Opposition Members curious and contrary to order. When we debated an amendment in Committee, the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) gave an undertaking to try to come up with an amendment that met our requirements. He failed to do so. We have had no opportunity to make one point in favour of the amendment that we originally tabled. That seems contrary to the spirit of a Report stage which gives the House the opportunity to consider things that happened in Committee and to do something about them.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that any of those matters are points of order. The Report stage of any Bill is not open-ended so that every possible amendment can be tabled and every speaker heard.
      Mr. Crouch (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to tell the House that no tellers have been appointed for the Noes. I therefore declare that the Ayes have it.
      Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
      Mr. Wigley: That is a disgrace.
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Dobson (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The House having divided: Ayes 82, Noes 157.

      Division No. 197]

      [2.35 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      McKelvey, William

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      McWilliam, John

      Barnett, Guy

      Madden, Max

      Benn, Tony

      Maples, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Michie, William

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Clay, Robert

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Cohen, Harry

      Nellist, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Couchman, James

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Crouch, David

      Park, George

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Parris, Matthew

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Deakins, Eric

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Dobson, Frank

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Eastham, Ken

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Sims, Roger

      Flannery, Martin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'bury)

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Soley, Clive

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Spearing, Nigel

      Garrett, W. E.

      Spencer, Derek

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Squire, Robin

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Howells, Geraint

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Jackson, Robert

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Mr. Kevin Barron and

      Leighton, Ronald

      Mr. Willie W. Hamilton.

      NOES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Alton, David

      Cash, William

      Amess, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Anderson, Donald

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

      Beggs, Roy

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Beith, A. J.

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clarke, Thomas

      Benyon, William

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Corrie, John

      Blackburn, John

      Cowans, Harry

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      593

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Dicks, Terry

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Dixon, Donald

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Murphy, Christopher

      Dover, Den

      Neubert, Michael

      Dunn, Robert

      Newton, Tony

      Dykes, Hugh

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Eadie, Alex

      Nicholson, J.

      Eggar, Tim

      Normanton, Tom

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Favell, Anthony

      O'Brien, William

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Fox, Marcus

      Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

      Galley, Roy

      Pawsey, James

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Greenway, Harry

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Gregory, Conal

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

      Ground, Patrick

      Powley, John

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Harvey, Robert

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hayes, J.

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hirst, Michael

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Home Robertson, John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hordern, Peter

      Silvester, Fred

      Howard, Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Speed, Keith

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Hume, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hunter, Andrew

      Stanley, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Taylor, Rt Hon John David

      Kennedy, Charles

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Key, Robert

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Lambie, David

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Lang, Ian

      Tracey, Richard

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      McCrea, Rev William

      Waller, Gary

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Ward, John

      McCusker, Harold

      Watts, John

      McGuire, Michael

      White, James

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Maclean, David John

      Wilson, Gordon

      McNamara, Kevin

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Maginnis, Ken

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Major, John

      Woodall, Alec

      Malins, Humfrey

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Mates, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Mr. Ian Campbell and

      Merchant, Piers

      Mr. Peter Bruinvels.

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Further consideration, what day?
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No day named.

  Parliamentary Questions (Replies to Members)
  2.44 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair:: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order concerns both the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament, and the record of the House. When I have outlined the matter, I think that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is perhaps an extremely serious and, indeed, disgraceful episode.
  On Monday I tabled a parliamentary question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking, in particular, whether there had been any disclosure of departures from normal banking practice in the Bank of England's inquiries into Johnson Matthey Bankers. Yesterday, a reply was sent to the House of Commons and was lodged in the Hansard office. A reply was also put on the Letter Board in the Members' Lobby, under my name. Copies of that reply were also put in the Press Gallery. Later yesterday, a Treasury official came to the House and withdrew those original replies. In particular, he withdrew the reply that appeared under my name on the Letter Board in the Members' Lobby, and substituted for it an answer saying that I would be given a reply in due course.
  I am told that it has been accepted that that substitution and tampering with my mail actually took place. The immediate question is on whose instructions that tampering with my mail took place. I am informed—and I should be grateful, obviously, for confirmation of this—that it occurred subsequent to telephone conversations between the Treasury in London and Bonn. This morning, the record of the House appears not with the original reply, which was lodged in the Hansard office but with the substitute reply, saying that I would receive a reply in due course.
  I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule on two separate points of order. First, I ask you to rule on whether the record of the House can stand with the substituted reply or whether the original reply should not be put in the record of the House as the true reply. Secondly, I ask you to rule on whether my rights as a Member of Parliament, and in particular my right to have my mail freely left in my possession, have been tampered with and whether there is action that can be taken on this issue.
  You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this issue is obviously extremely serious, because of the way that these replies have come out and, in particular, because of the quite direct concealment of an original reply and its replacement with a reply that was less forthcoming. I seek your ruling.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I unreservedly apologise through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the House. My Department acted in good faith in seeking to recover answers that had been sent over in error without the authority of any Minister. If a breach of the rules of the House has occurred, it was unintentional and is regretted. On behalf of our staff, I unreservedly apologise to the House.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, Mr. Speaker will doubtless look into the matter. Perhaps it is sensible to leave the matter there.
  Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When Mr. Speaker inquires into this issue, I hope that it will be pointed out to him that one of the root problems that has resulted in tampering with the mail of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is that the Government have consistently refused to divulge the report of the inquiry into Johnson Matthey Bankers. It would be extremely helpful if that could be drawn to Mr. Speaker's attention. When we get hold of that report and find out that some of the Government's Tory friends were involved in that crooked dealing, we shall know why my hon. Friend's mail was tampered with——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The content of ministerial replies is not a matter for Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it the view of Ministers that the Treasury official who did this should tell the truth and should be had up in court No. 2 at the Old Bailey?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we should get on.

  Private Members' Bills

    SOLICITORS (INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 17 May.

    MINIMUM WAGES ETC. BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

    NORTHERN IRELAND (TERMINATION OF JURISDICTION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Second Reading what day? No day named.

    RECREATIONAL GARDENING BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 July.

    HORSES AND PONIES BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

    WORKING CONDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT TRAINEES BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

    PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY IN HOME OWNERSHIP BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With the leave of the House, I shall take both motions together.
  Statutory Instruments, &c.

    ENERGY
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Gerald Malone be discharged from the Energy Committee and Mr. Spencer Batiste be added.—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    TRANSPORT
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Harry Cowans be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr. David Marshall be added.—[Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Urban Renewal, Easterhouse
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  2.51 pm
  Mr. Hugh Brown: Even after 21 years in the House I still find the business on a Friday quite baffling on occasions. However, I am not so naive as to think that the attendance in the Chamber 10 or 15 minutes ago was in anticipation of my Adjournment debate. I am content with the presence of the appropriate Minister, who will be replying. I shall be directing myself to the economic development that is needed in Easterhouse, and I am happy that the Minister and I have the Chamber more or less to ourselves.
  It is 20 years ago since I raised an Adjournment debate on Easterhouse. Having committed myself to initiating another one, I thought that I should read what I said 20 years ago. I found that it was a good speech, naturally, but it made depressing reading because I am still asking for some of the things for which I was asking 20 years ago. That is one of the slightly depressing features of the debate.
  I have already advised the Minister that I shall refer to a few figures that have been taken from various documents, including the Easterhouse local plan discussion document draft, the city of Glasgow district council joint social and economic initiative for Easterhouse, Strathclyde regional council economic trends No. 8 of April and the CES report. The last report is a rather interesting research survey carried out by Glasgow district council, which is one of the client groups. Lastly, I shall refer to figures that are contained in a document on health education in areas of multiple deprivation. As the Minister knows, I am putting these sources on the record as a matter of convenience. The area that will feature in this debate is described in the local planning document. It is smaller than those which form some of the joint initiatives between Glasgow and Strathclyde. The officials who, I hope, read the report of the debate will be aware of the difference. However, that is a minor matter.
  The area that is the subject of the debate is defined in the local planning document. It has a population of about 40,000. I am aware that the Minister will not know all the details of the Easterhouse area. I say that in no disrespect, because I do not know all the details of parts of his constituency. However, it seems that many of those who have responsibility for making decisions—this comment is not confined to those in the Scottish Office—do not know the details of the areas for which they make decisions. In Easterhouse, there are 22 primary schools, four secondary schools, eight nursery schools, eight special schools and three community centres. That illustrates the size of the area or community that I am describing. However, Easterhouse lacks so many of the services and facilities that would normally be associated with a town of similar size.
  What are the problems? One of the most intractable is unemployment. Until last month, the average level of unemployment in Great Britain was 13·7 per cent. The Scottish figure is 16·1 per cent., that for Strathclyde is 18·9 per cent. and in Easterhouse it is 31·9 per cent. Male unemployment in Easterhouse is more than 40 per cent. I am sure that the Minister knows that in Eastwood it is only 6·6 per cent.
  598
  I am not one of those members of my party who think that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have set out to create unemployment. The Cabinet cannot solve the problem of unemployment, but that is different from accusing opponents of creating unemployment. However, the unfairness in the levels of unemployment and in the treatment of people is seen to be remarkable when the figures are put in that context. It is sheer chance that Eastwood is included in the Strathclyde report. I did not pick it out to embarrass the Minister, but it so happens that it has the lowest unemployment figure in Strathclyde, and it tells a story about the difference between even the areas in the Strathclyde region.
  There is serious overcrowding in Easterhouse, strange though that may seem in a public sector housing scheme. The overcrowding is about the worst in the whole country. There are social reasons for that which I do not have time to go into in this brief debate. However, there are twice as many families of two parents and more than four children in Easterhouse as there are in the city as a whole. There are three times as many single-parent families in Easterhouse as there are in the city as a whole. As for infant mortality rates, 46 babies per thousand die in their first year in this area, and that compares with a figure of 11 in Bishopbriggs. Effectively, through our own collective indifference, the community is not prepared to give the opportunity even for life to some of the babies born of deprived parents in the Easterhouse area.
  We have just concluded a long debate about the protection of unborn children. I wish that society showed more concern for some of the babies who are born but who, for reasons of social deprivation and others, do not live beyond a year.
  The immunisation take-up rate is less than 50 per cent., yet the average is more than 80 per cent. What is more, 50 per cent. of all secondary school children in the area receive free school meals. Car ownership is extremely low. There are hardly any professionals. The health of the community generally is not good.
  The health report says:
  "people in deprived areas may have a sense of apathy and isolation from the rest of society and indeed from services which are provided for them."
  I do not need a high-powered team of health administrators and sociologists to tell me that there is a feeling of isolation in the minds of people in such an area from the services which are available because in my opinion they are over-suspicious of authority.
  I think that I have established the need for urgent action, so what am I asking the Minister to do? Much has been done. I recognise that a lot of money has gone into the area. However, I quarrel with the Scottish Office about the decision on EEC poverty money. I know that it is only £95,000 a year for four years and that the official reply is that it is not worth the bother of inviting applications for that money from a large range of voluntary and statutory bodies. However, that could be indicative of the feeling of hopelessness in many communities. There are some professionally motivated agitators who fasten on to these matters—I am not one of them—because they recognise that here is money which is not being made available to add to some of the improvements already under way.
  I recognise the existing efforts—for example, the successful urban aid projects, such as the Easter festival society, the Easterhouse project, the committee on drug abuse—the Scottish Office has given money to that—

  599
  the Scot-Bic initiative—about which the Minister knows—the Glasgow district and Strathclyde regional joint initiative, the development by Crudens and Barratts—the Minister knows I have no ideological feeling about that—and other things in the pipeline such as the Barlanark community trust, the Barlanark part-value co-operative and the Provan community amenity trust.
  I am not complaining that within the traditional dishing out of money—whether urban aid or other grants—the area has not had its share. However, because of its problems, it is high time that we all address ourselves to what sort of new authority is required to deal with a huge peripheral scheme like Easterhouse.
  There are urban development corporations for England and for Wales, but not for Scotland—although I am not complaining that anyone is discriminating against Scotland. Scotland has new town development corporations. Why should we not have something like that in this area? We need a new authority.
  A new body—the Committee for Action in Towns—has been set up for areas of England and Wales to study the problems of city conurbations—for example, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and London. Scotland has nothing comparable.
  I am delighted that the Minister is to reply to the debate because I specifically wish to mention GEAR and SDA involvement. GEAR has been in existence since 1976 and will carry on for a couple more years. However, it is inevitable that its responsibilities will diminish over those two years. It has been in Motherwell, Coatbridge, Leith, Dundee and, in its last big initiative, in Inverclyde. The Minister knows that I have some experience in this area. It is right to ask the SDA to tackle the problems of a large peripheral area. It is a challenge to the Scottish Office. We should be first in the field, as we were with GEAR. The Secretary of State for Defence, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, copied many of the initiatives in Glasgow.
  The area development director of GEAR should be ready and, I hope, willing—with a little encouragement from the Scottish Office—to consider becoming more heavily involved. It needs encouragement. Direction is not the word, because that is not how these things are done. It would not be wrong for the Minister to give me a commitment at least to look at that possibility. I am not demanding that he does so, because I am too long in the tooth for that. It must be done diplomatically if we are to carry people with us—such as the authorities, the regions, the Housing Corporation, the health boards, and so on. All those statutory bodies need to become involved in the new structure that I think is badly needed.
  The SDA is already involved through the Queenslie industrial estate. There is a need for industrial development, with special references to specific matters such as Springhill farm.
  There is certainly need for the development of the shopping centre. I should have thought that, for phase two and associated developments, the SDA was ideally suited to become involved—perhaps with a mixture of private and public money. As I said, I am not making an ideological case. Commercial opportunities exist, and the SDA should be making a contribution. Indeed, we could even do with a bingo hall.
  Sites are zoned for private housing. In other words, a combination of industry, commerce, the shopping centre and private housing development presents a great deal of
  600
  potential in areas which are within the remit of the SDA. In the old GEAR area the same opportunities did not exist. In other words, there is no dereliction to get rid of before rebuilding can start.
  When, a couple of months ago, the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the establishment of city action teams, it was clear that that was another attempt by the Government to apply direction, guidance or initiative—call it what one will—to developments in England and Wales. I make no apology for the fact that I am indulging in some special pleading for an area that is recognised as being one of the—if not the—most deprived areas in the country.
  I hope that the Minister will regard the special pleading in which I am indulging as a challenge to use the influence of the Scottish Office to make some progress in the area. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary has problems, not least with education authorities, and that this may not be the right time to be asking authorities to co-operate in a new initiative. Nevertheless, I urge him to give sympathetic consideration to the idea of establishing a new authority which could create tremendous opportunities in the area, and, above all, give hope to the people who Live there.
  3.7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown)——
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Before the Minister replies to the debate, will he permit me a brief comment?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Member have the consent of his hon. Friend and the Minister?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it.
  Dr. Miller: I support strongly the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). As the Minister will be aware, I represent a town which has a development corporation. He will also be aware that in, for example, the city of Glasgow—the same can be said of other areas—large housing schemes were developed and built without satisfactory facilities having been provided. In other words, many such housing schemes were undesirable from the beginning, not from the housing point of view but because of a general lack of amenities.
  In referring to areas such as Easterhouse, we are speaking of places equivalent to relatively large towns, but without the amenities that similar conurbations have. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the request of my hon. Friend, who does not have a particular axe to grind in the matter, and help to make the area worth while for the people who live there. My hon. Friend pointed out that it has been done before in the Glasgow area. Let us develop in Easterhouse the kind of urban facilities that are needed.
  3.9 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I repeat my congratulations to the hon. Member for Provan on initiating the debate. He put forward in a fair way the problems of Easterhouse and provided the House with a great deal of useful information.
  I shall start with the theme of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). The difficulties of Easterhouse, as

  601
  the hon. Member for Provan also said, are typical of the problems of housing estates everywhere. It is a sad irony that the Easterhouse estates were built in the 1950s and 1960s with the best of intentions to provide higher standards of housing for those who were displaced by the massive slum clearance programmes in the city centre. What seemed a solution then has become a major problem in its own right.
  The hon. Member for Provan referred to the many reports and information about Easterhouse. I refer him to the Scottish Office central research unit's paper, published last October, which deals with areas of special need in Scotland. It classified every neighbourhood in Easterhouse as an area of special need, and placed 25 per cent. of Easterhouse in the worst 1 per cent. in Scotland for multiple deprivation. That analysis is intended to help local authorities to identify areas for priority treatment, and to help with the formulation and evaluation of area-based policies for tackling deprivation.
  We have all learnt that there are no magic solutions to urban deprivation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is easier to talk than to achieve. We must encourage in Easterhouse a viable local economy, an adequate range of job and social opportunities, adequate local amenities and, above all, a more balanced community. To cover the spectrum of community regeneration, we need a wide range of responses from a wide range of bodies, such as central and local government, the voluntary and private sectors and the community.
  The hon. Gentleman referred fairly to assistance to areas such as Easterhouse. Urban programme support for projects in Easterhouse has cost between £400,000 and £500,000 annually. That is significant in terms of total urban programme resources, and reflects the continuing commitment of the Scottish Office to support for Easterhouse. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a wide range of projects have been supported—a day nursery, a day centre for the elderly, the Easterhouse festival society and the Easterhouse summer festival. General emphasis is on improving the quality of life of the local residents and on fostering a community spirit. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we expect to be able to continue new local authority and voluntary sector initiatives in the Easterhouse area with urban programme resources.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of housing and the distribution of resources available for capital investment in housing in the city of Glasgow. That is a matter for the district council. It clearly recognises that Easterhouse is a priority area.
  Increasing the levels of public sector finance is not the only way forward for Easterhouse. A homesteading project, involving the sale and renovation of 216 houses, has already been successfully completed. That was a step towards varying the pattern of tenure within Easterhouse. The South Rogerfield development is a further private sector project. Private developers have moved in to commence the rehabilitation of tenement blocks in an imaginative scheme which also involves the new build of sheltered and general needs housing.
  A variety of other possible ventures, either tried and tested in other areas or still at the planning stage, may contribute to improving the housing fabric and environment. There is a range of ways in which the private sector can be involved in rehabilitation and development.
  602
  The establishment of many forms of co-operatives has proved to be a successful way of involving the community in improving the area.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the provision of health services. The main element in the board's strategy to meet the health needs of areas of multiple deprivation has been the health centre building programme, and he will know that the health centre for Easterhouse was included in that programme and completed in 1983. I also draw his attention to the fact that the Greater Glasgow health board participates with the regional council in a joint working group on health and deprivation. The group has recently undertaken a review and monitoring exercise of the provision of community services to the greater Easterhouse area.
  The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the economic problems of Easterhouse. To deal with his point about the poverty programme, I should say that my hon. Friend concluded, reluctantly, that the limited potential benefits to Scotland of the programme were not outweighed by the substantial disadvantages.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Scottish Development Agency, which is involved in two ways, first, through the Greater Easterhouse partnership. That is an experimental self-help scheme involving the private and public sectors, which seeks to combat economic, social and environmental problems by involving the local community. It is 50 per cent. financed by the business community, with the balance shared among the district, the region and the agencies. I welcome in principle the establishment of that partnership, which represents a potentially valuable addition to the framework of resources available in the area, with special reference to the wider initiative proposed by the local authorities.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the agency's involvement in industrial premises. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Glasgow eastern area renewal project, which has been a considerable success. The Government have sustained their commitment to it. We are beginning to draw the lessons from GEAR, and evaluation will continue during the next few years. One main lesson is that it is impossible to overvalue the importance of a coordinated and strategic approach. The active co-operation of a wide range of agencies is crucial, and that was the main theme of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Secondly, it is vital to consult and involve local communities and businesses, because they are the people who live in the area. Thirdly, there is in Glasgow a strong civic pride that helps to unite the disparate interests of the public and private sectors and enables a strategy that seeks to harness the enterprise of local firms and other forms of self-help initiative. All this is bound to be relevant to initiatives in other areas. Future initiatives need not be carbon copies of the Glasgow project, because circumstances vary from area to area.
  An important initiative has been taken by Strathclyde regional council and Glasgow district council, which are currently working out plans for a joint initiative in Easterhouse. It will involve taking action to reduce unemployment and poverty, improve health and housing conditions and improve the quality of services and facilities. Both councils have committed themselves in principle to the initiative, and I confirm that discussions are continuing with the local community to prepare a detailed programme of action.

  603
  In response to the general theme of the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is important to remember that the councils aim to involve a wide range of other bodies in the initiative. Both the Greater Glasgow health board and the Scottish Development Agency have already agreed to participate and to contribute resources to fund the initiative. The agency's involvement is important. The agency will consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said today and will approach the problems positively.
  It is particularly pleasing that private sector involvement is also to be sought. There is every reason to expect central Government support in the form of urban programme funding and European Community assistance from the regional development fund and/or the social fund.
  604
  All the lessons of the GEAR project show that such an initiative based on pooling a wide range of activities and resources, so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, is the best way to tackle effectively the deep-rooted problems in areas such as Easterhouse.
  The initiative is important. I can confirm that the SDA will be actively and positively involved. We are talking about priorities within exising expenditure programmes, but there is a general willingness in central Government to make available appropriate assistance and support for the benefit of the people of Easterhouse.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Three o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Teachers (Dispute)
  Teachers (Dispute)
  Mingary-Tobermory Ferry
  Mingary-Tobermory Ferry
  Broadleaved Woodland
  Broadleaved Woodland
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Famine Relief
  Famine Relief
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  European Community
  European Community
PAYMASTER-GENERAL
  Departmental Committees of Inquiry
  Departmental Committees of Inquiry
PRIME MINISTER
  Prime Minister of Canada
  Prime Minister of Canada
  Widdicombe Inquiry
  Widdicombe Inquiry
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police (Marksmen)
  Metropolitan Police (Marksmen)
  Women Prisoners (Self-mutilation)
  Women Prisoners (Self-mutilation)
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Television Detector Vans
  Television Detector Vans
ENERGY
  Market Research
  Market Research
  Fuel Costs
  Fuel Costs
EMPLOYMENT
  Wages
  Wages
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
NATIONAL FINANCE
  "International Financial Statistics Yearbook"
  "International Financial Statistics Yearbook"
  Premium Bond Sales
  Premium Bond Sales
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Commemorative Coins
  Commemorative Coins
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
ENVIRONMENT
  Royal Docks (STOLport)
  Royal Docks (STOLport)
  Conservation
  Conservation
  London Lesbian and Gay Centre
  London Lesbian and Gay Centre
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Nerve Gas Bombs
  Nerve Gas Bombs
DEFENCE
  Radio Emissions
  Radio Emissions
  RAF Bishopscourt
  RAF Bishopscourt
  Frigates and Destroyers
  Frigates and Destroyers
  Contracts (Tendering)
  Contracts (Tendering)
  RAF Trainer Aircraft
  RAF Trainer Aircraft
  Royal Navy
  Royal Navy
  Defence School of Music
  Defence School of Music
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  Magilligan prison
  Magilligan prison
  HM Prison, Armagh
  HM Prison, Armagh
  Local Government Elections
  Local Government Elections
  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors (Pay)
  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors (Pay)
  Medical Cards
  Medical Cards
  Local Government Electors
  Local Government Electors
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Elderly Mentally Infirm
  Elderly Mentally Infirm
  Management Consultants
  Management Consultants
  NHS (Price Rises)
  NHS (Price Rises)
  Invalid Vehicles (Petrol Allowance)
  Invalid Vehicles (Petrol Allowance)
  Claimants (Order Books)
  Claimants (Order Books)
  Contraception (Minors)
  Contraception (Minors)
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Prescribing
  Prescribing
  Pensions
  Pensions
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  EC (Cereal Stocks)
  EC (Cereal Stocks)
  Milk
  Milk
  Monofilament Nets
  Monofilament Nets
  Olive Oil
  Olive Oil
  EC (Spending)
  EC (Spending)
  Cereals
  Cereals
  Birds (Special Protection Areas)
  Birds (Special Protection Areas)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Telecommunications Equipment
  Telecommunications Equipment
  Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
  Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  British Telecom
  British Telecom

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

Namibia: Future Government
Lord Paget of Northampton: 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 co-operate with South Africa in her task of setting up a transitional government in Namibia of general representation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): No, my Lords. The proposed transitional government, which comprises only some of the Namibian political parties, has no status under the United Nations plan and we shall regard its establishment as null and void. As we have made clear to the South African Government, the United Nations plan is the only agreed basis for internationally recognised independence in Namibia, and we remain committed to it.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, when are the Government going to wake up to the fact that the United Nations plan was never practical and has been dead for years? Are they aware that South Africa has carried and subsidised the Namibian budget by over a third and that is the sole reason why alone in black Africa Namibia is not starving and has had no famine? Is the Minister further aware that since those proposals came, South Africa, with her own army and at her own expense, has fought a highly successful war to protect Namibia from communist invasion in the north? Is he also aware that this proposal is for the tyranny of a single tribe? May I just ask the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Paget of Northampton:—before he gets too excited about getting to his feet, who is going to pay for the United Nations proposal? South Africa has been putting up something like £½ billion a year.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said, the Government remain committed to the United Nations plan. I therefore reject the basis of all the noble Lord's supplementary questions.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are aspects of the United Nations position on this which are beginning to look increasingly unrealistic? First, as the noble Lord, Lord Paget, said, Namibia is one of the few parts of Africa which has been famine-free, thanks to South African protection—and I use that term "protection". Secondly, South Africa has a rather different standing
472
than it used to have in that it is now a friend of Mozambique which of course should commend it to the Left do-gooders.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, both the contact group of which the United Kingdom is a member and, indeed, the South African Government remain committed to the United Nations plan, and that is the basis of our policy.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while the major nations involved with the United Nations plan have been somewhat dilatory in implementing what is required, nevertheless what he stated here this morning will be welcomed by all sane and civilised people as standing by those who are suffering such oppression in Namibia?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his words. Our policy remains to ensure that the people of Namibia have a chance to choose for themselves the Government that they require.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, will the Minister accept that his robust Answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Paget, will be widely welcomed, as, indeed, has been indicated by my noble friend Lord Molloy? Does he agree that it is regrettable that speedier progress has not been made towards independence, as has been noted by the meeting recently in New Delhi of the non-aligned movement? Can he say what further steps are contemplated by the Western contact group to try to get things moving further?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, I agree that swifter progress would have been welcome, but unhappily it has not been achieved. The contact group as such has not been particularly active recently, as the noble Lord will be aware, but happily discussions are continuing among the United States, the South Africans and, indeed, the Angolans, and we hope that an agreed settlement will emerge before long.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord's statement gives satisfaction, I think, to the whole House, but does he agree that despite, or, indeed, perhaps because of, the fact that nothing has happened for a long time, now might be the moment for the United Kingdom to take a more active role in the contact group, especially in view of the fact that the United States, which as the noble Lord has just told us has been taking the lead so far, has given the South African Government the excuse for the delay over the past four or five years by suggesting to them the linkage with the withdrawal of Cuban troops in Angola?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that the Government's position on linkage has been previously well rehearsed. While we do not accept the formal existence of the kind of linkage to which the noble Lord refers, nonetheless it is a fact of life that both the United States and the South African Government have made their position clear on that. It seems unrealistic to imagine that progress can be made without some recognition of that view.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, although I totally welcome the noble Lord's initial Answer, may I ask him whether he has read the report of the all-party delegation which recently visited Namibia and of which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was a distinguished member? If so, has he recognised from it the degree of murder and torture by the occupying forces of South Africa and the rape of the economy of that country which will continue so long as the South Africans occupy it? Do Her Majesty's Government have any plans to take action to stop what is an international scandal?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have consistently made our concern about human rights issues in Namibia known to the South African authorities, both privately and in public statements. We shall continue to follow the situation there closely.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord take note that the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, were riot verbatim from the report which he cited?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that under the previous internal administration in Namibia a few years ago most apartheid laws were abolished, as anybody who has recently visited Namibia will have observed, and the Civil Service was thrown open to qualified people of all races? Therefore, is it not positively desirable that another internal administration be set up to carry on the good work?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, while what the noble Lord says about the previous government in Namibia is no doubt true, the fact remains that it suffered from the fundamental flaw that it had not been chosen by the people.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am a little surprised by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, since, after visiting the country, he signed a unanimous report to exactly the opposite effect to what he says today? Should one go on wandering about with a policy that is obviously obsolete and not try to get on with what is being done very positively in the country now?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord may like to consider settling his differences with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, over a drink in the bar later.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I briefly say that in fact I issued a minority report, which was the subject of a debate on the BBC in which I took part, and I disagreed with 99 per cent. of what the rest of the South African sycophants published in their official report.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, two drinks may be needed!

Owner-Occupied Let Property: Repossession
11.14 a.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: 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, in the light of the recent case of Pocock v. Steel, how they propose to assist owner-occupiers who, having let their homes, find they are unable to regain possession.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government fully understand the implications of the Court of Appeal's decision for landlords who have let their homes intending to seek possession using Case 11 of Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction hopes to make an announcement very soon about what action will be taken.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that comment. I am delighted to hear that some action will be taken. I should like to ask him whether he agrees that this is at the moment a great disincentive to an owner-occupier who lets his property, and that because of that it is keeping off the market properties that would otherwise be available at a time when there is a great need for further accommodation for rent.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, at this remove it is of course difficult to say precisely how Parliament intended Case 11 to work when it was originally enacted in the Rent Act 1965. However, the decision of the Court of Appeal has overturned the widely accepted view of its effect—the widely accepted view, I might add, which has been held by all Governments since. I agree with my noble friend that the decision may well deter owners from letting their homes. That is one of the reasons why the Government are looking urgently at what action can be taken.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the use of the term "urgently" falls like honey among us because there is a real problem in relation to rented accommodation? Has my noble friend's attention been drawn to the statement by the Small Landlords Association that yesterday's decision in the Street v. Mountford case makes the matter even more acute and threatens to deprive labour of the opportunity to rent accommodation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House often hears the words "urgently", "very shortly" and so on from this Box. However, may I say that in this case "urgently" is a good deal quicker than "very shortly". However, in answer to my noble friend's question I am aware of the judgment given yesterday by the Law Lords in the case of Street v. Mountford on the subject of letting under contract, the press reports of which I read this morning. The Government will obviously need a little time to consider the implications of this most important case. We shall certainly take account of it in the review of the Rent Acts which we are currently conducting.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Government agree that the need for an increase in the amount of rented accommodation available is now extremely urgent? Can the Government assure us that their inquiry will not only go into this particular case, nor even only into the reform of the Rent Acts which may be necessary, but will look at the general need for more rented accommodation, in particular possibly the encouragement of local authorities to provide some more rented accommodation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot remember whether the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, took part in our discussions on this very wide subject on Wednesday of last week. However, I accept that the inquiry to which I have just referred has been taking a long time to accomplish. There is very good reason for this, as the subject surrounding the review has wide implications for a large number of people. I can only add that only fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the obscurity and complexity of the Rent Acts lead to a frustration in regard to lettings, and not only in this particular context? Does he recall the words of an eminent lawyer and parliamentarian that anybody is very lucky if he is ever right about anything on the Rent Acts?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. Not having the legal experience of my noble friend, I am afraid I do not recall that particular comment, but, of course, I totally agree with what he has said.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister accept that Members of these Benches will warmly welcome the Answer he gave to the original Question, which was that the matter is being looked at urgently? The judgment in the case of Pocock v. Steel is a judgment whereby the Government have an obligation to protect landlords from what the judge in fact said was his own illogical decision. Bearing in mind that as long ago as March 14th his right honourable friend the Minister for Housing told me that he well understood the problems, I want the Minister to understand that when he says that he and his colleagues are looking at this matter urgently we very much hope that that means it will be done as quickly as possible. Unless the matter is put right, we shall have a situation whereby people who go abroad will be deprived of their homes—in other words, will be homeless—or, alternatively, where a source of letting, which has been of benefit both to landlords and to tenants will be taken off the market.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I almost totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, but this particular judgment concerns a case where a landlord relets while he is still abroad. With that proviso, I accept totally what the noble Lord says.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister confirm the information that I have been given that it is not even necessary to relet but that even to extend the original letting to the orginal tenant could still disqualify the owner from obtaining possession?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is obviously something that we shall be looking into in our urgent consideration of this case.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can I ask the Minister just one further question? Does he realise that many people may already inadvertently be finding themselves in the position where this has happened to them? Will the Government take that into consideration?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. But I do not want to trail any false herrings.

Chemical Weapons and NATO
11.21 a.m.
Lord Kennet: 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 there is any formal consultative procedure relating to the use of chemical weapons in the NATO area similar to that which exists concerning the use of nuclear weapons, and if not whether the decision rests in the hands of the United States President alone.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I reminded your Lordships on 24th April, there are no chemical weapons declared to NATO. Political control of the limited United States stocks of chemical weapons is, of course, a matter for the United States.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government accept that the fact that if binary weapons were manufactured they could safely be stored in the United States will not really be a godsend of a solution, as one might be tempted to think? Will not the situation even then remain extremely unsatisfactory? Is not chemical disarmament the only real rational goal? In the meantime, should there not be a system of NATO political release for chemical weapons as there is for nuclear weapons?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord that what we need to achieve in this area is a total and verifiable ban on all aspects of the manufacture, stocking and use of these weapons. That, as I explained to your Lordships the other week, is the essence of our policy in this matter. The other difficulties that the noble Lord describes point, I think, to the rightness of that policy.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm reports that the USSR is still building up its stock of chemical weapons?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have no reason to believe that the USSR is showing any constraint in this area or indeed in any other.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in any consultations that take place with our allies, the Government will continue to impress upon our allies their view and decision that

477
this country does not intend to resume either the production or possession of chemical weapons and that it will continue to press in the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva for a complete treaty or convention on chemical weapons and will continue with the admirable work that Her Majesty's Government have been doing there?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support of what is in fact our policy.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as the Soviet Union may not follow our fine example on disarmament with regard to chemical weapons is there not a great risk of their possibly being used—a greater risk than the use of nuclear weapons—and should not we, in the NATO countries, therefore prepare to protect our people against possible chemical attack?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are doing that, too. Our defensive stance with regard to chemical weapons is one to which we attach great importance and to which we are giving considerable thought at the present time.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in view of the desirability of getting agreement for a verifiable ban on chemical weapons, which I hope the noble Lord agrees is desirable, will the Government think about proposing that NATO should perhaps offer to reduce a class of weaponry in which it is superior to the Soviet Union as a quid pro quo so that we can start a build-down rather than a continuous build-up in weaponry?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that the best approach to a solution of these problems whether it be in chemical weapons, in nuclear weapons or indeed in any other, is a step by step approach. That is the course that we are following and the one, I believe, that is the most likely to produce the desired results.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether his helpful and interesting answers on the question of chemical weapons also include biological weapons?
Lord Trefgarne: Not exactly, my Lords. Biological weapons as distinct from chemical weapons—they are different—are covered by a different and frankly more effective convention already in force.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord said in answer to a supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the Soviet Union may well be manufacturing chemical weapons. Will he say whether we have in fact evidence to that effect? Will he recall the meeting that he attended earlier in the week when it was said by one authority that the Soviet Union had 200,000 tonnes; by another authority, equally firmly, that it had 300,000 tonnes; while another authority implied that there were stocks left over from the last war and that they were deteriorating?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the amount of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union is, we believe, in the region of 300,000 tonnes. This, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, the other day, is a United Kingdom estimate. In recent years there has been an increase, I think, in the amount held by the Soviet Union. In any event, as the noble Lord says, stocks deteriorate; so I am quite clear that manufacture on the Soviet side is continuing.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, are we prepared to say that we shall never be the first to use chemical weapons?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall never be the first to use any weapon save in response to an attack.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in view of the fact that General Rogers, the American Supreme Commander in Europe, has stated that he would like to see a system of multilateral political control of chemical weapons in NATO, will the Government now put forward such a proposal in NATO; and if not, why not?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the views of the Supreme Commander are, of course, most important, but ultimate decisions in these matters must remain with the political leaders.

Arms Procurement Programme: Head
11.27 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 communication they have received from the Civil Service Commissioners relating to the salary, appointment and terms of contract of the recently appointed Head of the Government Arms Procurement Programme.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has explained in another place, the Civil Service Commissioners indicated that, in the particular circumstances obtaining, they were satisfied that the appointment of Mr. Levene should proceed without the issue of a certificate of qualification under the provisions of Article 1(2)(g) of the Civil Service Order in Council 1982. Questions of salary and conditions of service are not matters for the commissioners.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he not aware that job interchange between private industry and the Civil Service is acknowledged and accepted by everyone, but that there are certain rules that should have been adhered to involving the Civil Service Commissioners which according to the Prime Minister were not adhered to in this instance? In her words, there were technical illegalities. Is the noble Lord aware that this can only damage good relations between the official side and the staff side? Can the Minister not declare today that every endeavour will be undertaken to see that these infringements will not occur again?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the case that it was originally thought that it would not be necessary to refer this matter to the Civil Service Commissioners because the original intention was that this should be on the basis of secondment. As a matter of fact, the Civil Service Commissioners thought that, too. I do not therefore think that the problem that the noble Lord indicates will arise.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that in the case of civil servants who may wish to take up a commercial appointment on leaving the service, certain restrictions very properly apply? Can the noble Lord say whether the same restrictions apply to this very sensitive post; and if not, why not?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to what Mr. Levene may do when he ceases to occupy this post, the answer is that, yes, then restrictions will certainly apply.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the matter has not been handled properly? On the one hand there is this enormous salary paid to the individual involved; and, on the other hand, an enormous increase in unemployment with nurses, doctors, junior doctors and other people who serve the health services being held to minimum wage increases. Does the noble Lord not agree that if there had been a proper relationship all the way through there would not have been the disgruntlement that now exists not only in the Civil Service but in other great departments of state?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am bound to say that I cannot immediately see the relevance of that observation.

Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill
11.30 a.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The origins of this Bill lie in a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The judgment was made in the case of Campbell and Cosans, and it related to the issue of respect for a philosophical conviction. It had been claimed by the applicants that, where a parent holds a conviction against corporal punishment in schools it amounts to a philosophical conviction which is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. The court upheld the claim. The United Kingdom is bound by that ruling, and the Bill secures compliance with it.
In one important regard the Bill goes beyond what is strictly necessary for that purpose. We could have secured compliance through legislation confined to respect for philosophical convictions. But philosophical convictions are difficult to handle. They imply strongly held beliefs, and a substantial degree of cogency and seriousness. Who could safely determine which parents truly held philosophical convictions and which did not? The Bill therefore does not directly address the question of such convictions—it
480
introduces a scheme based on parental wishes. If a parent wishes to exempt a child from corporal punishment at school then that wish is to be respected and questions about philosophical convictions do not arise.
In all other ways, however, the Bill goes as far as, and no further than, is necessary to meet the court's judgment. Some would like it otherwise. They would like the Bill to enforce abolition of corporal punishment in all our schools. That is not necessary and in our view is wholly undesirable; but the arguments about enforced abolition figured prominently in the discussions of the Bill in the other place; and I shall attempt to tease them out.
Some would argue that reasonable and moderate corporal punishment is per se unacceptable. They would wish the Bill to be an abolitionist Bill because, in their view, corporal punishment has no proper place in schools. For them it is a matter of high principle and in defence of that principle strong, emotive words are sometimes used. Cases of moderate and reasonable corporal punishment are described as "thrashings" "beatings" and "floggings". A smack on the leg is seen as an affront to dignity, and to that way of thinking the full panoply of the law must be brought to bear against it in all situations, whatever the views of parents, whatever the views of teachers.
Others would like the Bill to abolish corporal punishment because, in their view, that form of punishment is ineffective. Sweeping aside the opinions of many teachers, they argue that corporal punishment does not work; it does not deter. Their argument is that because it does not work it should be outlawed—or at least that is what they imply, because the argument, once displayed, is shown to be hollow. Schools and parents should not be left to make up their own minds. Legislation, they imply, should be introduced to prevent its use.
Others claim that abolition is the only practical way forward because any exemption scheme must be inherently unfair. Their assumption is that fairness and uniformity are inseparable; that fairness demands identical treatment. They leave to one side the fact that there are existing differences in the way pupils are punished. They ignore the fact that adjacent schools may well have different policies and that teachers in adjacent classrooms may have different approaches. We know that girls are sometimes exempted from corporal punishment while boys are not. Sometimes pupils with emotional problems are exempted, as indeed delicate pupils may be. But those facts seem to be pushed to the back of the mind.
The Government are unconvinced by any of the arguments in favour of enforced abolition. The Bill is based on the premise that reasonable and moderate corporal punishment can be an appropriate sanction.
Many thousands of parents and teachers agree with us. We are not prepared to ride roughshod over their views, or to disregard the opinion of so many people that reasonable and moderate use of this sanction has a place in school discipline. As to the fairness of the exemption scheme, we cannot accept the proposition that absolute uniformity in methods of discipline must prevail. Those who deserve punishment should be punished, and those who cannot be made liable to

481
corporal punishment should be subject to some other form of discipline.
We have therefore introduced a Bill based on an exemptions scheme. The Bill gives parents a new right without withdrawing their existing rights. It is the right to exempt their children from corporal punishment at school; it is a direct and unequivocal response to the judgment in the case of Campbell and Cosans, bringing United Kingdom legislation in line with the court's interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I now turn briefly to the clauses of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4 relate to England and Wales; Clause 5 covers Scotland; Clause 6 relates to Northern Ireland; and the remaining clauses of the schedule are of a general nature. Clause 1 is fundamental to the Bill. It defines corporal punishment and restricts its use. Only those pupils whose names are entered in a register are to be liable to it. The clause provides a remedy where pupils are corporally punished despite a parental claim for exemption. The remedy takes the form of civil proceedings in which the defence of acting in loco parentis would be unavailable to the teacher or other member of staff, as defined by the clause.
The definition of corporal punishment is broad and brings within itself slaps, smacks and other forms of physical chastisement. There is, however, no new restriction on a teacher's right to intervene physically where there is immediate danger to person or property. The clause defines pupils covered by the Bill. In particular, it ensures that pupils at maintained schools and those whose fees are paid wholly or in part directly from public funds come within an exemptions scheme. The legislation will not apply to most pupils at independent schools.
Clause 2 prevents abuse of the exemptions scheme through suspension, expulsion or refusal of admisssion. It stops a school from saying an exempted child is automatically unamenable to discipline and can therefore be debarred from school on that ground alone. This clause was added to the Bill as it proceeded through the other place and in response to concern that schools might find excuses for keeping out, or expelling, pupils whose parents wished to exempt them from corporal punishment. We intend that the new parental right should be real and as a safeguard have incorporated this clause. My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said,
"parents should not be unduly penalised for their philosophical convictions as they might be if schools resorted to debarments as a way of escaping the Bill's provisions".—[OfficialRepon, Commons, 15/4/85; col. 581
Clause 3 set out the essential framework of a register system. It is around this framework that the regulations will be prepared. We envisage a register in which the names of pupils liable to corporal punishment would be placed. The scheme would work as follows. Once a school had decided to make some or all of its pupils liable to corporal punishment, it would seek the views of the parents of those pupils. That would be done by way of a standardised form sent to the pupils' home addresses. At least six weeks would be allowed for the return of the form.
482
On the basis of the replies, the register would be completed. Where a parent sought exemption, the pupil's name would be deleted from the register. Where a parent wished the pupil to be liable to corporal punishment, that fact would be recorded and the pupil would be liable. If, within six weeks, the parents had not replied the school could, if it so wished, and after taking steps to remind the parents, record the pupil as being liable to corporal punishment. At any stage a parent could change his or her mind, with a short waiting period when the change was from liability to exemption, or the school could arrange exemption on its own authority. Certain parents living away from the pupil's home address would be able to exempt him.
Clause 4 places responsibility for the maintenance of registers on school governing bodies, proprietors and, for pupils in nursery schools and those educated otherwise than at school, local education authorities. It also makes miscellaneous provisions for the production of register extracts in legal proceedings, for the service of notices, or in plain language the return of consent and exemption views, and for Clauses 1 to 4 to form part of the Education Acts. The clause also gives the Secretary of State one additional power. It allows him to terminate a participation agreement between the Secretary of State and the proprietor of an Assisted Places Scheme school if the school does not comply with the regulations. This is a small but necessary power.
Clause 5 creates an exemptions scheme for Scotland and takes account of some differences between the situation there and that in England and Wales. It allows 16- and 17-year-olds to exempt themselves from corporal punishment. This mirrors the position accorded young persons in other aspects of Scottish educational legislation, for example, rights relating to choice of school. The terms of the clause also reflect the long-standing policy in Scotland relating to corporal punishment. The Secretary of State for Scotland has encouraged gradual elimination of corporal punishment and that process has been largely completed. That is a rather different policy from that in England and Wales, where many parents and teachers see a place for the moderate and reasonable use of that sanction in schools. But the Government are at one in rejecting the possibility of enforced abolition. Clause 5 goes towards making this a United Kingdom Bill under which an exemptions scheme will apply wherever corporal punishment is retained as a school sanction.
Clause 6 anticipates a parallel exemptions scheme in Northern Ireland; and as I have said, Clauses 7 and 8 are of general nature, among other things providing for different sections of the Bill to be brought into force at different times. We have it in mind that the exemptions scheme should be fully in operation by September 1986. We need to give schools time to consider and implement their policies.
In conclusion, this Bill is needed to comply with the court's judgment in the case of Campbell and Cosans. We cannot evade the judgment, nor should we seek to do so. The provisions of the Bill avoid a centralist line, encouraging schools and parents to make up their own minds about the use of corporal punishment. Where both schools and parents agree on this issue, we should

483
not, through legislation, prevent them from using that sanction. The Government's view is that parents will welcome the legislation and will exercise their new right responsibly. The signs are that if they are given the opportunity of making a choice, many parents will accept that the schools' disciplinary approaches, including corporal punishment, should apply as much to their own children as to others. A MORI poll earlier this year showed that, leaving aside the "Don't knows", some 63 per cent. of parents interviewed favoured the use of corporal punishment in schools, and that a slightly higher proportion—65 per cent.—would be willing to allow their own children to be liable to it.
As to the overall effect of the Bill, the financial implications are small. The administrative costs, including postage, will be slight; and the Government do not envisage an increase in local authority staffing complements as a result of the Bill. At the level of individual schools, some that have relied heavily on corporal punishment may need a period of adjustment. But the exemptions scheme is workable and in its operation may well draw parents and schools together in the knowledge that both have responsibilities in matters of discipline. I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Baroness Cox.)
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—I think that is the proper term—can she clarify one point for me? Does the Bill mean that children in one class can receive corporal punishment whereas other children in the same class cannot receive corporal punishment?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I think that this point will become clear; but in principle, yes, it means that that could be the case. It is according to the parents' wishes and the policy of the school.
11.46 a.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I am sure that we shall all wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on her first major appearance at that Box and her first appearance on an educational matter. She will have not only our congratulations but our admiration and sympathy on having put up so spirited a defence of one of the silliest pieces of legislation that has ever come before the House.
Why have we got this extraordinary Bill? It is the result of two pressures. On the one hand, we accept the validity of the European Convention on Human Rights, and on the other hand we are now the only country in Europe which permits corporal punishment of children in its schools. It is the coming together of those two things which has landed the Government with what they believe is the necessity of producing the present Bill. Of course, like so much of the educational legislation of this Government it means yet more paperwork and form filling, some of which is bound to fall on the unfortunate teachers who had quite a dose of that added to them in the 1980 and 1981 Education Acts.
484
How is it going to work? The responsible body, as it is called, the school, has first of all to decide whether it is going to allow any children in its care to be subjected to corporal punishment. The responsible body will usually, although not invariably, be the governors of the school. But what is to happen in those local authorities where the local authority has itself already forbidden corporal punishment? Can the governors of a school in the area of such a local authority say, "No, we are going to have under this Bill a register of children liable to corporal punishment"? If they produce such a register, and a teacher inflicts corporal punishment, can he plead the register and this Bill in defence when the local authority asks him why he has disobeyed its clear instruction on this matter?
In fact, who has the legal power to decide whether or not there shall be corporal punishment in a school: the board of governors or the local authority? The Government do not appear to have sorted that out. Perhaps before the debate ends we may have an answer to it. If the governors decide to have a register of children liable to corporal punishment, children can be got off that register if, as the Bill says, a parent objects. I notice that the words in the Bill are, "a parent". I presume therefore that if the two parents are of a different opinion an objection by either of them would take the child's name off the register. So we have a Bill which is liable to create not only a certain amount of confusion in school discipline, but also a certain amount of discord in the home as well. So far as I can see, that is what it must mean. One takes it as a matter of common sense and of law that the word "parents" covers "guardian" or anyone who is properly in charge of the child.
We notice that in order to free the child from liability to corporal punishment the parent has to act. It may be said that that is not difficult; no, it is not. But we always have a certain number of parents for whom the filling in of forms is a difficulty. This particularly applies to those belonging to ethnic minorities whose mother tongue is not English and for whom this is yet another piece of bureaucracy that puts them at something of a disadvantage compared with the other body of parents. I cannot see that that is desirable.
I was glad that the noble Baroness referred to the striking provision that in Scotland anyone aged 16 can decide for himself whether or not he will be liable to corporal punishment. I am sure that there are reasons running back into the history of Scotland for this legal difference, but I do not see why the Government should not have taken the opportunity to introduce a vestige of common sense into the proceedings. If a Scottish boy or girl aged over 16 can be trusted to take that decision, I do not see why English and Welsh children of the same age should not be given the same privilege. However, this anomaly is apparently to be embedded in this Bill.
When all this is done—when the register is prepared, the parents have made up their mind once and possibly changed it again, and the father and mother, if they disagree, have somehow reached an agreement on what is to be done—we are still left with the situation which my noble friend who intervened at the end of the speech of the noble Baroness pointed out, in which two children in the same class who have committed the same offence can be punished in quite

485
a different manner. The noble Baroness replied in effect that justice does not require uniformity of treatment. That is true, but it is a far cry from that to saying that justice requires that there shall be disuniformity of treatment. That is what the Bill does. It puts the teacher in a position where two pupils have behaved in a very similar manner, in a manner that deserves rebuke or punishment, and one of them can receive corporal punishment while the other cannot. The Bill is complied with; that is what will happen. We all listened to the defence by the noble Baroness that lack of uniformity is capable of being justice. Well, all I can say is, let her try persuading the boy who has received the corporal punishment in those circumstances that that was fair, and she will not get very far with it. This was clear enough to a member of the Government, the noble Baroness's colleague, the Lord Advocate, when he pleaded the British case before the Court of Human Rights. I shall quote what he said on that occasion:
"Lord Mackay, Lord Advocate, speaking for the Government during the hearing of Campbell and Cosans case before the European Court [said]: 'It would not be feasible to have a system in which children in the same class were differently treated in this respect according to the view of their parents because it must be a fairly fundamental practice of any reasonable system of discipline in a school that it should be seen to be fair'."
Exactly the same view, though in different words, was expressed by Sir Vincent Evans, the British judge on the Commission, who dissented from the majority view of the Commission.
This is the heart of the difficulty. A situation has been produced which common sense says will be unfair. No amount of elegant argument about differentiation of treatment in certain circumstances will avoid the Fact that if this Bill comes into operation, it will repeatedly produce a situation which the pupils themselves will be bound to regard as unfair, which their parents and fellow pupils will regard as unfair and which the teacher himself will probably regard as unfair.
How do we get out of this extraordinary situation? I would suggest that the only way is the abolition of corporal punishment, and I want to put some considerations against the objections of the noble Baroness to that solution. What will happen in future cases before the European Commission? It has not yet ruled that corporal punishment in schools is in itself a defiance of human rights. It has ruled so far that to inflict corporal punishment against the wishes of the parents is a defiance of human rights, but it has already decided that the infliction of judicial corporal punishment is in itself an infringement of human rights. There are a number of cases to come before it and it may at any time take the further step—it is not a very long one—of deciding that corporal punishment in schools is degrading and is an infringement of human rights.
We have to come up against the fact that, as I said at the beginning, we are the only nation in Europe that practises corporal punishment in its schools. I hope that the noble Baroness, or somebody, will be able to tell us during the course of the debate why this should be so. What is it about British boys and girls that makes it impossible, apparently, to get them to behave properly without hitting them? What is wrong with
486
British teachers that they cannot keep discipline without this particular sanction? I am not arguing that this was always the case. We are considering what we ought to do in Europe in the latter part of the 20th century, facing the fact that there is not a single other country now that uses this form of punishment. That is sufficient to show that it is not a necessary part of school discipline. I hope that nobody will say that all the schools in the rest of Europe are badly run because there is not this beating of children. If all the other countries can manage their school discipline properly without corporal punishment, why on earth cannot we?
The case I mentioned, where the court has already decided that judicial corporal punishment is in itself degrading and an infringement of human rights, arose from a case in the Isle of Man. That leads me to ask why this Bill does not apply in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, because we are responsible for their behaviour before the European Court. We could, if we wished, make this Bill apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. In effect we have, I believe, required the Isle of Man to observe the court's ruling on judicial corporal punishment.
We have already spent about £1 million in arguing cases in Europe and in paying compensation to parents and pupils where corporal punishment has been used. The cases still to be heard are piling up. We shall have a bill of several million pounds before the process is over and we shall be arguing it always before a court composed of Europeans who cannot for the life of them understand why we desperately cling on trying to defend this outmoded form of punishment. We have already put ourselves in an untenable position. What the Bill suggests is that we should continue trying to maintain that untenable position until we are ultimately forced out of it.
What are the Government going to do when the court decides that the corporal punishment of children in schools is an infringement of human rights? That decision cannot be very long delayed and when that happens the whole of this Bill will be nonsense. We should do better to recognise now, straight away, that that is so and proceed to set a date by which abolition should be secured.
12 noon
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, with one point at least I have no difficulty at all. That is to echo most warmly our congratulations and warm good wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. It worried me a little only in this way: that she presented the matter with such clarity and conviction that I began to wonder whether I myself was quite right in what I was going to say. Certainly, we all look forward keenly to her appearances at the Dispatch Box, we would hope that she will, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, put it, have better causes to advocate.
As I came down to the forum this morning, perhaps in rather reflective mood, I wondered if any Members of your Lordships' House might be inclined to regale us with the traditional tale of the boy who had beatings inflicted upon him which did no harm and perhaps did some good. With that in mind, I look back over my

487
own experience. I was educated at a school in Glasgow, starting at the age of four and three quarters. The "three-quarters" at that stage is important, just as the one-half is important, because it shows that one is not a child of four but on the very threshold of manhood. This was a public school and I knew that it was a public school because embossed or engraved on this sombre, sandstone building in Glasgow was written large, "Mount Florida Public School"—and there was another one up the road, similarly engraved on the sandstone facing, "Homelea Public School". These were schools the responsibility for which lay with the education authority in Glasgow, which was then an elected body.
I recall that my first day at school—and as well as being a public school, it was a co-educational school—I was seated beside a young girl of the advanced age of five. She made my existence in the classroom quite intolerable throughout the day. So when I left school, and she, too, I followed her to the gate and gave her a short, sharp shock of corporal punishment. But I did not know that I had been observed and our teacher, Miss Savage, who was known among the older boys as, "Savage by name and savage by nature" came up from behind and gave me a cuff with the back of her hand that startled me and, not content with that, harangued me on the wickedness of inflicting physical pain and suffering on the female of the species. And, my Lords, I have not hit a woman since then. Therefore, I have no sentimental illusions about the efficacy of corporal punishment inflicted on schoolboys, among whom there are always a certain number of young savages.
But enough of this anecdotage. I can be quite brief because I agree with practically the whole tenor of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. There is one minor point which I may touch on before I sit down, but this enables me at least, as your Lordships will be happy to know, to keep short what I say about the Bill. I think that this little Bill really demonstrates something as it seeks to regulate the administering of punishment in our schools. It illustrates, I think, two things: first of all, the extent to which Parliament today has lost the power effectively to control the Executive; and, secondly, the serious damage to our national wellbeing which today—and I emphasise "today"—results from an electoral system which concentrates power in the hands of the Labour and Conservative Parties. I am not going to do a plug for electoral reform. Your Lordships need have no fear of that; but I think that there is a serious point to be made in that context.
With regard to my first point, no one in the other place—and this was significant—gave the Bill a wholehearted welcome at all—and, least of all (and this was said by others in the other place) the Secretary of State himself. No one from the Scottish Office attended; if one did, he did not speak on the matter; and there are certain aspects of this United Kingdom Bill which apply to Scotland.
The critics of the measure described it variously. "Unworkable", said some; "bizarre", said others; and so on. Now, "unworkable" is a fair description but whether it is literally true or not, I am not so certain. But what I think is as clear as a pikestaff is that it will
488
not promote the better working of our schools either educationally or administratively; and a further dimension will be introduced into the system which will tend to gum up the works. "Bizarre", said many in the other place. Let me try to illustrate. On my staff at the court at which I worked there was a young man who had started his working life as a teacher. He had been a dedicated teacher. He was a big, strong young man and he had a real vocation for teaching. Unfortunately, he landed up in one of the problem schools. He tried very hard for a long time and he told me that what really decided him to change his employment was when one of the pupils came at him with a knife. He was not frightened; he had no difficulty in disarming the boy. He was a tall, strong young man and he dealt with him very effectively, but that was the end of his career as a teacher.
This is a very rare thing, of course. It is not typical; but it is where the problem in relation to corporal punishment in schools really lies. This is the problem and in answer to this problem the Government offer us this—and I use the word again—bizarre little Bill. Think of this problem of maintaining discipline in the problem areas of education. What do the Government suggest? We read in Clause 1 of the Bill:
"A person is not to be taken for the purposes of this section as giving corporal punishment by virtue of anything done for reasons that include averting an immediate danger of personal injury to, or an immediate danger to the property of, any person (including the pupil concerned)".
We all know what that means. Then there is Clause 3(1), and we know also what that means. But what of the teacher who has to deal with a recalcitrant pupil, whether in the extreme case such as I have just described or in a less extreme case? The Government are bringing in this legislation at a time when in Glasgow the other day schoolchildren went on strike and ran amok in the streets. I think they did it in some other city in the southern part of the Kingdom, too. The police had to be brought in and they were arrested.
Do the Government seriously imagine that this measure will contribute to the alleviation or the solution of this problem? I started off by saying how little control Parliament seems to be able to exercise over the Executive nowadays, because I should have thought that against this kind of background and in relation to this kind of problem Parliament would have sent this Bill back to the Government, perhaps with a schoolmasterly observation of the type, "A brave try, but must do better". I think it will be very difficult to amend this Bill.
As to my second point—and I look at the clock and hope that I have not gone on too long—I want to say that I believe it is a pity that the court decided as it did; if I had been on that court I would certainly have found myself with the dissenting judge. So I have some sympathy with the Government, to the extent that how to comply with this judgment in the historical context of our educational system requires, in turn, a nice governmental sense of judgment too. This Bill surely fails under that head. Someone in the other place said that perhaps it was making the best of a bad job; and if your Lordships feel about the decision of the court as I confess that I do, then it was a bad job they had to deal with. What bothers me is that instead

489
of making the best of it they seem to have made the worst of it.
The real problem is how to identify the difficult schools and to seek the best means of maintaining discipline in them without corporal punishment. Against that background, I must say that I thought the somewhat dreary and sterile arguments—in which I am sure your Lordships would not indulge—for and against corporal punishment in schools really have no place. But it was those arguments which seemed to dominate the discussions between the contestants in the Labour Party and those in the Conservative Party. I have none of the feelings, to which the noble Baroness referred, about high principles regulating this matter. I have no concluded formal views on that, but we have to accept the decision of the court in Europe. There are surely other ways and other solutions which a sensible approach could find. I would hope—I know it is a pious hope—that the Government will take the whole Bill back and look at it again.
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may join with other noble Lords and offer the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, our good wishes. We are delighted to see her at the Dispatch Box.
I am worried about this Bill; I am worried about its inconsistency, which leads to injustice, conflict and a sense of guilt. Take Mrs. Bloggs of 5 Acacia Avenue. Mrs. Bloggs receives a form. She does not quite know what to do with it, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has said, and so she leans over the fence and talks to her neighbour, Mrs. Higgins, of 7 Acacia Avenue. One thinks that perhaps she should sign for her son to have corporal punishment and the other one thinks not. So they argue it out, and finally they sign according to their own wishes. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, says, both boys, living next door to one another and being friends, commit the same offence together. But Mrs. Bloggs has signed the form and Mrs. Higgins has not; and therefore one boy receives 100 lines and has to stay in while the other one receives corporal punishment. It can of course work both ways: one boy who wanted to play cricket on a summer afternoon, would have preferred the corporal punishment. In another case another boy would have preferred the 100 lines to corporal punishment.
It is the inconsistency of it that is worrying. My experience of working with children, particularly delinquent children, down the years tells me that the two things they seek are justice and fairness. Very many times a child has said to me, "Miss, it isn't fair". It is justice and fairness that children look for. Furthermore, I would contend that the relationship between the children and their parents is not improved. This is going to be very difficult. One child says to his mother, "Mum, why didn't you sign the form?"; and another one says, "Mum, why did you?" That can produce conflict.
From a teacher's point of view, I do not agree personally with corporal punishment, but if one remembers Stalky and Co., the headmaster gave Beatle, McTurk and Stalky corporal punishment. But within the school it was the climate of opinion and it was agreed by all the boys and masters that only the headmaster should give corporal punishment and that
490
there should be corporal punishment for all. And so there was consistency.
I have for many years dealt with children in trouble. Of the children in our children's homes in Oxford, over the years only three were sent to an approved school. The rest were dealt with within our children's homes, where corporal punishment was not allowed. Furthermore, I am a member of Barnardo's council. We have a care and control paper which is issued to all our staff in the children's homes and in the schools. No child or young person must ever receive corporal punishment.
In regard to effectiveness, I would point out that we in this country have more children in custodial care than any of the other EC countries. Therefore our corporal punishment does not seem to be effective; I stress that point. I should like also to ask my noble friend Lady Cox: which sector of society wants this Bill? She has mentioned the MORI poll, whereby parents, or a proportion of them, were prepared for their children to receive corporal punishment. But did the MORI poll ask whether some children should and some children should not have it? I should like very much to know to what sector of society this Bill is directed. Who is it pleasing and who is it satisfying? So very briefly, and in conclusion, I have to say with deep regret, as it is the noble Baroness's first Bill, that I cannot agree with it: first, because of its inconsistency, its injustice and its possible leading to conflict between parents and children, children and children, and children and staff; and, secondly, because I personally do not agree at all with corporal punishment.
12.20 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, perhaps I may join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on her first venture in taking a Bill through the House. I am sorry on her behalf, too, that it is such a silly Bill. It is an unfair Bill and I think it is virtually unworkable. I am used to agreeing with the noble Baroness across the Floor of the House on many health issues, but on this one I am afraid I have to part company with her; and there are health issues involved in the subject with which this Bill is concerned. I am afraid that it is yet another example of the basically uncaring and undemocratic state that the Conservative Party has reached today, despite some charitable attitudes in the past and its claim to be the party of the family.
For years now, practically every professional body concerned with the education and welfare of children has advocated the abolition or the phasing-out of corporal punishment in schools. I have a list of 19 of them—and I can add two more professsional medical bodies, the British Paediatric Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists—all opposed to corporal punishment. It is basically inconsistent with a law which forbids the use of corporal punishment of adults or young people in penal institutions, as my noble friend Lord Stewart has pointed out, and it is odd that it should be still be allowed for children with or without their parents' permission.
The case for its abolition was put most eloquently some 12 years ago by my noble friend Lady Wootton in moving her Private Member's Bill for the protection

491
of minors. I should like to quote one passage from her speech. She said,
"Strangest of all, my Lords, do I find the implication for our social values, in that apparently in this country at the present time the only people who can wield a cane with impunity in the exercise of their professional activities are teachers and prostitutes."
The justification often given for the corporal punishment of children is its deterrent effect on those who commit certain serious offences. However, repeated studies have shown that it neither has a deterrent effect nor is it given only for serious offences—in fact, rather the converse.
I know that the practice has decreased since my school days, but I remember vividly—I shall here divert into my own experience, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside—the effect it had on me and the offences were quite trivial: going fishing instead of going to church on a Sunday, and going outside the school grounds before breakfast when I had been told particularly not to on one occasion. What respect I had for the masters concerned completely evaporated and was replaced by resentment and hostility. I despised them for the rest of my school career and used every opportunity to outwit their authority, taking care not to get caught. It is not a very good way to encourage a co-operative attitude to authority.
But I only quote my own experience as an example of widespread findings that corporal punishment is a very ineffective form of discipline, and is in fact counter-productive. In my case, it did not awaken or encourage a violent streak—at least, not so far—but there is plenty of evidence that far from controlling violence, it actually encourages it. If beating is carried out by adults, children learn to regard physical violence as an acceptable form of behaviour. Violence is a problem in our society, as every noble Lord knows, whether expressed as football hooliganism, mugging, granny battering or non-accidental injury, which is otherwise known as baby battering. Schools where beating is allowed have worse behaviour problems than those which use other methods of maintaining discipline.
When corporal punishment is given up, staff-pupil relationships improve and the "us" and "them" opposed attitude between teachers and pupils decreases and is replaced by a more co-operative working relationship. This does not happen overnight. Other measures of controlling difficult or "acting-out" behaviour must be carefully worked out. The Association of Educational Psychologists has produced an extremely useful booklet for teachers entitled Alternatives to Corporal Punishment, which discusses the whole topic in a most helpful way. The rewards of adopting a different disciplinary system can be most rewarding and very satisfying for the staff. More important, it is likely that responsible attitudes to authority will be instilled which will persist into adult life.
A further facet of the harm done by corporal punishment to society is the effect on the staff member who inflicts the punishment. There is no doubt that beating can give rise to a perverted sense of pleasure with sexual overtones, which can also sometimes, paradoxically, be felt by the victim. These aspects have
492
been brilliantly portrayed in the film "If", and of course in the play and film "Another Country", which considered the long-term effects of corporal punishment and the British public school system. Incidentally, it is interesting that although corporal punishment in public schools is less common than it was, this Bill will have no legal effect in independent schools. In other words, if parents send their children to an independent "beating" school, they will have no say in whether or not their privileged child's bottom is whacked, as mine was.
By producing this unfortunate Bill, the Government have lost a very good opportunity, as other noble Lords have said, to come into line with the rest of the civilised world. The party opposite should—and could—do better, since it likes to think that it has a caring tradition. I hope that as the Bill goes through its remaining stages, we persuade the Government to change it into something better, though, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has pointed out, I do not know how we are going to be able to do that.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not agree as a doctor that mental punishment for a child is often even more unpleasant then physical punishment and that in continental countries, where teachers are denied the use of the cane, they resort instead to withering and sometimes soul-destroying scorn and sarcasm?
Lord Rea: My Lords I shall certainly reply to that. I do not think that the alternative to corporal punishment need be that cruel or sarcastic punishment of which the noble Lord speaks. There are other much more constructive ways of controlling the discipline and attitude towards authority of children in school.
12.28 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, must by now be tired of receiving the congratulations of every speaker during this debate, but I should like to add mine. She told me not long ago that she was terrified of the idea of making her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. However, perhaps I may tell her that she has absolutely no reason to feel like that. She has done it a great deal better than many others.
I should like to give this Bill a measured welcome. I say "measured", because there are some things in it that are perhaps unworkable, but I should like to get down to this business of corporal punishment as a whole. Those who are so firmly against it have an idea that corporal punishment in a school is something that takes place every day, and that if you fail to answer a question correctly you at once get a beating for it. I have taught for a good many years and may I say that that is absolute and utter nonsense. It occurs only after the very worst misbehaviour. In schools where it is kept as a regular thing, it is only what one might call—what is the word? I am getting to the age now when I cannot remember words. What is the word we use for weapons which we are not going to use?
Noble Lords: A deterrent.
Lord Somers: Yes, my Lords, I am sorry. That is the whole point: it is not used at every moment. It is used only in extreme circumstances. Therefore there is no need to feel that a school where corporal punishment is used is a den of cruelty to children. It is nothing of the sort.
A previous speaker mentioned the harm that is done to a child by corporal punishment. My noble friend Lord Monson put his finger on exactly the point that I was going to raise. A great deal more harm can be done to a child by mental cruelty than by any form of corporal punishment. I remember perfectly well that when I was teaching at Epsom College boys who had suffered corporal punishment just laughed at it. They took it as being absolutely in the natural course of events and said no more about it. They bore no ill-will to anybody because of it. So I think that a great bugbear is being made of corporal punishment which is entirely unnecessary.
On thing that is perhaps not quite workable in this Bill is the possible lack of uniformity. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, when she introduced the Bill said that fairness demands uniformity. She was absolutely right. Under the system that we have here some are going to be liable to corporal punishment and some are not. That is far from fair. I therefore think that we must have either all or none liable to it, unless of course there are very special cases which can be certified by a doctor or in some other professional way which will make that child not liable. Those of course would be very rare cases.
I should like to point out, incidentally, that I am speaking about boys. I have rather different opinions about girls. I am not sure that it is very suitable for girls, though I have also taught in a girls school. It was never used there as far as I can remember. I do not think that it is a very good form of discipline for girls. But I feel that for boys the mere knowledge that it is possible that they will receive the cane or some other form of corporal punishment is enough to keep many of them on the straight path when otherwise they might stray. Therefore, I support the Bill with reservations.
12.34 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, as the noble Baroness who introduced the Bill was speaking, I reflected on the awful things that can happen to an intelligent Back-Bencher when the system promotes a Member of this House to be a Minister. I am sure that, while underlining the congratulations that are certainly her due, we all feel great sympathy for the noble Baroness for having to introduce a bad Bill, which she has done efficiently and agreeably.
This Bill is too bad to be true. It is a dotty Bill. It the dottiest Bill that I can recall in 35 years in Parliament. My noble friend Lord Stewart said it was the silliest Bill. It is worse than silly. I am so indignant about it that I must go on for a minute to say that I think this Bill is an affront to the intelligence of this House. I really do not think that we should give it a Second Reading without a Division. That this Bill should be
494
given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House without a Division and that that should be reported to the public outside will lead lots of people to ask, -Have they gone mad? Have we not recently been looking at this intelligent and wise body of maturity and experience—such a contrast to the rowdyism of the other place? Isn't this the Chamber from where really wise government is coming?" Now we are being asked to behave as if we had taken leave of out senses.
I really believe that it is a serious matter for your Lordships' House to be asked to give this Bill a Second Reading. For my part, I shall yell "Not-Content" to the end. It is not fair to ask us to sit here and pass this Bill even in principle because it is not fit to be a Bill for serious consideration.
The best that can be hoped, if perchance Parliament decides eventually to pass it, is that the sheer absurdity of the Bill will lead to a wide movement among parents in this country to secure exemption from this ridiculous practice and from the complexities and difficulties of the Bill.
I am little puzzled by the last paragraph of the Bill's Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which states:
"There are some schools where the staff have relied heavily on corporal punishment and where the decision to withdraw it as a consequence of an exemptions scheme may increase the workload of the staff until other methods of obtaining good discipline have been adopted; but it should not be necessary for education authorities to increase the overall size of their teaching forces".
What a commentary on the existence of those schools which fall within that description! It makes one wonder why ever schools of that kind continue to rely heavily on corporal punishment without some investigation into why it should be so. Moreover, if such schools are likely to be the target by so many parents for exemption from the heavy reliance on corporal punishment, I think it will indicate still further that there are problems in many of the schools included in that definition.
Another point which concerns me regarding the Bill is parental friction. There was no corporal punishment in my home, but there was friction between my parents on matters of principle and importance regarding what should be done at school and elsewhere. The reason I have four first names is that my parents could not agree on two. When on the last permitted day my father went to register my birth as required by law my mother did not know what names I was going to be given. She was quite astonished when, in the spirit of a good old British compromise, my father came home and said, "I have registered all four". That is a little light relief perhaps in an otherwise sombre speech on this subject, though I add in parenthesis that four Christian names of the length of those which I was given have been an encumbrance to me in filling up forms ever since. There has never been enough space for them. Those people who have registered their children, as one man did, in the names of all the 11 footballers of Liverpool United's team really have a great deal to answer for.
What about the case of separated parents? There is a problem. The attitude of children towards their parents has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Children will ask, "Why have I been punished, mum? Willy was with me and

495
we were both in it together, but he cannot be punished because he has some kind of exemption. Why is he treated in this way and let off while I am beaten?" I do not know how parents are going to answer to their children for what they have done or have failed to do in this particular respect. That situation, too, will lead to a good deal of family discord. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Rea when he says that the party opposite claims that it is the party of the family, the party which ministers to the family and to the care of the sanctity of the family, and yet presents a measure that will turn some families into a bit of a shambles.
Lord Somers: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, he is entirely wrong to say that children do not know why they are beaten. They know perfectly well. They know the rules of their school, and if they transgress those rules they know perfectly well what is coming to them.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, that may be the noble Lord's experience but, if one may be permitted to draw on one's own experience, I am bound to say that the only time I received corporal punishment at school it was not for misbehaviour of any kind but for what was alleged to be lack of effort. To say that I knew what I was being punished for and that I well knew the rules would be entirely wrong: I did not know that rule, anyway. I was not conscious of having done anything wrong. That injustice has stuck in my mind for 80 years.
I am against corporal punishment because of the injustice that can arise as a result of the caprice or sense of judgment of teachers of particular types and of the emotional state that they may be in. I have a very clear memory of seeing corporal punishment. As far as girls are concerned, one has to look a little deeper into reactions to the affront of interference with their person by somebody else.
The noble Baroness who introduced this Bill referred several times to reasonable and moderate corporal punishment, but as I see the definition of corporal punishment in this Bill it means something which, but for the sanction given under this Bill to adminster it, would be battery. Battery would be an offence and it would be actionable. It would indeed be battery if it were not protected by the definition and the conditions of corporal punishment contained in this Bill. We are not dealing here with a tap on the shoulder: we are dealing with something that is a deliberate infliction upon the boy or girl.
It seems to me that in many cases such punishment will not have to be inflicted on the spur of the moment but will probably have to be verified as to its validity by a hurried look at the register. In fact, there will need to be computers in many classrooms so that teachers can tell by the push of a button whether or not the person they are lifting the cane to hit is an exempt person. The absurdity of this Bill in practice will be absolutely beyond belief.
I feel strongly that we should take the exceptional course of saying to the Government, "It is too much to ask us to accept the principle that a Government Bill coming from another place should be given an unopposed Second Reading in order that it can be
496
attended to in Committee". How can this Bill be attended to in Committee? It is a cross between those who want to punish and those who feel that they must do something to subscribe to the decisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.
We should on this occasion have the courage to adopt one course of action or the other. We should say either that we will abolish corporal punishment altogether or that we will have to decline to conform with the construction of the European Court of Human Justice. We should adopt one measure or another and be courageous, and not try the absurd compromise that we now have before us. I cannot really trust myself to say anything more about this Bill except that I am against it—tooth and nail against it.
12.46 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on her promotion to "the hot seat". I have long looked forward to the day when I, as a Liberal trendy in education matters, would be able to debate with one of the authors of the black papers across the Floor of this House. My surprise must be as great as that of the noble Baroness to find that in this particular Bill we are on the same side.
I should make it clear that I am not speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party. Such will be obvious to your Lordships from my position on the list of speakers and my place on these Benches: it will not necessarily be so obvious to those who read my remarks in Hansard, which is why I mention it. However, I intend to maintain that this Bill is in keeping with some of the best traditions of Liberalism. My colleagues take another line. I think they are mistaken, but that is their privilege. I was extremely interested to hear the cogently-argued speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson.
I should also like to make it clear that, as I have consistently argued in your Lordships' House in over 10 years, I am against the corporal punishment of children. It is not for me a matter of searing principle: I merely think that, on balance, an educational ethos that depends on violence is a bad one. I agree with almost everything the noble Lord, Lord Rea, had to say. I particularly agree with what he said about the effect on those who administer violence. I tend to be on the side of Lord Macaulay's puritans, who condemned bear-baiting not for its effect on the bear but because bear-baiters derived pleasure from it.
It is because I do not regard this matter as being of searing importance that I am able to place it second to a principle of considerable importance; that is, the principle of devolution. The question as to whether to have corporal punishment in schools is rightly in the hands of local educational authorities and individual headmasters and governors. I would oppose any Bill that interferes with that power unless its only purpose was to protect the rights of those even further down the line, as this Bill does. This Bill seems to me to do exactly that. It recognises the rights of parents, and those rights have not heretofore in this field been recognised in this country.
Although I myself would not beat my children, I should not totally object to their going to a school which applied corporal punishment. It would seem to

497
me that the school was probably wrong but, as I said, I refuse to regard the matter as of the highest importance. But I respect the views and the rights of those who feel that it is important. To date the trouble with the existing state of affairs is that, if parents have not wanted their children to be beaten, there has been nothing that they could do about it. In the private sector of course they could change schools, but we in this House are responsible for the rights of parents in the public sector, and there there was nothing that could be done about it. Now, thanks to the European Commission on Human Rights, there is, and their right—in my view undoubted—not to have their children beaten is upheld.
What then should be done? Centralisers, of whom there are far too many in politics, even in those parties which give lip service to devolution, have a simple answer—abolish corporal punishment. But I am not a centraliser. I am a devolutionist, and so, it appears, is the Secretary of State for Education. Surrounded by centralisers such as Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Heseltine and Mr. Jenkin, he alone appears to keep trying the old Conservative tradition that the local man may be assumed to know best; and so he has produced this Bill.
It is true that his reasoning may not have been quite the same as mine. He may merely have started by wondering how on earth he could deal with an unwelcome European decision. But when he surveyed the hornets' nest he had stirred up, I should not be at all surprised if his thoughts were not something along the lines that I have just expressed; and I am not the slightest bit surprised that he has not backed down amid the chorus of criticism that he has met and is meeting.
The real opposition to this Bill comes not from parents or the citizens of this country. It comes of course from the teaching profession. They say that their task will be impossible if there are two classes of children in their classrooms. It will not be impossible; it will merely be slightly more difficult in a very few schools. I say a very few schools because of course one of the effects of the Bill in the medium term will be to accelerate the number of schools—and it is already large—which do not have corporal punishment, and that I absolutely welcome. There will also of course be a handful of schools where no parents wish to opt out.
What of the rest? We would hope—would we not? that in no school is beating handed out indiscriminately. We should be wrong of course, but that is what we would hope. All we are doing is adding one more variable to the equation with which the authorities have to deal when dealing out punishment.
I should just like to mention a couple of matters that have been mentioned in the debate today. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said that two children in the same class could be punished in two different ways and the one who was beaten would consider that that was unfair. He said that he could firmly say that from his vast experience, it would seem. Of course that is not necessarily so, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, rightly pointed out. It might be the other child who thought that it was unfair. It entirely depends on what is the alternative punishment and on the child's temperament.
498
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, also picked out for criticism—at least I thought that it was criticism—the case of Scotland and the anomaly of pupils over 16 choosing for themselves. I understood that we were meant to disapprove not only of the difference between the two countries but also slightly of the practice in Scotland.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I think that the difference is absurd but the way to remedy it is to bring the English practice in line with the Scottish.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for pointing that out. I was not entirely clear what he meant. But the first case—for its being absurd—I would reject entirely, as I imagine would the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and other noble Lords from Scotland. Why should Scotland not have different laws, customs and habits from ourselves? There is no justification for the appalling habit of wanting to have everything the same all over the country.
I grant that if one looks at the question that is before the Secretary of State as one merely of punishment in schools this Bill deserves many of the criticisms that are levelled at it. But, on the other hand, noble Lords may think as I do—and as I have always understood both Conservatives and Liberals did—that the first question to be answered when dealing with legislation is, should Westminster interfere at all? I should have thought that the answer the Government have come up with that they should not interfere except to protect parents' rights is probably the right one.
A point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and also, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, about the problems that will happen when Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Brown at Nos. 4 and 5—was it?—Acacia Avenue have to make up their minds differently and sign their forms, and the trouble that they will have explaining to their children. If this is a Bill about education, which I think it is, nothing could be more educational for both parents and children than the discussions that they will have over that point if they differ. It is important that children get to understand the concepts involved. In fairness, children often say that this or that is unfair, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, rightly said, and of course the first thing that any sensible parent has to say is that life is unfair. But then he or she in this particular case goes on to try to see that it is made as little unfair as it can be. If there are questions which still arise, it is a matter for explanation, discussion and question. It seems to me that that is an entirely healthy situation. Fairness is extremely complex.
Of course the problem will be a slight nuisance in the lives of teachers in a small number of schools, but we are moving into a completely new age in education. Schools have been more or less, in spite of revolutions of one kind or another about which we all know, much the same for 40 years. I know that those who have worked and lived in them will say that they have changed enormously, and I have seen the changes, too. But they have been basically the same kind of institution. I do not think that in the information age of the next 40 years they will be anything like the same places. I think that this kind of Bill, this kind of

499
discussion and this kind of problem—and I speak about the arguments on all sides—will seem wildly out of date in 20 years' time when schools are a very different kind of institution.
I know the difficulties and the realities of life in Wandsworth, Tower Hamlets and Liverpool 8 today. I have not been education spokesman of the Liberal Party for 16 years without learning many things. I know that it is difficult to visualise the local Tower Hamlets secondary school in terms of what schools will be like in 20 years' time. However, either that school will have changed to make this kind of debate and this kind of situation out of date, or that area will be a howling jungle. I am afraid to say that I should not like to forecast which. In either case I suspect that this debate and this discussion will be irrelevant. If it is a howling jungle, it will be because of poverty, the lack of privilege, and the lack of dealing with it of which I lay a very large amount at the door of this Government. But in this Government there is at least one outstanding sensitive and highly intelligent man: the present Secretary of State for Education. He has an extremely subtle mind and in this Bill he has struck a blow for the ordinary parent against collective bureaucracy. I congratulate him on it.
1.1 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, in joining all the other noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who have spoken in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on her first major appearance on a Bill, I assure her that in no case is it a mere courtesy. All of us were extremely impressed with the eloquence and confidence that she showed in making a very bad Bill almost plausible. I shall not try to compete with my noble friend Lord Stewart and my noble friend Lord Houghton in giving additional information as to why they think it is so bad.
However, in parenthesis I should like to say this. I was absolutley shocked at the revelation of my noble friend Lord Houghton that he had been subjected to corporal punishment as a result of lack of endeavour. I have had the privilege of knowing the noble Lord for 35 years of his parliamentary life. Whatever else one might feel, I do not think that that is an allegation or a criticism that can ever be put against him. Certainly I am sure none of your Lordships will ever suggest that he shows a lack of effort in his work in the contribution that he makes here.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is as against corporal punishment as I am, but would he not agree that this is an unfortunate proof that corporal punishment works? The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has been a reformed person ever since.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I think perhaps there may be two opinions about that, as to what may happen when the Question is put at the end of this debate. In any case, I do not accept that one example should decide a matter of this sort. I think it is quite clear that the parliamentary draftsmen were told to produce a Bill which will permit us to keep as much corporal punishment as we can but at least to take us through any further cases that might come before the European
500
Court on Human Rights. I am not even sure that they have succeeded in that, having regard to the very imprecise wording of the European code of human rights because, under that, almost any ministerial decision, if we were foolish enough to embody it in our statutes, could be a matter of question for argument before that Court.
In my view, it is not a terribly important Bill, although I know that in some cases, on one side or the other, it gives rise to very strong views. I am bound to say that I was extremely surprised that it should have been thought of such importance as to convene your Lordships' House especially for this purpose on a Friday. It has been only as the debate has gone on that I have understood quite clearly why this happened. It was as a result of the fear that if it had been on another day, when many more members of your Lordships' House were likely to be here, the Bill might have been rejected by an unholy coalition of those who believed in corporal punishment, on the one hand, and those who were dead against it on the other, led by my noble friend Lord Houghton into the Not-Contents Lobby.
I think it is by any test an extremely unsatisfactory Bill. I have never had very strong views about the principle of corporal punishment. On many occasions I have declined to become involved in proposals for legislation, thinking that it was a matter best left to the discretion of teachers and governors of schools. However, both within the teaching world and outside, the climate of opinion has changed, and quite apart from the recent decision of the European Court. I now favour the abolition of corporal punishment.
However, we should not allow a fairly simple issue, which in my view should be decided "Yes" or "No", to be the subject of such a complicated bureaucratic procedure as is proposed by this Bill. I believe that it will make discipline in schools almost impossible, whether or not one believes in corporal punishment. I cannot see how a teacher with a class of children, some of whom are subject to corporal punishment and some who are not, will not be in very great difficulties. I can recall that, not on the question of corporal punishment but on all kinds of other questions, from a very early stage my children would come up with the phrase, "It is not fair". This is a frequent comment of children on all manner of things.
I can recall that later on, older boys, in describing a headmaster or a teacher, may say, "He is a real devil"—or use stronger language which I would not use in your Lordships' House—"but at least he is a just devil". I think most children have a very highly developed sense of justice. Unhappily, perhaps in most of our cases it becomes dimmed as we grow up. Certainly in schools I think there is this highly developed sense of justice. I do not for one moment believe that it would be acceptable to have this system of registers, and so on.
Perhaps I may just dispose of the difficulty to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred concerning the age of 16 in Scotland. It is not that I necessarily want Scotland to be different. However, what seems to me an extraordinary concept in the Bill is that a 16-year old can go to the school authorities and say, "Please put me down on the list so that I may be caned". I should have thought that that was an almost impossible expectation. If you must have this

501
nonsense of registers, I should think the most simple method would be to make the age of 16 an age above which corporal punishment cannot be employed against children, either in Scotland or in any other part of the United Kingdom.
There is also great merit in the point that my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham very clearly made. That is that many parents will be frightened by forms. From my wife's teaching experiences some years ago, I know that some of the children in London schools have to act as interpreters for their parents. Many of the parents come here with very little grasp of the English language. I think many requests for exemption will not be submitted from the working class and particularly from people from ethnic minorities. This will create great problems in the schools. If there must be a system of parental choice, I should have thought that it should be the other way round: that parents who wish their children to be subject to corporal punishment should take that initiative. I think that that is the way it should be dealt with, rather than the way that is now proposed, of parents having to ask specifically for their children to be exempt. The real point is that we should have clarity; and if, as I agree we should, we are to conform to the European Convention on Human Rights, we should abolish corporal punishment in all our schools.
I wonder also about the complicated provisions which mean that independent schools will be excluded except for the possibility that a handful of pupils who are there in some form of assisted place or under some other scheme by which they receive funds from public sources, either national or local authority, will be subject to parental opting out and will also carry, as one tended to do and as I certainly did as a schoolboy, the stigma in the conversation of some of being a scholarship kid. That will be added to someone whose parents have said that they should not be subject to the cane. It seems to me that much thought needs to be given to see whether we cannot work out a system that would meet our obligations in Europe and at the same time make it better rather than more difficult for our teachers to sustain discipline in schools.
1.11 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships and especially to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for not being in my place when she opened the debate. I had a meeting at the National Gallery which I did not think would be over, even by this time, to enable me to take part. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for giving way and allowing me to speak.
Debates in your Lordships' House on corporal punishment nearly always lead to a flood of reminiscence. I have no intention of adding to that flood especially since, as a small boy, before going to my public school, I was at a school where if, more than once in one term, one made a false concordance in Latin, one was automatically beaten. The reminiscence to which I thought I should refer relates to my experience on the Public Schools Commission. Very early in its deliberations, we made it clear to headmasters and governing bodies of public schools with whom we were engaged in discussions that under
502
no circumstances would any child from the maintained system be given an assisted place at a public school if that school still continued the barbarous practice of boys beating other boys. It is interesting that even before the commission had reported, the public schools had, by tacit consent, abolished that particular custom. Indeed, many of them have gone further and have abolished corporal punishment entirely. I understand that at enlightened schools such as Eton, the birch and the block are now curiosities of historical interest rather than items of current technology.
Corporal punishment arouses great passions. This Bill, at any rate, will diminish it. It is certainly a step in the right direction. I do not believe that it is possible for the system to continue much longer. I suspect that even when this Bill is passed, as no doubt it will be, the European Commission will probably have cases before it which will mean, in the end, that the system is abolished. How can this country continue to be the one country among all civilised nations that still continues the practice of corporal punishment?
I do not want to emphasise the points that have been made with great cogency by other speakers on the absurdity of trying to distinguish between pupils who can be punished and those who have opted out of the system. All that I would say is that in discussing this matter—I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to say something about this, even though it may not form part of the contents of the Bill—we should have regard not merely to the children but to the teachers. The opposition to abolition of corporal punishment has very often come from the teachers in the schools. The opposition has come because of the ill-discipline in the schools where teachers are today spat upon, kicked, assaulted and intimidated by unruly members of the school.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us what measures the Government think are necessary when corporal punishment is abolished. This, it seems to me, is a matter of great importance. In other countries, very severe penalties can be taken against children who offend in this way. The penalties are meted out to the child sometimes, but very often they are meted out to the parents of that child. I would ask the noble Baroness whether something more cannot be done in this respect in our schools. It must be brought home to the parents of children who are unruly that it is they who are responsible for their child's bad behaviour.
I ask for enlightenment here. Is it possible to fine such parents? Is it possible to bring penalties of one kind or another upon such parents? And what, if such penalties are incapable of being imposed, can be done to the child? In a French school, where discipline is extremely severe, although there is no corporal punishment, the child is subject to very severe penalties. The child is also capable, in the end, of being expelled from the school. This is, of course, always the safeguard that the independent schools have. The independent schools know perfectly well that they could, if they so wished, abolish corporal punishment because expulsion from the school is the ultimate penalty.

503
The parent has no remedy whatever. He has sent his child to that school; he pays his fees. If the child does not comply with the rules of the school, then the school is fully entitled to get rid of him. What does the noble Baroness feel should be done about that point in our maintained system? We, in the House, must take into account the feelings of teachers on the matter. I bow to no one in my opposition to the system of corporal punishment as it is at present in our schools. However, those who are in favour of its abolition have a duty to consider the plight of the teachers particularly in the tough urban schools where they suffer very great disadvantages. I hope very much that something can be done to force parents to discipline their children before they get to the schools.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he knows of the growing practice whereby, when children are very difficult in school, a meeting is called of the parents, the education department, the child and the social services and a scheme drawn up with the agreement of all of them, perhaps for a change of school, perhaps for a change of boarding school or day school? In that way, parents, child and teacher are helped.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am very much indebted for that information. I am sure this occurs at good schools and I am sure it occurs with good parents, because when children become unruly it is not always the parents' fault. Nevertheless, I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that there are many parents who take the side of their unruly child and join in the intimidation of and assault upon teachers.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lord, I apologise to your Lordships for rising to my feet. I purposely did not put my name down, but I should like to make one point. There were several things that I had intended to say, but the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said them all for me. I should like to underline, as regards the Bill, that one cannot have discrimination, whether one approves of corporal punishment or whether one does not.
I approve both ways. Corporal punishment can be overdone and it can be underdone. One day when I was at school, I got into a lot of trouble, through no fault of my own, and was due for a hell of a beating—and it proved to be a hell of a beating! I telephoned my father and he said, "If you are stupid enough to get yourself into a scrape you must get yourself out of it or take the consequences".
We are far too namby-pamby today; at least, I think we are. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, there are spoilt children and there are hard-done-by children. But whatever one's personal point of view one cannot have discrimination. Either we have corporal punishment or we do not; otherwise, we undermine all authority in the schools.
1.22 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, while I warmly welcome, as other noble Lords have, the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box to steer her first Bill
504
through your Lordships' House, one can only commiserate with her on the nature of the Bill. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, would have taken the task on his own broad shoulders had he been well enough. We wish him a speedy recovery.
The sweet reasonableness of the presentation by the noble Baroness—I think "elegant argument" was the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart—should not lull us into an easy acceptance of this Bill. We have heard arguments for and against the Bill—I think, on balance, mainly against. From whatever philosophical position it is approached it is riddled with inconsistencies and anomalies; and if not totally unworkable, it certainly cannot work well. Bad thinking makes bad legislation, and this is an unsatisfactory Bill. I think that was the description used by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, went further and called it a "silly" Bill. I think he said it was the silliest Bill to come before your Lordships' House in his experience. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said it was plain "dotty". I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, as a former mentor, when he said that it is a step in the right direction. If that is the case it certainly seems to me to be a remarkably clumsy step.
The Secretary of State understandably on grounds of cost and impracticality rejected a so-called dual system of giving parents the choice between beating and non-beating schools. Having rejected the option of abolition, he then boxed himself into the absurdity of a dual system in one and the same classroom. In my view that can only put the most undesirable pressures on everyone concerned. The school will have the added burden of maintaining a register, corresponding with parents, and keeping it up to date. The teachers will be confronted with two categories of child in one and the same room, and presumably will have to hold in their heads which child belongs to which category. Parents will be put under pressure by their children, either to exempt them or, possibly, to include them on the register: in a beating school it may well be the "in" thing to be on the register, and the "wets" who are exempt may well be discriminated against.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred to the flood of reminiscence which is normally engendered in this sort of debate. I shall only add to it by recalling that at one time at one of my schools I held the record for the number of strokes received. I think it was 59 strokes. Such was the ethos of the school and the prestige of those strokes that I was something of a hero. I am sure that that sort of climate can still persist, and does, in some places today. Where a class is dominated by a group of rowdies one can perfectly well imagine pressure being put on children to ask their parents to take them off the exempted list and put them on the beating list, in total contradiction to the philosophical convictions of the parents which this Bill is supposed to protect.
There are other anomalies in the Bill. It allows corporal punishment to avert "an immediate danger … to property". How is this to be interpreted? Can you beat a child for playing with a ball which goes through a window? That is certainly damage to property, and glass is very expensive these days. It is difficult to know how that is to be interpreted. The

505
noble Lord, Lord Annan, thought it inevitable—and here I must say I agree with him—that we shall eventually end up in the same camp as our European partners and that corporal punishment will in due course disappear from all our schools. However, the question is: how do you get there?
Almost everyone professionally concerned is against the Bill. The Association of Directors of Social Services is against it. The Society of Education Officers, the people who run education in local education authorities, is against it. The National Association of Head Teachers, who will have to administer and police it, are against it. Respected organisations like MIND are against it. Only this morning a letter arrived on my desk from the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association quoting a resolution from their last conference. I quote:
"Assembly considers that the Government's legislative response to the findings of the European Commission and Count of Human Rights in cases involving corporal punishment will impose upon schools a policy which is inconsistent, inequitable and educationally unsound".
These are the people who are in the front line on this matter.
My noble and learned friend Lord Wilson regretted the decision of the court, but this certainly did not, if I understood him correctly, lead him to think very much of the Bill. Obviously one must respect the passion for diversity and devolution of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, but I must make clear that both the Alliance spokesmen, when this Bill was debated at Second Reading in another place, were roundly against it and in favour of further steps towards abolition. I imagine we shall have a free vote when we come to the Committee stage, but I certainly am of their opinion.
In fact, I very much agree with my honourable friend Mr. Robert Maclennan in another place. He regretted that the Secretary of State for Education and Science had not followed the example of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who had advised local authorities to proceed with abolition; and they are in the process of doing that. As is so often the case, these things are done better north of the Border.
Various noble Lords have speculated on whether the Bill can be amended or improved. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Wilson felt that it would be very difficult to amend. He described the Bill as the worst of a bad job, and he had doubts as to whether it could be turned into the best of a bad job. I think his suggestion was that the Government should take the whole thing back and look at it again. I must say that I agree with him on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, indicated that he might want to press this Second Reading to a Division. One can sympathise with his frustration, but I am afraid that we, who are to some extent the guardians of the conventions of the House, must tell him that if he were to do that, we would have to abstain. In my view the only good thing that might come out of this Bill is that local authorities and governing bodies will throw up their hands in despair and proceed to abolition as the only sane alternative.
1.31 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box on an educational matter. I agree that she put up a spirited defence of the Bill, but she is going to need all her intelligence and ingenuity to put up a further defence after the lively and strong criticisms that there have been of the Bill during the debate.
She has had no support from her own Benches at all, and no one behind her really to support her, which I am not surprised at. Everyone on this side, except for the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has been against the Bill, and strongly so. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, was perhaps relying on his own experience as a teacher, but with all respect, that was perhaps not very recent experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, surprised me, I confess, by his defence. What surprised me even more was his defence of the Secretary of State and his praise for him for not being a centraliser and for devolving power. I cannot help wondering what the local authority associations, which have been so cross about the powers which have been taken from them, would have to say to that.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, will the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? What powers has the present Secretary of State for Education taken from them? I contrasted him, your Lordships will remember, with the rest of his colleagues in the Cabinet. What powers has he taken from them?
Baroness David: My Lords, he has imposed the TVEI scheme, which has taken from the local authorities the power to decide what goes on in the schools. He has taken away 25 per cent. of the money for the non-advanced further education. I am sure that I could think of other examples if I were to continue. There certainly have been quite a lot.
The Bill is, by general consent, a ridiculous piece of legislation. Even the Secretary of State when introducing the Bill showed little enthusiasm for it. He said:
"I am sure that many honourable Members find aspects of the Bill distasteful".
That was in col. 39 of the Official Report of the House of Commons on 28th January. Again, he said:
"It may not be ideal, but it is better than abolition or a dual system".
That was in col. 40.
We would agree with him that a dual system—that is, some schools where corporal punishment is used and some where it is not—would entail enormous practical difficulties, particularly in sparsely populated rural areas where there could be no choice of school. However, this Bill also entails enormous practical difficulties. We would not agree that it is better than abolition, which is what we want.
We contend that the Bill is unworkable, that it will lead to injustice, and will be recognised as unfair by both children and staff. The noble Baroness tried to counter that point, but I do not think she did it convincingly. Two children having committed the

507
same offence would have to be treated differently if one was on the register in regard to corporal punishment and the other was not. That seems to me intolerable, and must seem intolerable to the children. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Stewart said, it seemed so to the former Lord Advocate who has just retired to become a judge. He put foward that view when he was a Member of the Government.
Then there are the administrative complications. The register that is to be compiled with the names on it of those pupils who may be beaten depends on the parents receiving and responding to a letter sent out by the school. Posts are not totally reliable. Some people are bad at answering letters. Some parents are in fact illiterate, or just cannot read English. My noble friends Lord Stewart and Lord Mulley raised the point that the ethnic minorities may be at a great disdavantage here.
Will a second letter be sent if there is no response to the first? Will a visit be made to the home by the educational welfare officer or some member of staff if there is still no answer? Will children be put on, or left off, the register if no reply ever comes? One hopes that children's names will not be put on the register unless there is definite evidence that parents are willing for their children to be beaten.
What is the position if parents disagree? Will separated parents have to consult each other? Will foster parents, guardians, social service departments where children are in care, all have the right to reply to the letter? What happens if parents change their minds?
Let us suppose that there are some errors in compiling the register. Secretaries are human, and they can make mistakes. There may be several children at the school with the same name. How are staff to know who is on the register and who is not? Will there be delays while the teacher halts the lesson and goes to the office to discover whether or not the offending child is beatable? Will children in the two groups be asked to wear appropriate labels, "Beatable", "Unbeatable"?
Sir Keith Joseph said, at col. 45 on 28th January:
"the thought is that regulations will provide for a few days between the decision and the effectiveness of that decision so that the teacher concerned can have no doubt about the position. Time is provided for a name to be put on or taken off the register without any misunderstanding".
That surely is absurd. If a child is to be caned, delay while registers are anxiously consulted is intolerable. Can Ministers who have gone through Committee and Report stages in another place still regard such a scenario as anything but farcical?
It seems to me that there is no let out for the head or teacher who makes a genuine mistake in good faith. The Bill says in Clause 1(5):
"a pupil is exempt from corporal punishment by a member of the staff except at a time when— … the member of the staff believes on reasonable grounds that he is so shown in such a register".
What are reasonable grounds? Who is to define them? I hope that the noble Baroness will comment on that when she replies. Whatever happens there will be an extra burden of paperwork for already overworked staff, and there will be extra financial cost.
508
So much for the practical complications, There are other important considerations raised by the Bill in relation to both Europe and the law. Do we want to be the odd man out in Europe? Britain is alone in Europe, East and West, in allowing the practice of corporal punishment. Poland took the lead towards abolition at the end of the 18th century. France, Belgium, and Austria outlawed it over a century ago.
Now for the legal arguments. Sir Keith, at Second Reading, at col. 39 referred to:
"the one overriding factor that the country does not break its treaty obligations".
With the Bill in its present form this country will be doing just that. As long as corporal punishment is practised, with parental consent or not, this country is open to prosecution in Europe for infringement of Article 3 of the human rights convention. Thirty cases are pending at present. It is likely that at least £4 million will be awarded in damages and costs against this Government.
Again, the Bill makes no provision for pupils in fully private education. Yet prosecutions can still be brought under Article 2 of Protocol 1, as in the Campbell and Cosans case. By attempting to avoid liabilities under both articles without moving to abolition the Bill achieves neither object. It is a futile attempt to reconcile a decision of the European Court with the prejudices which were enshrined in the previous law of this country. It is a profoundly useless and craven piece of legislation which does more harm than good.
There have been a number of reports over the years that have independently arrived at conclusions that similarly support abolition. They show that beating schools have higher levels of delinquency, that higher levels of corporal punishment resulted in worse behaviour and more pupils appearing in court. Such reports are: J. W. Palmer: Smoking, Caning and Delinquency, 1965; Clegg and Megson: Children in Distress, 1968; Reynolds: Absenteeism in South Wales, 1977, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities: Discipline in Scottish Schools, 1981.
I should like to say a word about Scotland, although other noble Lords have referred to it. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been wiser than his English counterpart and has encouraged the gradual elimination of corporal punishment on a voluntary basis. The process has largely been completed and this is the sensible approach. There is the oddity, as has been mentioned, of 16- and 17-year-olds being able to make their own decisions. I think that if we have the Bill at all young people of 16 and 17 should have the choice in England and Wales; and no doubt we shall be moving an amendment in Committee.
It seems to me that the only sensible thing for the Government to have done was to introduce a Bill to abolish corporal punishment, but to give a year for it to be phased out so that those schools which made a certain amount of use of it would have time to set up alternative forms of discipline. These could cost money, and the Secretary of State should face up to that. He said:
"As to extra expenditure arising from alternatives to corporal punishment, I reject the notion that there must be expensive alternatives".

509
There may be some alternatives, like the withdrawal of rewards and privileges, that will not cost money. There could be suspension or expulsion, but I would look on those as exacerbating the problem. I support the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in asking for proper replies on what the Government's answer is about alternatives, because I do not think Sir Keith gave satisfactory ones on Second Reading in another place.
There are other ways of approaching indiscipline which will be more effective because they look at the cause of the problem. There must be adequate pastoral care and counselling, not done at the expense of the curriculum, and space to do the counselling. Assessment units or other special centres need to be set up either within the schools or separately. The lack of resource input into the implementation of the Education Act 1981 is already causing difficulties. Children who have special educational needs and who previously would have been in special schools are now in mainstream education, where they make inordinate demands on teachers' time and, if they do not receive adequate attention, may work out their frustrations in disruptive behaviour. There must be adequate staff, adequate space and adequate resources.
This Bill will not work. The best one can say for it is that it may lead to abolition but by the back door. Why cannot the Government give a lead as it is their duty to do? In matters of legislation for social problems such as divorce, abortion, homosexuality, it is for Parliament to be ahead of the population as a whole. There should have been a free vote on this Bill. The Secretary of State seems afraid to bring in abolition because of the opinion polls which showed a year ago that about half the teachers and a good many parents were in favour of the retention of corporal punishment. The Secretary of State does not always pay heed to the advice he receives, and opinion polls seem to be very odd systems on which to base legislation.
The main teacher unions are against corporal punishment, and the previously retentionist National Association for Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers and the Professional Association of Teachers have accepted that abolition would be preferable to the proposals in the Bill. Local authority opinion is against it; witness statements from the ACC, the AMA and the Society of Education Officers. Some 23 LEAs have already abolished corporal punishment and these include large conurbations where the most difficult problems are to be found. That is some answer to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Three more authorities have a date set for abolition, 17 are committed but with no date yet fixed, and 25 more are considering it.
I want to ask the noble Baroness whether or not decisions already made by LEAs can be overturned by individual governing bodies, as appears to be the case from Clause 3(2) and Clause 4(1)(a). It is not clear from discussion in Committee and at Report in another place what the legal position under the Bill will be. Mr. Dunn gave no definitive statement that I could find. He said:
"the Bill is broadly neutral".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/85; col. 68.]
510
That is not good enough. The Bill must be absolutely clear and definite on this or many more court cases could follow.
Not only are the teacher unions and the local authority associations against the Bill, but so are the professions. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the National Children's Bureau, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Educational Psychologists and many others are included. I should like to quote briefly from the statement from the educational psychologists:
"There is evidence that children imitate the actions of their elders, and that methods of child-rearing depending heavily on punishment of a physically aggressive kind produce children who themselves behave in a physically violent fashion. Children who are beaten tend in their turn to beat and bully".
We have heard a lot recently from the Prime Minister and others about the iniquities of football hooliganism and other forms of vandalism, and they have rightly condemned them. Does it not seem odd that in the light of all the evidence from professional bodies the Government should be sanctioning corporal punishment in schools and by bringing violence into the classroom giving young people the idea that it is an acceptable form of behaviour?
My noble friend Lord Rea referred to the Protection of Minors Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lady Wootton on 10th December 1973. It aimed at abolishing corporal punishment. She made out an excellent case and I shall quote a different extract from her opening speech:
"In principle, I regard the use of corporal punishment on children in school as wholly out of keeping with modern educational methods. It can hardly foster a love of learning, and if it induces respect for the teacher, it is respect of might and not of right. I find it also anomalous that the law which forbids adults to assault one another should give less, rather than more, protection to children. I find it even more anomalous that in this respect the penal system is ahead of the educational system. Corporal punishment in all types of penal institutions—and this includes borstals—was abolished after it had been demonstrated that it was ineffective in the light of the subsequent records of those who had been subjected to it".—[Official Report, 19/12/73; col. 875.]
Lord James of Rusholme, in the same debate, said:
"the harm of corporal punishment goes a good deal further than its effect on the frightened child. I am referring to the more subtle damage to the atmosphere of an educative community and to the proper development of the individuals in it when authority has to rest on the infliction of physical pain".—[col. 947.]
The case for total abolition could not be made better. That Bill was defeated and the reason the Government gave was that the unions and the local authorities were against it. As I have shown, that is not the case 12 years on in 1985. There is no support there for the Bill. In 1982 a circular from the Church of England General Synod Board of Education called on all Anglican schools to:
"phase out and ultimately abolish the practice of corporal punishment".
Why, of why, in the face of all these impressive statements from so many quarters, has the Secretary of State not followed that good advice and done just that, instead of producing this monstrous folly?
My noble friend Lord Houghton says that he is intending to call "Not-Content" when the time comes for a decision. I have every sympathy with him and I wish very much that this Bill would not have a Second Reading; but we stand by the traditions of this House

511
of not voting against a Bill which has passed through another place and we do not make a habit of voting against Government Bills at Second Reading. But could not the noble Baroness please persuade her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to think again before it is too late and waste no more time, effort or money in putting this silly Bill on to the statute book?
1.50 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have been so kind in their welcoming remarks to me, particularly in a situation where I seem to be batting on a very unpopular wicket—unpopular, at least, in your Lordships' House.
First, I should like to repeat the words of my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science in another place—and they are words which I totally endorse. He said:
"The ideal would have been to leave things as they were, largely unregulated by statute. That … was not possible. The court found us in breach of the Convention … and we cannot pick and choose the judgments with which we comply".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/85; col. 79.]
In response to that this Bill adopts a pragmatic approach. Without obliging pupils to change schools, without creating a high administrative burden and without taking a centralist line on abolition, it offers parents a new right. If I may say so, the difficulties have been greatly exaggerated, as I hope perhaps to show to some extent. An exemption scheme can work. Schools wishing to retain corporal punishment will make it work, and parents, acting responsibly, can assist the process.
A very large number of detailed points have been made in debate today. Some of them obviously can be pursued during the Committee stage. Some I can try to respond to immediately.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, asked in effect what would happen if local education authorities have already abolished corporal punishment. He asked whether they would be required to change their policies. It is not intended that the legislation will alter the constitutional relationships between head teachers, school governing bodies and local education authorities. Where, or to the extent that, it is now lawful for a local education authority to ban corporal punishment in some or all of its schools, our aim is to leave that position unchanged. In the Government's view such local authorities should leave these decisions to schools, but we have deliberately refrained from introducing into the Bill provisions which would force local education authorities along that road.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether there will be in the Bill an overriding power, so that local authorities which have banned corporal punishment can stick to that whatever the governing bodies of their schools may say?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I understand that a local education authority can legally abolish corporal punishment now. The intention is that the Bill will not allow a governing body to overturn that decision.
512
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, also asked what would happen if parents differed in their opinions about whether or not their child or children should be subject to corporal punishment. Most parents, I think it can be expected, are likely to come to a joint decision, as they do on many issues relating to the education of their children; but we envisage that where parents disagree the parent seeking an exemption will be able to insist upon it despite the views of his or her spouse. The court has ruled that a conviction against corporal punishment amounts to a philosophical conviction under the Convention and must be respected, come what may. It has not ruled that a conviction in favour of corporal punishment must be respected; and we doubt that it ever would be.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, further asked what would happen if parents do not respond. He also referred to a question which was raised by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, about parents who might be at a disadvantage in terms of either social class or ethnic minority background and who might therefore find it difficult to respond to forms. In regard to the first point, if a parent does not respond after six weeks, the school may make the pupil liable to corporal punishment, provided that a reminder has been issued. If parents do not understand, surely it is reasonable to expect the schools to help them. We hope that a standardised form which will be prepared will be simple and straightforward, but we recognise that there are some groups, including perhaps particularly some of the ethnic minorities for whom the English language is not a first language, who might be disadvantaged. In those cases I am sure that the schools will do their best to communicate and to take special care in their communication with those parents for whom English is a second language. I may say that this is not a new problem and that schools are aware that effort is required to make effective contact with such parents.
The noble Lord also asked about the anomaly in the differences between England, Wales and Scotland. As I think has been said, the legal position is different north and south of the Border. In Scotland young people of 16 to 17 have certain responsibilities and rights which are not shared by their counterparts in England and Wales. This Bill reflects those differences. I accept that in this country there are some legal distinctions to be drawn between those who are over 16 and those who are under 16. But it remains true that until young persons in England and Wales reach the age of majority, parents still have a wide responsibility for the behaviour of their children, and surely it is right that the in loco parentis concept should extend to them.
Another point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, was echoed in many other speeches in the debate, especially by my noble friend Lady Faithful, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird. All of them expressed great concern about the problems of apparent injustice from anomalies which can arise when different punishments are used for essentially the same offence. This clearly is potentially a human problem, but such anomalies arise now. I think that what matters is that the punishment should be seen to be just and appropriate.

513
Surely it is best to leave to the good judgment of the professional teacher on the spot the decision regarding the most appropriate punishment.
Perhaps I might remind your Lordships that the majority of parents and many teachers now find it appropriate to use corporal punishment. With regard to the application of different punishments to pupils in the same situation, presumably teachers can adjust punishments to assure comparable punishment for pupils who have committed the same misdemeanour. We shall come back to the range of alternative punishments which might be available following the abolition of corporal punishment when I try to meet the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Annan.
Another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, to which I may respond briefly was: Why are we in Britain different from almost every other country? I think this point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. It is true that European countries, both eastern and western, do not allow corporal punishment; but perhaps I might draw your Lordships' attention to what I think was a slight error made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he said that every other civilised country has abolished corporal punishment. I hope that the noble Lord would agree that perhaps some of the other Commonwealth countries, such as Australia and Canada, might be classed civilised, as well as many of the states of the USA, and they retain corporal punishment.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, also raised the point about the Bill extending to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The island authorities are aware of the Bill. They are considering how they should bring their arrangements into line with the judgment of the European Courts in the case of Campbell and Cosans, which underpins this whole discussion.
The final point that I might take up from the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, referred to whether or not future cases before the European Commission of Human Rights in which the claim is made that corporal punishment amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment may not render this discussion anachronistic. At the moment the Government are defending all these cases, and perhaps it is appropriate to say that opponents of corporal punishment should not jump to conclusions about the outcome.
If I may turn very briefly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, he did concede that the Government's efforts represented—I think I quote his words—
"a brave try: could do better."
I certainly welcome his qualified praise that it is a brave try. I think we are aware that some of the concerns that he expressed are very real ones; and of course they can be considered and reconsidered during the later stages of the Bill. The noble Lord also referred particularly to consultations with Scotland and he said that no one from the Scottish Office had attended or spoken in the other place. Perhaps I may just point out that representatives of the Scottish Office have attended debates and participated during the Committee stage in another place.
514
Turning to the particular concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, she was, she told us, deeply concerned about:
"injustice, conflict and a sense of guilt".
I hope that I have touched, even though your Lordships may feel inadequately so, on the concept of injustice in the classroom in the remarks I have already made. So far as conflict is concerned, and particularly the possible conflict to which my noble friend referred—that between parents and children—I should point out that I think we must accept that parents, and indeed teachers, have a responsibility to care for and exercise discipline over their children. What this Bill is seeking to do is to bring about a meeting of minds between schools and parents, and indeed between those very adults who have the best interests of children at heart.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his kind remarks regarding the concerns that we share in the health field, even though we plainly take different positions here, particularly with regard to his definition of what he called the "undemocratic nature" of this Bill. I would argue that this Bill is essentially democratic, in that it allows schools and parents to have a choice rather than resorting to an enforced imposition of the abolition of corporal punishment. I might mention that, from the recent MORI Poll, not only to the majority of parents, as I said in my opening remarks, favour the retention of corporal punishment but so indeed do the majority of teachers surveyed in another MORI Poll. Therefore I would say that this is democratic rather than undemocratic.
The noble Lord also raised the possible psychological effects of corporal punishment. I think it is important to remind your Lordships that, if any school takes the view that corporal punishment is undesirable, it is free to abandon it. That freedom is already available and is not changed by anything in the Bill. A school may change its policy with regard to corporal punishment. So far as the psychological effects are concerned, may I say that I am sure that teachers, for the most part, are highly sensitive to the psychology of pupils. After all, they deal day after day with the practical problems which are thrown up by pupils when they are living and learning together. I do not think we should use legislation to deprive teachers of a measure which they and the parents believe is not harmful.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that I welcome his support, for which I am very grateful, and I note his reservations. He spoke of fairness, and I would acknowledge that feelings run very high on this issue but, as I have said, I have already tried to address this problem in response to earlier speakers.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his general inveighing against the Bill, raised a number of points and I will try to address myself to one or two of them. He referred to separated parents. If separated parents disagree, the parent opposed to corporal punishment can claim exemption and can override the opposite view of his or her partner.
The noble Lord also referred to the word "battery" in highly emotive terms. Perhaps I may point out that

515
"battery", in the context of this Bill, includes also much lesser measures than beating or caning: it includes taps, smacks and slaps. I can reassure the noble Lord: if a teacher exceeds the limits of moderate and reasonable corporal punishment, that teacher is liable to civil or criminal proceedings. That is the case now and it is not changed by this Bill.
The noble Lord also expressed grave doubts about the practicality of implementing this Bill and particularly over the difficulty of using registers. It is not necessary, I think, to envisage a situation where a teacher would have to consult a register every time a slap or a smack might be appropriate. Surely a teacher must be aware of his or her pupils and must know them well; and it does not mean that a teacher would always need to have recourse to a register. There are ways in which a teacher could have "a ready reckoner" to remind himself or herself of which pupils were liable to receive corporal punishment.
The noble Lord also asked about the complexities of the Bill as such. If schools believe that an exemption scheme is too complex a matter for them, I reiterate that of course they are free to abolish corporal punishment. That is a course readily available to them. Indeed, if they do nothing by September 1986, that is precisely what will happen—the school will become a non-corporal punishment school without further ado.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that I am delighted that, despite our previous differences on other educational issues, we speak as one on this Bill. I greatly welcome this generous support, and particularly the reasons for his support, in that he sees it as being in the best traditions of liberalism. I also particularly welcome his support as regards respecting the wishes of parents and the fact that the Bill is trying to promote decentralisation of decision-making and a diversity of policies according to local wishes.
The noble Lord, Lord Mulley raised problems likely to be encountered by parents from socially disadvantaged and ethnic backgrounds who might not be able to complete forms. I have tried already to answer that one. He also raised the question of independent schools and why they may be exempt from the provisions of this Bill. Our reading of the European Convention on Human Rights is that the Court's judgment in the case of Campbell and Cosans does not oblige us to include independent schools. The United Kingdom will have discharged its obligations under the convention if, through the maintained sector, we have offered adequate provisions which parents with convictions against corporal punishment could choose if they wished. In any case, most parents who send their children to independent schools do so of their own accord, and the state is not directly responsible for the provision of the education in independent schools.
The noble Lord also asked why we are in effect going for "opting in" rather than "opting out". It has been said that the number of parents claiming objection will be in a minority and that to list a minority of names is less of an administrative chore than the listing of a majority. However, the difficulty with that argument is that a teacher using corporal punishment would be acting in the absence of a record: lost or delayed
516
exemption claims would not find their way on to the register and the school would be running a risk. That risk is reduced significantly by listing all those who could be caned. The scheme as envisaged aims at a fail-safe system minimising errors and misunderstandings.
I tried to answer one of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, with regard to other countries which still retain corporal punishment. He also raised the very difficult question of sanctions following the abolition of corporal punishment. There is a range of sanctions which can be applied, but I share very much his concern for teachers who are in very difficult classroom situations and who are having to try to maintain standards of discipline, courtesy and order, perhaps against very difficult odds.
Examples of the kinds of sanction which might well be available include the withdrawal of rewards and privileges, particularly if the reward or privilege withdrawn is something that is highly valued by the pupil. Other possible sanctions are to send pupils to the head of department or to the head of the school, perhaps for reprimand, which may be a sanction in itself. There is the opportunity of imposing offence—related tasks, such as clearing up litter if dropping litter has been one offence. There may be a demand for additional homework, although many teachers avoid that because it encourages pupils to associate a particular subject with a chore. It may be possible to impose other tasks, such as lines. It may be possible to involve parents through a letter or a special report; and for secondary pupils it may be possible to impose a detention, although that has cost implications.
Moving on very briefly towards the end of my closing remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about the definition of damage to property or the person which might justify the use of corporal punishment. Immediate danger to personal property is very hard to define in general terms. The facts of the case will generally determine it. In very many cases, the cause of immediate danger is obvious. In any event, the Bill is a provision simply to reinforce the existing right, and indeed the duty, to act reasonably to protect third parties. The noble Lord also said that many official bodies have spoken in favour of the complete abolition of corporal punishment. We are aware that that is the case, but one might comment that this could be another example of where, sometimes, the leadership might be out of line with the rank and file.
Turning, finally, to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, I am not able to deal with all of them but I am sure that we shall have a chance of discussing the others later. Among the points she raised was that the postal services are not reliable. It is fair to say that many schools will use personal contact, especially when parents come to a school to discuss academic progress, and will make sure that they receive letters in that way. The noble Baroness also asked what are "reasonable grounds" under Clause 1(5)(b). The answer, as I understand it, is that the courts will decide in the ultimate event. The concept of reasonableness is, however, in common use.

517
The noble Baroness also mentioned the total undesirability of introducing violence into the classroom and said that corporal punishment is actually doing that. May I remind your Lordships that in this Bill we are talking in terms of moderate and reasonable corporal punishment and not about extreme acts of violence. Finally—and this is the last question to which I can reply—the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked about decisions by local authorities being overturned by governing bodies. As I think I indicated earlier, if a local education authority can legally abolish corporal punishment now, the intention is that the Bill will not allow the governing body to overturn that decision.
In conclusion, perhaps I may repeat what I said in my introductory remarks: that the purpose of the Bill is to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. We are bound by that ruling and must legislate to bring our system into line with the Convention on Human Rights. Inaction is not open to us.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): My Lords, the Question is that this Bill be now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content; the contrary, Not-Content.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Not-Content.
The Deputy Speaker: The Contents have it.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, this is the moment when I can wish your Lordships a happy Bank Holiday.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past two o'clock.

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: TREASURY CONSENT
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: TREASURY CONSENT
  CHANNEL FIXED LINK: TERRITORIAL SEA
  CHANNEL FIXED LINK: TERRITORIAL SEA
  CHANNEL FIXED LINK: SHIPPING SPEEDS
  CHANNEL FIXED LINK: SHIPPING SPEEDS
  CHANNEL FIXED LINK: MARINE ENVIRONMENT
  CHANNEL FIXED LINK: MARINE ENVIRONMENT
  CHANNEL FIXED LINK: SHIPPING ESTIMATES
  CHANNEL FIXED LINK: SHIPPING ESTIMATES
  WAR GRAVES OVERSEAS: WIDOWS' VISITS
  WAR GRAVES OVERSEAS: WIDOWS' VISITS